2012 AGM

A forum for the Midland Counties Chess Union.
raycollett
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by raycollett » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:43 pm

raycollett wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:I read the report to mean that the e-mail competition would be an additional event?
That was not my impression from a telephone conversation with Cyril today. I understand that almost all current players don't want the expense and delay of postal play.
My impression was wrong. I understand that entries will be sought for two individual correspondence tournaments: one using the current rules that allow a player to insist on postal communication; and an additional one using electronic transmission of moves only.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8006
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:43 pm

raycollett wrote:I thought the main points from today's well-attended MCCU annual general meeting in relation to MCCU competitions were:
  • 1. Revised rules about tie-breaks in the County Team competitions and the Events Director and Controller have been asked to draft a guide for team captains based on proposals originally tabled in 2011.
    2. More prize money for Grand Prix competitions and details to be developed by the Events Director.
    3. Senior officers have been asked to develop proposals for an MCCU individual congress in association with other chess organisations.
    4. A new individual correspondence tournament with moves transmitted electronically.
I'll publish unconfirmed minutes on the website after they have been prepared.
If I may add a 5., there will be consultation of MCCU counties about the grade boundaries for the county championship, after the meeting seemed to believe there were too many sections. There may be a proposal to the April Council meeting depending on the result of the consultation.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:43 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:If I may add a 5., there will be consultation of MCCU counties about the grade boundaries for the county championship, after the meeting seemed to believe there were too many sections. There may be a proposal to the April Council meeting depending on the result of the consultation.
If only all MCCU delegates had voted the way their captains wanted them to when this was voted on at ECF council, there would have been no need for this discussion....

Mick Norris
Posts: 6489
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:26 am

The MCCU ECF Rep report yesterday was depressingly negative :roll:

We now have a new ECF Rep :wink:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8006
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:42 am

Mick Norris wrote:The MCCU ECF Rep report yesterday was depressingly negative :roll:

We now have a new ECF Rep :wink:
Not only was it depressingly negative, but it reported all kinds of things were complete drivel:
(1) The ECF isn't planning to reduce the number of meetings per year from two to one.
(2) The Counties Championship isn't planning to bypass the Union stage.

It was fortunate that Andrew Farthing was there to correct him, otherwise this could have been further circulated. I was surprised that my motion to reject the report didn't find any support, particularly given we'd already rejected one report (which while deficient in many ways, certainly didn't lie about things that the ECF had decided...).

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16084
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:27 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Not only was it depressingly negative, but it reported all kinds of things were complete drivel:
(1) The ECF isn't planning to reduce the number of meetings per year from two to one.
(2) The Counties Championship isn't planning to bypass the Union stage.
Here's the actual report

http://www.mccu.org.uk/admin/2012ecf_rpt.htm

Some of it is speculative, but the April Council meeting has always been regarded as primarily a Finance meeting.


Voting rights are now a complete mess. Is there going to be a proposal to award voting rights to organisations becoming MOs whilst stripping them from those that don't?

I've heard the story from other sources about the Northern people at the April Council shouting about the increases in membership charges . None of the more official reports has mentioned it. The obvious reply is that it's what happens when you switch your fund-raising to a per head basis.

Any news on whether members through MOs can play in non-registered events and expect their games in those events even against non-members to be graded by the MO at no additional cost to anyone?

Mick Norris
Posts: 6489
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:42 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Voting rights are now a complete mess.
I agree with Roger :lol:
Roger de Coverly wrote:Is there going to be a proposal to award voting rights to organisations becoming MOs whilst stripping them from those that don't?
Will turkeys vote for Christmas?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

William Metcalfe
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Darlington

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by William Metcalfe » Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:05 pm

There will also be a proposal from the NCCU to reduce the number of sections in the county champs
I am speaking here for myself and not the NCCU which i am now president of

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:49 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: I've heard the story from other sources about the Northern people at the April Council shouting about the increases in membership charges . None of the more official reports has mentioned it.
That's not surprising, as it didn't happen.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16084
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:01 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:That's not surprising, as it didn't happen.
So when the author of the MCCU report commented
At the April meeting, nearly all the objections to the scheme came from members of MOs who objected to having to pay more under the new arrangements.
,he was mistaken and my independent source didn't hear it either. I'm aware the NCCU rejected the "Cole" plan, but wasn't this a statement that £ 13 was too much?

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:11 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:That's not surprising, as it didn't happen.
So when the author of the MCCU report commented
At the April meeting, nearly all the objections to the scheme came from members of MOs who objected to having to pay more under the new arrangements.
,he was mistaken.
Yes. In the same ways as he was mistaken on other matters.
Alex Holowczak wrote: ...but it reported all kinds of things were complete drivel:
(1) The ECF isn't planning to reduce the number of meetings per year from two to one.
(2) The Counties Championship isn't planning to bypass the Union stage.
The fact that said delegate lost the vote to be MCCU delegate next year should tell you all you need to know about the quality of his report.

Paul Cooksey

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:32 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:[Yes. In the same ways as he was mistaken on other matters.
Really? I assumed he was referring to Lara Barnes voting with both arms, to respect the proxy from Lancashire.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16084
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:51 pm

The NCCU minutes of their AGM are now available.

http://nccu.org.uk/nccu/mins/docs/NCCU%20MN020612DC.doc

Whatever was said at the ECF Finance Council, the ECF's scheme was under attack at the NCCU meeting.

Some snippets
j) Report of BCF/ECF Delegates
Rupert reported that the ECF Finance Council meeting was very interesting, with many ‘hot topics’ discussed, such as the issues surrounding Lara Barnes and Alex McFarlane at the British Championships, the FIDE law suit and the ECF memberships scheme. Rupert detected an anti-Northern sentiment on the English Chess Forum. David Welch commented that the meeting was lively and had reservations about the way the ECF was being run.
Although the relevance of hostile comment about the independent English Chess Forum to the ECF Delegate's report is debatable.

Under the heading of membership
As the resulting disquiet from players increased it was evident that many did not like the scheme, especially from congress players on the increases and it was decided to run a survey on whether players would be prepared to join the ECF, or if offered, a Northern run membership scheme at a lower cost which would involve grading.
and their decision
As the majority of Eastern Counties had already agreed to set up their own MO’s with the ECF and there being little appetite for an NCCU led scheme, the meeting voted against the proposal. It was thought best to leave the decision to each County to sign their own MO’s. As a consequence the agreed statement from the NCCU to Counties would be as follows:
'The NCCU Supports the aspirations of the National ECF membership scheme, but has reservations as to the way it has been set up. The NCCU will not create a rival Northern membership scheme, but leave it to individual Counties to decide whether to sign up an MO with the ECF or set up their own Countywide membership and grading scheme.'
I'm not sure I quite see how an individual county can set up their own Countrywide membership and grading scheme. Perhaps they mean Yorkshire.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8006
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:02 am

I think their discussion can be summarised thus.
As the resulting disquiet from players increased it was evident that many did not like the scheme, especially from congress players on the increases and it was decided to run a survey on whether players would be prepared to join the ECF, or if offered, a Northern run membership scheme at a lower cost which would involve grading.
So the NCCU asked people to tell them just how anti-Membership they were.
As the majority of Eastern Counties had already agreed to set up their own MO’s with the ECF and there being little appetite for an NCCU led scheme, the meeting voted against the proposal.
And they found that hardly anyone was. (Which isn't the same as saying everyone was in favour of it. Just that not many were against it.)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16084
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2012 AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:18 am

Alex Holowczak wrote: And they found that hardly anyone was. (Which isn't the same as saying everyone was in favour of it. Just that not many were against it.)
The most active Northern players were paying £ 13 for "membership rights" that those in the rest of the country were paying £ 27. For that matter, their less active club players were being charged more than would have been the indirect effect under a Game Fee scheme.

If Northern organisers are insistent that the ECF should be funded exclusively by levying per head for everyone who plays in a graded event, they really should understand that if the number of heads reduces and the ECF's costs increase, the natural outcome is an increase in the cost per head.

Post Reply