Motions

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1873
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Farthing » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:03 pm

Alan Walton wrote:
Mike Gunn wrote:To take just one of the eligibility criteria my interpretation is that someone born in the relevant area could take this to make them eligible to play for either Greater Manchester or Lancashire. (I can't see it could logically mean anything else?) This situation presumably doesn't apply elsewhere in England?
You could infer that, but it isn't the case; from the document I posted if you were born in Greater Manchester after 1st Jan 1987, you are only eligible for the county you are born in which is Greater Manchester; towns like Oldham, Stockport, Bolton, Wigan and Manchester itself are actually not in Lancashire anymore after the changes in 1973
Alan, the document is only a local newsletter giving indirect reportage. It won't be seen as an authoritative source, I'm afraid. Also,of course, Greater Manchester as an administrative county was abolished and the name is now little more than a convenient label for a number of unitary authorities that because of their age can call themselves metropolitan boroughs.

It's an impossible shambolic mess only to be solved goodwill. Sadly, there isn't any.
Rejoiner

Alan Walton
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:08 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
Alan Walton wrote:
Mike Gunn wrote:To take just one of the eligibility criteria my interpretation is that someone born in the relevant area could take this to make them eligible to play for either Greater Manchester or Lancashire. (I can't see it could logically mean anything else?) This situation presumably doesn't apply elsewhere in England?
You could infer that, but it isn't the case; from the document I posted if you were born in Greater Manchester after 1st Jan 1987, you are only eligible for the county you are born in which is Greater Manchester; towns like Oldham, Stockport, Bolton, Wigan and Manchester itself are actually not in Lancashire anymore after the changes in 1973
Alan, the document is only a local newsletter giving indirect reportage. It won't be seen as an authoritative source, I'm afraid. Also,of course, Greater Manchester as an administrative county was abolished and the name is now little more than a convenient label for a number of unitary authorities that because of their age can call themselves metropolitan boroughs.

It's an impossible shambolic mess only to be solved goodwill. Sadly, there isn't any.
Yes it is only the MDCA newsletter, but distinctly about the BCF and JTS and their agreement in settling the case, therefore the BCF/ECF should hold the relevant documentation.

Actually in law Greater Manchester is still a county, this is from Wikipedia
Wikipedia wrote:For the 12 years following 1974 the county had a two-tier system of local government; district councils shared power with the Greater Manchester County Council. The county council was abolished in 1986, and so its districts (the metropolitan boroughs) effectively became unitary authority areas. However, the metropolitan county has continued to exist in law and as a geographic frame of reference, and as a ceremonial county, has a Lord Lieutenant and a High Sheriff. Several county-wide services were co-ordinated through the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities until April 2011, when the Greater Manchester Combined Authority was established as the strategic county-wide authority for Greater Manchester, taking on functions and responsibilities for economic development, regeneration and transport. A further devolution of powers to Greater Manchester took place upon the election Andy Burnham as the inaugural Mayor of Greater Manchester on 4 May 2017

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1873
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Farthing » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:18 pm

Yes, I'd overlooked that it continued as a ceremonial county. Correction accepted.
Rejoiner

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Motions

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:46 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: 1. A player is eligible to represent a County in the Championship if the player meets one of the following criteria:

(i) Birth in that county.

(ii) Five years’ residence in that county at any time.

(iii) Two months immediate previous and present membership of a club either in or affiliated to that County.

(iv) One month’s immediately previous and present residence in that County.

(v) Present attendance as a student at a school, college or university in that County.
For me this rule primarily serves to root out obvious ringers (Michael Adams playing for Yorkshire for example). From a controller's point of view we don't have time to check every individual player and even if we did we don't have any way of finding out where they were born and where they might have lived.
Mike Gunn wrote:You could phrase a motion "That it is the opinion of ECF Council that ...".

Passing such a motion would not necessarily bind the Director of Home Chess (who is responsible for County Chess rules) but he would be brave/foolish to ignore it.

Mike Gunn, Chairman of Council.
I'm sorry Mike but I'm afraid that's not entirely true. The Director of Home Chess does set the rules (except when Council have imposed a particular change) but his role in interpreting them is reasonably limited. Under the current rules the controller makes an initial ruling and a committee hears the appeal. The Director of Home Chess does have the job of making the rules as watertight as possible but can no longer influence a decision made under the current rules.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

John Reyes
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Motions

Post by John Reyes » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:48 pm

thanks Michael, there will be some people that will disagreed about the 4ncl will displaced the CCC

Alan did have a point and I know a few other people have noticed that! (in the MCF meeting, this was raise at the meeting, and wonder how 2 local players play in the CCC final

Alex did sent me a Email tell me the reason and I do agreed up to a point, but if people are asking, they questions need to be asked and rules need to be change?
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1873
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Farthing » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:58 pm

A review might be in order, but to be done effectively would need a lot of consultation and several heads put together. I really don't think a late devised motion from the floor at Council is a sensible route, and if you do pursue it perhaps April would be a better time? I don't think it will affect implementation dates as I imagine the AGM is too late to alter the 2017-18 rules (though I may be wrong about that).
Rejoiner

Nick Grey
Posts: 1294
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Motions

Post by Nick Grey » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:50 pm

It seems appropriate to bring a motion on eligibility for County Chess. Lancashire appear to be the chess equivalent of the Manchester clubs trying to buy premiership football. The point being there appears to be concern raised by the ECF.

As for direct members yes it is nice to hear more votes though Angus French ought to be a super rep.

No reason to delay any of this is there?

The main issue with County Championships is finding enough captains for the teams that counties field and I suspect in the SCCU stages I will find that there will be less matches that I play in this coming season.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7795
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Motions

Post by Mick Norris » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:21 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:Like it or not this is a local quarrel that will only satisfactorily be solved by local negotiation
No, it won't; there is no negotiation with Bill O'Rourke

I am sick of people in the NCCU saying that I, or someone else on behalf of Greater Manchester, should waste more of our precious time "negotiating" with Lancs; we were asked to meet, we did, and it was an utter and complete waste of an evening for Bert Thomas and me

I'm at Bert's funeral on Friday; a significantly better use of my time

The issues were investigated by the BCF in the 1980s; an agreement was reached, which was that dual eligibility ceased (if it ever existed); we have offered to return to dual eligibility in exchange for acceptance in the NCCU, and this was rejected

It isn't complicated; Lancs have no reason to agree to anything if the ECF let them pick whoever they like :roll:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

John Reyes
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Motions

Post by John Reyes » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:16 am

funny you was saying that mick

i was playing chess for Manchester social chess club vs Heywood in the NCCU Club final and was just talking to one of the denton players,
found out he was a member of the BCF in 88 (an Mr Richard Tonkin, he told me he was the Director of Junior chess)

i was talking to him and i did mentain the mcf and how lancheshire don't want Manchester to joined the nccu and he told me, it is still going on after 40 plus years LOL
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

NickFaulks
Posts: 5440
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Motions

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:28 am

C3.1. A player is eligible to represent a County in the Championship if the player meets one of the following criteria:

(iii) Two months immediate previous and present membership of a club either in or affiliated to that County.
Does this allow a county captain to get any player he wants simply by inviting them to join his own club?

Graham Borrowdale
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Graham Borrowdale » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:51 am

NickFaulks wrote:
C3.1. A player is eligible to represent a County in the Championship if the player meets one of the following criteria:

(iii) Two months immediate previous and present membership of a club either in or affiliated to that County.
Does this allow a county captain to get any player he wants simply by inviting them to join his own club?
Presumably, yes, if winning a county match means so much to the captain concerned. In reality I still have faith in common sense, although that is not helped by reading this forum.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:06 am

NickFaulks wrote:
C3.1. A player is eligible to represent a County in the Championship if the player meets one of the following criteria:

(iii) Two months immediate previous and present membership of a club either in or affiliated to that County.
Does this allow a county captain to get any player he wants simply by inviting them to join his own club?
Yes, personally I would tighten it slightly and say they have to have played a match for said club before able to play; the current wording seems very loose

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18345
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:08 am

Alan Walton wrote: Yes, personally I would tighten it slightly and say they have to have played a match for said club before able to play; the current wording seems very loose
There's a general shortage of those willing to be county match captains, particularly of open teams. Those who enjoy building a winning squad by fair means or foul have long since regarded the 4NCL as a more fruitful experience than battling the BCF/ECF's arcane attitudes to eligibility.

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Motions

Post by Adam Raoof » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:16 am

If we abandoned all eligibility requirements, what is the worst that can happen?
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chessable - http://www.chessable.com
-Tell your friends about the Chess England Online Home Page - https://bit.ly/chessenglandonline
Don’t stop playing chess!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18345
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:30 am

Adam Raoof wrote:If we abandoned all eligibility requirements, what is the worst that can happen?
You might end up with a county team like Wood Green in the London League or Guildford and others in the 4NCL. Twenty years ago, Cambridge University were, up to a point, fielding ex-University players in the notionally Cambridgeshire county team. Essex objected and their team was withdrawn from the SCCU competition.

I'd suggest the concept of a limited number of wild cards in each match, players who didn't even have to satisfy the notional club membership provision.

Post Reply