English Chess Forum

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:03 pm

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.

Yorkshire will consult our players and vote our own way. We take no orders from the NCCU.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:46 am

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.

I'm 31, which in chess terms is the newest of blood, and I'm not comfortable with this offhand ageism. Our NCCU delegate will be 80 next year and we'd struggle to find someone as quick-witted, reasonable and informed as he.

If at the next NCCU meeting all of the delegates had been replaced with new-blooded, progressive versions of themselves, how would you know? What do you imagine they'd do differently?

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:46 am

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.

The players could do that, of course, but equally they could turn up at their counties AGM and get the county to change their policies, or simply change their NCCU delegates, or even be more transparent and consult with players about issues

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:12 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:46 am

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.

The players could do that, of course, but equally they could turn up at their counties AGM and get the county to change their policies, or simply change their NCCU delegates, or even be more transparent and consult with players about issues

Mick, as you know full well I've been there, done that and failed to get the teeshirt.

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:33 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:46 am

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.

I'm 31, which in chess terms is the newest of blood, and I'm not comfortable with this offhand ageism. Our NCCU delegate will be 80 next year and we'd struggle to find someone as quick-witted, reasonable and informed as he.

If at the next NCCU meeting all of the delegates had been replaced with new-blooded, progressive versions of themselves, how would you know? What do you imagine they'd do differently?

It wasn't intended as an ageist comment as somebody can be entrenched without being old. Having been the prime organiser of my club since 2001 you could argue that I am entrenched and I'm only 37.

The problem a lot of chess organisations at national, union, county and even club level have is that much activity happens outwith of them. Junior chess is perhaps the best example. So it becomes hard to say what organisations such as the NCCU should be doing. There is the wider question of whether these organisations exist solely to serve their members and or whether the wider altruistic job of increasing the player base belongs to them.

Within the ECF it doesn't help that the member bodies of the county unions are ECF member organisations in their own right. The NCCU does seem to be a rather inward looking organisation that spends much of their time making representations to the ECF as to how they think it should be run and otherwise focusing on a remit that gets narrower year on year. I don't dispute their are probably some excellent individuals within the NCCU but they are not the sum of their parts and their latest minutes have no bearing on the real chess world.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:40 am

and their latest minutes have no bearing on the real chess world.

MCCU minutes wrote:Rupert Jones gave £10 of the £15 owed by Leeds.

There has to be a story behind that.

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:19 am

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:12 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:46 am

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.

The players could do that, of course, but equally they could turn up at their counties AGM and get the county to change their policies, or simply change their NCCU delegates, or even be more transparent and consult with players about issues

Mick, as you know full well I've been there, done that and failed to get the teeshirt.

Indeed Michael, I have no problem with those that try and thank you for doing so, but I do have with those that think it should be different, but don't try

The Counties also run adult chess league competitions too and the member requirement is bronze membership. Even then ECF have picked up not charging for the less than 3 games in a league which sorted out the main issue with compulsory membership as far as I'm concerned.

Either way there does not seem to be that much on the agenda for such a long meeting or am I missing something?

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:25 pm

Either way there does not seem to be that much on the agenda for such a long meeting or am I missing something?

One thing you are missing is the papers for the meeting, but we shall see them in a couple of days. Remember that this is a Finance Council meeting, so perhaps the Budget will contain numbers worthy of discussion.

A set of accounts would also normally be of interest to such a gathering, but I see no mention of anything like that.

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:58 pm

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:19 am

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:12 am

The players could do that, of course, but equally they could turn up at their counties AGM and get the county to change their policies, or simply change their NCCU delegates, or even be more transparent and consult with players about issues

Mick, as you know full well I've been there, done that and failed to get the teeshirt.

Indeed Michael, I have no problem with those that try and thank you for doing so, but I do have with those that think it should be different, but don't try

At local level it is very hard to oust an incumbent. We aren't attracting many newcomers anyway and even less who want to get involved in the politics. When somebody with new ideas does come along it might be that John Smith, Club President whips their hand off and exclaims he's been trying to stand down for years. Or more likely he is used to being President, Secretary, NCCU delegate etc and wants to continue his work. Unless he can be proven to be acting in a damaging way (unlikely) no upstart, no matter how keen or fresh their ideas, is going to be able to unseat him unless they can round up enough like minded mates to outvote the old guard.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:13 pm

At local level it is very hard to oust an incumbent. We aren't attracting many newcomers anyway and even less who want to get involved in the politics.

Which is a perfectly reasonable stand to take, since chess politics are an utter, crashing waste of time. There's a finite amount of work that needs to be done, and the difference between doing it well and doing it badly is generally obvious as soon as you see it. So in the absence of any policy differences, chess politics boils down to randomly designating one or two people as your enemies, and then writing down their every mistake and failure so you can lecture the newcomers about it in 10 years' time.

If you're trying to get something done in the chess world there is a tried and tested method for dealing with the politics, which is to completely disregard it and go ahead and do the thing, and see who actually cares enough to object.

Ok Nick I get the points. It is most un-spring like at the moment. Until there are more papers it really is "Much a dew about nothing" rather than about chess politics.