Casual Chess cafe

[Andrew Zigmond]

Council also contains a lot of congress votes (albeit generally held by progressives), votes that aren't used because their constituent holders don't realise they exist and which are snaffled up by proxy vote collectors and other vested interests.

This reads as though it is intended to give offence, but to whom?

It isn't, although some might disagree with my description of congress organisers as progressives. If council is analysed as a representative body you loosely view the congress bloc as the unelected Lords and the leagues as the Commons who are (in theory) elected by a constituency. Where they differ from their parliamentary counterparts (who don't vote in the same chamber so the analogy is not exact) is that the `Lords` want to see positive change while the `Commons`want to defend the status quo and their vested interests.

Contrary to the insults directed at myself and others over the past years I am not a defender of the council system; I just don't see OMOV as the perfect solution.

[Roger de Coverly]

If memory serves the Northern Membership Scheme was an experiment that lasted a year before relations between the NCCU and the Gerry Walsh era ECF collapsed. The year was 2005-6 and the ECF's own membership scheme was launched in 2012. So I can't see any link between the two.

Well off topic regarding a London chess initiative, but the Northern Membership Scheme became a "Membership Organisation" scheme which continued until replaced by "Bronze" membership. So the two are linked. Actually the "North" failed to realise they had been conned. The NMS produced more revenue that the Game Fee system previously. Why was this? There was no evidence of a dramatic increase in the head count of players, rather the promise that if you become an NCCU member, "your club or League will save the iniquitous Game Fee" failed to notice that the cost of membership based on head count exceeded the costs of a pay as you go system based on games for at least enough players to increase the ECF's revenue.

[Chris Goodall]

Actually the "North" failed to realise they had been conned.

Oi. We invented the world's first industrial revolution. We can do sums on the back of a fag packet too. Of course membership brings in more than game fee - that was the whole point of it. We raise a pile of cash for the ECF, the ECF lets us keep a little bit of it. Far from "inflicting" membership on the rest of England, the rest of England got addicted to the piles of cash that membership brought in. Yes, it screwed over anyone who played between 4 and 22 games a season, relative to game fee - but only because you didn't want to raise game fee to the level it actually needed to be at. Probably because the people setting game fee were keen chess players and stood to gain personally from keeping it rather low. Plus, the ECF were arguing in favour of membership at the time! It was they that promised us the sponsors would beat a path to our door as soon as we had a membership list that accurately reflected the number of people playing chess regularly. Well that went brilliantly, didn't it.

[Alex Holowczak]

It was they that promised us the sponsors would beat a path to our door as soon as we had a membership list that accurately reflected the number of people playing chess regularly. Well that went brilliantly, didn't it.

In the last few years, we've had sponsorships for the Tradewise Grand Prix, Jupiter for the 2016 Olympiad team, and Capital Developments Waterloo Ltd. for the British Championships. That's not bad going.

[David Robertson]

...the NCCU which is a secretive and narrow cabal. It is not a representative body of players in the North and exists for the purposes of bureaucracy with no real interest in chess itself

Holy O'Rourkes, Andrew Have you run this past Ihor Lewyk? He gets very cross with me when I say as much.

[Mick Norris]

Indeed

But the players don't actually do anything about it

[Nick Grey]

I believe that the other constituent parts of the NCCU should clarify with ECF/Council if they support the proposal from NCCU.
That will clarify points. I am clear that in our own county we re asked to supply views so they can be considered by the Board first. Similarly our reps to the Unions will clarify points before the Union reps vote.

Not worth speculating on the politics or the past as the voting rights are clear, and one of the items that have been discussed and agreed in the past.

I was hoping to see final proposals on County Chess rather than mess around with Bronze membership which may effect County players.

[Chris Goodall]

I believe that the other constituent parts of the NCCU should clarify with ECF/Council if they support the proposal from NCCU.
That will clarify points.

Why?

Why is it perfectly normal for 9 million Londoners to split into 12 different factions over an issue, but it's confusing when 15 million Northerners don't all agree with the NCCU?

[Angus French]

'...I am clear that in our own county we re asked to supply views so they can be considered by the Board first...

Nick, if you're referring to Surrey then in my view their consultation is a sham. They provide minimal information, don't allow sufficient time for clubs to consult and have several times disregarded input. It's one of the reasons I've stopped playing Surrey league chess.

[Nick Grey]

Angus I'm not, they have received as much notice on papers as everyone else.
Good luck with Bronze Members. If I were a bronze member I'd be a bit livid against the NCCU. But maybe that just ought to be directed towards a single person.
As for the chess I wondered why you were not playing against us recently.
A shame as we have progressed to the Alexander Cup Final (the last time was mid-70s when some of the older Streatham and Kingston players were playing).

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

If I were a bronze member I'd be a bit livid against the NCCU. But maybe that just ought to be directed towards a single person.

Perhaps I'm not seeing the gravity of the whole situation, but is this a bit over dramatic?!

[Michael Farthing]

Perhaps, I'm not seeing the gravity of whole situation, but is this a bit over dramatic?!

It is a primary function of this forum so to be

[Nick Grey]

The casual chess café part has gone a bit off topic with other issues. Though I am not in a minority in this thread on a name first name with 4 letters in it.

[Chris Goodall]

Representative democracy doesn't work very well in England. We have this unfortunate tendency to agree with whoever we're currently speaking to - and to assume that if someone doesn't extend us the same courtesy, they mustn't have been listening properly. The Dutch, Germans and Swiss are much better at it.

[Andrew Zigmond]

...the NCCU which is a secretive and narrow cabal. It is not a representative body of players in the North and exists for the purposes of bureaucracy with no real interest in chess itself

Holy O'Rourkes, Andrew Have you run this past Ihor Lewyk? He gets very cross with me when I say as much.

It would be a bit unfair to suggest that the NCCU does nothing; the internal club championship is enjoyed by the clubs that take part and there can be some good junior activity. I think that was Ihor's point. However the NCCU is badly in need of new blood and completely oblivious to that need.

Regarding Mick Norris' comments about the players doing nothing about it. Leaving aside the fact that the majority of players wouldn't notice that the NCCU exists, all they can do is try to get themselves elected as county delegates. I like to think Yorkshire bring a progressive voice, in Lancashire certain figures are well entrenched and I haven't a clue about the internal politics of the other constituent counties.