Mick Norris wrote: Andrew Zigmond wrote:
David Pardoe wrote:
My club AGM takes place next week.
The MCF AGM takes place on 9th July in Manchester, I believe. Hot off the press... Manchester urgently needs a new Web Master..
And the MCCU AGM takes place on Sunday June 26th, I believe, near Derby.
I will look forward to David's reports of these meetings!
David isn't an MCF rep to the MCCU, so he won't be attending the latter (particularly as everyone else will be there on Sat 25 June
I doubt he will be attending the middle one, but I don't know who will be representing Stockport
I'll be really interested in the first one though, as Stockport is 1 of the only clubs in the Manchester League who don't supply anyone
currently as an MCF Officer or Council Member (despite having 3 or 4 times as many members as clubs like mine that do supply at least 1 person)
Sean Hewitt wrote:
Seems to me the north Manchester lot should join Lancs in the NCCU and the south Manchester mob play for Cheshire, switching to MCCU.
You may want to help Bill O'Rourke, it certainly seems that Dave P does, but:
The MCF AGM was unanimous i.e. all the clubs, including those in south Manchester, want Greater Manchester to join the NCCU and play competitive county chess against the Northern Counties
MCF Council (all of whose members are elected by the clubs at the MCF AGM) rejected the "offer" to change the county boundaries, so as to pretty much restrict us to picking players from Eccles (and maybe Chorlton)
MCF Council also rejected the "offer" to play in the NCCU under the name Lancashire 2nd
Mick says I`m trying to help Bill O`Rourke... ??
Yet another example of Micks Red herrings, and blatant attempts to mislead people...
He says the MCF AGM was unanimous in wanting GMan to join the NCCU..?
I bet Bill O`Rourke is similarly opinionated in thinking he has had the backing of the whole of Lancs and the NCCU in keeping GMan out of the NCCU for the past 40 odd years, and he certainly didn`t want GMan to play any competitive Counties chess, certainly not in the counties competitions.. In fact, he and a small group of other extreme elements were hell bent on driving GMan off the chess map, it would appear.
We only survived due to the far sighted good will of the MCCU in allowing us to join them all those years ago..
Whilst Mick has been running his talk shops in this crazy episode, I was actually at the pit face, actively taking on our county captaincies that no-body else would do, and ensuring, in spite of all the challenges, that we actually did play county chess, and had some very good matches in the MCCU competitions in the process... both our Open team, and our U160 team, that is..
I was greatly helped by others in this, from clubs across our GMan `county`.
As to the MCF AGMs `unanimous` decisions... well, Bill O`Rourke demonstrates just how easy it is to take over and run things to `self interest` agendas. And no doubt, he would also claim that he followed procedures. Or did he simply bend the rules to suit himself.... so its very easy when your target group is crippled with apathy, and most couldn`t really care less about the agendas being played out.
And have the GMan clubs who attended these AGMs really been given the full facts about joining the NCCU, or just a `selective story` to fit certain agendas..
I certainly think they should consider matters very carefully before stepping into the NCCU `counties exclusion zone`, where almost non of the counties there play any meaningful county chess.
In fact 90% of it consists of Lancs & Yorks slogging it out, and both `winning`, whilst the rest are side-lined as muted spectators.
The deal on offer to GMan still allows Lancs to camp in GMan territory, and cherry pick our players...and clubs? Its worse than the deal struck with Merseyside, I believe, and even they have decided to stay on the side-lines, and not play any NCCU county chess competitions. .
And after 40 years of apathy, one Lancs club (based in Manchester), has finally decided to put in a challenge to this nonsense...and lashed together an `offer` to get GMan back into the NCCU, on terms that are still second rate, many will feel..
GMan might buy this...but I hope not.
The only appeal it has is some easy short trips to play Lancs and Yorks.. in cut down 12 board matches??
Where as, in the MCCU the county matches are the full 16 board events
But the North Manchester clubs who would prefer to travel to `local` NCCU venues, don`t show any greater commitment when we play in those areas than they do otherwise, in the MCCU.
In our latest trip to play Yorks U160, less than a third of our team players were from North Manchester clubs...?
And also... that`s not what these counties events are about..( a few short trips to Lancs and Yorks....??), The counties competitions are about much more than that..
In the National stages, GMan would be faced with the reality of trips much further afield...to places like Leicester, south Birmingham, and Worcester.
How would they cope, if all they really only want is a few short trips to Heywood or Halifax, near to the Lancs/ GMan borders.
So the MCCU still offers by far the best deal for Manchester, in my view... for its county chess.
In the MCCU group, no less than 8 counties actually competed in the counties events and progressed to the National Finals stages this year. .. i.e., its much better organised, and is a fully inclusive set of competitions. And GMans travel issues are pretty reasonable by many county standards.. Not perfect, I accept, but certainly non of the hassle we`ve faced with the NCCU & Lancs for the past 40 odd years.
So, my message to GMan is to think very carefully about what you let yourself in for.
I`ve made my comments about what might be done to improve things in the NCCU, as have others... we`ll see what happens.
Meanwhile I do believe GMan should sit tight at the present time, and continue to remain with the MCCU....certainly for the county U160 team.
As for Bill O`Rourke, I have words of praise. It should be noted that he has done great deeds for northern chess over many years..
He may have gone rather astray with his mission to keep GMan under the cosh, but some of his aims might indeed have been well intentioned from a Lancs perspective.
He wanted a mighty Lancs army to take on the `South` in the counties National competitions...and he didn`t want this watering down by the presence of an `extra` GMan army. Glory for Lancs and the North was his mission, I believe. Maybe Bill could speak to us..?
My belief is that there is room for three or more great Northern armies, to challenge `the south` domination. If my suggestion of creating 5 chess regions in the north, and running regional based events, rather than county based events could be developed, we might even have 5 mighty armies to head south with. A truly epic struggle for supremacy might then be possible, with some tremendous county/regional battles in prospect.. If the MCCU top guns could join the fray, we could send down a strong Midlands army too!!
Warks.. Staffs, Notts... stir yourselves... and Leicestershire too. We don't want Sean getting bored and having to `switch` to Northern battalions do we..
As for the Lancs/GMan/NCCU debacle...lets not lose sight of the fact that we are actually good neighbours who share a great deal of common interest.
We`re not talking here about some great religious divide.. we have simply divided up our region, and added some new labels. These are simply lines in the sand.....purely for administrative purposes.
Any player playing for GMan can proudly proclaim his Lancs heritage if he/she so wishes, and even sing `Lancashire forever` at our matches. So, being part of GMan doesn`t make you a Lancs traitor, as some would have you think. These are simply labels. no more ..no less.
And finally, being part of the MCCU doesn't preclude GMan from playing Lancs and Yorks.. it just means those encounters would take place at the National stages.
And Mick.. you mentioned Stockport chess club. They do a very considerable amount of good work for local chess, in both Manchester & Stockport.
Maybe they just don`t want to listen to your `red herrings`, discredit stories, dubious utterances, brow beating....and brain washing sessions ??
And here`s something your father might very much approve of....
How about the MCF bringing back adjournments or adjudications. Allow a first playing session of say 60 moves, which should ensure that 99% of games finish in the first session. This might then reduce the number of open ended blitz shootout league games, where games can be decided on pot luck, ...and whose got the `clock advantage`. Very unsatisfactory to lose on time with a winning or drawn position, just because your opponent has clock advantage and can literally refuse a draw request and force you off the clock....
Some players apparently do like the adrenalin buzz they get from these situations, which can certainly set the heart racing.
Talking of which, how many of the so called `MCF council members` actually show up for meetings on any kind of regular basis ..??
And why have no minutes of these meetings been published for months....on the MCF website? last one to appear was 25th Jan I believe...?