NCCU and the MCF

[MartinCarpenter]

Very much tangential to the issue with Manchester issue of course but Lancs are one very few remaining counties with remaining legitimate title aspirations in both the Open and U180.

So it would be something of a non trivial problem for the competition if they were threatening to reach the stage of not being able to field competitive teams there. Only 6 teams in the K/O stages of the open this year. How low does it have to drop to keep the thing going sensibly?

Not that dropping the NCCU team size even further is a good idea at all. You have to keep the teams notably bigger than the Yorkshire league/4NCL or why are you bothering with all the eligibility restrictions attached to the county champs? I'm not sure if I can really see any of the other associations really fielding teams again. The 4NCL is simply a much better sort of competition for both their size of player base and the travelling involved.

The grading bands do seem like they might need (re?)consideration. Ok, so the U160 and minor counties managed a full set of quarter finals, but there were 2 1/4 final byes in both the open and U180's.

[Roger de Coverly]

The grading bands do seem like they might need (re?)consideration. Ok, so the U160 and minor counties managed a full set of quarter finals, but there were 2 1/4 final byes in both the open and U180's.

The Open, Minor Counties and U180 have a considerable potential overlap now that many county first teams consist mostly of players under 180 with a few local stars on the top boards. It can be a particular logistical problem of player availability to run both an Open/Minor Counties team and an U180 team if both are expected to play on the same day. The SCCU regard the Open and U180 as having a deliberate potential overlap, the point being that players of lower grade can then double up and play in both competitions. As a generalisation, players above that level will have the five 4NCL weekends to fit it, so aren't looking for extra county matches.

The ECF system of penalties may have discouraged speculative entry. You needed to declare in January or February whether you could raise a team for a potential long distance match in April or May against unknown opposition. Some counties may have taken the cautious route and declined to be considered for nomination. When all the counties do this or will only accept one nomination out of Open/Minor or U180, you get a bye. The WECU and EACU counties declined to enter the Open and the MCCU offered one entrant only. With matches, the finals anyway, at the same time, the EACU and WECU counties would lack the player resources to run both a Minor Counties team and a U180.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Very much tangential to the issue with Manchester issue of course but Lancs are one very few remaining counties with remaining legitimate title aspirations in both the Open and U180.

I'm not sure if I can really see any of the other associations really fielding teams again. The 4NCL is simply a much better sort of competition for both their size of player base and the travelling involved.

A few ideas were discussed at the NCCU AGM. I believe one of these was to field composite teams from the associations that don't currently compete - of course such teams couldn't progress to the national stages but it would re-invigorate the competition locally. I have to choose my words slightly carefully because I have a conflict of interest but it could also do with new people getting involved with the running of such events - as usual it's the same overworked volunteers wearing about ten different hats because nobody else will.

[Michael Farthing]

. I have to choose my words slightly carefully because I have a conflict of interest but it could also do with new people getting involved with the running of such events - as usual it's the same overworked volunteers wearing about ten different hats because nobody else will.

Umm. So people keep on saying.

Yes, all these NCCU and County association officers get chosen year after year, the same people, because there are no volunteers.

Now let's see: where did I put the agenda and nomination papers for the NCCU AGM that got distributed to the membership? I really should have paid more attention to it..

[Andrew Zigmond]

Now let's see: where did I put the agenda and nomination papers for the NCCU AGM that got distributed to the membership? I really should have paid more attention to it..

If that's a dig at me then I have nothing to do with the running of the NCCU. I control the national county championships and am an officer for one the Northern Counties so I have an interest from both sides but I've got no standing within the NCCU itself.

The NCCU AGM is not an open meeting (part of the problem possibly - in an open meeting anybody can turn up and this is where new volunteers come forward). However your County will have held an AGM where the delegates to the NCCU were elected and that is the arena for holding them accountable and replacing them if need be.

[MartinCarpenter]

Very minimal U180 overlap for the stronger County teams in the semi finals of the K/O stages: 8 combined eligible on July grades, 4 on both. That was with Yorkshire at least having to scrape somewhat to fill in lower down. There might well be no one <185 in the final. Lancashire/Staffordshire had 5-6 each.

Obviously minor county teams are principally U180 (and the overlap between those two competitions is strong.).

Some sort of composite teams for the smaller NCCU members might well make a lot of sense. I guess you'd maybe want a one day sort of format still, because of how little spare time there is in the Yorkshire chess calendar.

[Roger de Coverly]

However your County will have held an AGM where the delegates to the NCCU were elected and that is the arena for holding them accountable and replacing them if need be.

Nine people attended the most recent Lancashire AGM, five of them officers. But then they don't directly run any leagues, so the county AGM is of little interest to club players.

http://www.lancashirechess.com/images/p ... 913-v1.pdf

The representatives to the NCCU were re-elected unopposed.

[MartinCarpenter]

Almost surprised that Martyn is allowed to be treasurer what with playing for Manchester in the 4NCL and all

[Michael Farthing]

Now let's see: where did I put the agenda and nomination papers for the NCCU AGM that got distributed to the membership? I really should have paid more attention to it..

If that's a dig at me then I have nothing to do with the running of the NCCU. I control the national county championships and am an officer for one the Northern Counties so I have an interest from both sides but I've got no standing within the NCCU itself.

The NCCU AGM is not an open meeting (part of the problem possibly - in an open meeting anybody can turn up and this is where new volunteers come forward). However your County will have held an AGM where the delegates to the NCCU were elected and that is the arena for holding them accountable and replacing them if need be.

No, Andrew, it certainly was not in any way a dig at you. It had not occurred to me that it would be interpreted as such, though I see now it could have been and apologise unreservedly.

In fact, it was not intended as a dig at anyone but more a comment on the way the very indirect democratic structure of our organisations in itself divorces the membership from its running, as indeed you point out above. To influence the NCCU one must first influence the LCA - which is no easier and equally indirect.

[David Pardoe]

Yes, your right...its a closed shop in some places. They definitely need some new blood to clear out the historical baggage that has plagued us. More volunteers with fresh ideas and no inbuilt prejudices would help considerably, I believe.
Yes, the NCCU could definitely produce teams at all levels for the counties competitions, if it got its act together. Some changes to the counties events could help..widening the grade boundaries back to 25 points would help, for one thing. Splitting into `east` & `west` sectors might help with travel.
Take the NCCU...
With some restructuring, we could have Northumberland, Durham, Cleveland, East York's/Humberside and South York's in one section. Then, Merseyside, Cheshire & NW, Central Lancs., Cumbria and West York's in the other half.
If the competition was opened up, so that some counties with high populations in the `south` could enter multiple teams in each section (of roughly equal strength), the party might start to swing. This could create the possibility that some stronger counties actually had multiple teams reaching the Finals stages in each section...no bad thing, might boost the interest and participation.
It takes time and effort to get these things organised, I don't deny that...but maybe our major chess bodies should start thinking `out of the straight jacket`...and get together to create events that bring players to the table.
Some restructuring of the Finals stages might help...and scrap the daft fines for late withdrawals, etc...
As to the MCF issues with Lancs...
The MCF has made its position abundantly clear to Lancs. and the NCCU. It has offered reasonable compromise, and cant go further, I don't believe. They are being shafted by a few hard line cranks in my opinion, who operate behind closed doors, and wont open up to outside views and opinions.
I can see one possible problem for Lancs. and York's here....they don`t want to `dilute` further. This could be accommodated by some dilution in the `south`, along the lines I`ve mentioned, and help keep the north-south divide in balance.
Whether the MCF stays with the MCCU or not is not a big deal chess-wise...we get good competition in the MCCU and it has worked well for many years. It is important that our chess bodies work together in the best interests of our local players, and stop playing silly self interest politics. Thats one reason I stepped out of the regime in recent years.
All these things take time..but the prerequisite is that various parties have got to start talking to each other...at Union, County, and League level. You need active representative committees to run these events, not just individuals spitting in the wind.
No easy answers...and a strong national policy committee might help.

[Andrew Zigmond]

No, Andrew, it certainly was not in any way a dig at you. It had not occurred to me that it would be interpreted as such, though I see now it could have been and apologise unreservedly.

In fact, it was not intended as a dig at anyone but more a comment on the way the very indirect democratic structure of our organisations in itself divorces the membership from its running, as indeed you point out above. To influence the NCCU one must first influence the LCA - which is no easier and equally indirect.

Apology accepted Michael and I admit I overreacted. I'm in a touchy mood generally this morning for some reason.

Obviously I can't speak for the LCA but within the YCA I think if somebody came forward and said that they'd take on the delegate roles to the NCCU (which is really two meetings a year) they'd be welcomed with open arms.

[Michael Farthing]

Obviously I can't speak for the LCA but within the YCA I think if somebody came forward and said that they'd take on the delegate roles to the NCCU (which is really two meetings a year) they'd be welcomed with open arms.

Maybe. But even then the problem remains. Take the MCF/NCCU issue. A paper is submitted to the AGM. As far as I'm aware that paper, and Lancashire's response, has not been published (not even after the event). Had the delegates had sight of the papers sufficiently in advance to canvas views from their electorate? Consultations from Lancashire might have come to my club officials (I doubt it) but certainly didn't get as far as me. So I suspect delegates are making decisions more or less at first sight and inevitably in consultation essentially with themselves. There simply isn't an attitude of inclusivity. And this is taking the charitable view that there are no delegates with pre-conceived fixed responses...

[Realistic Mode]
What I say is put me on all these bodies! I can guarantee you this - I'm a lazy so-an-so and things would definitely not be any better. They'd probably be worse.
[/Realistic Mode]

[Roger de Coverly]

Consultations from Lancashire might have come to my club officials (I doubt it) but certainly didn't get as far as me. So I suspect delegates are making decisions more or less at first sight and inevitably in consultation essentially with themselves.

Lancashire officials are presuming that their long standing policy of hostility towards Greater Manchester ever joining (or rejoining) the NCCU has the support of local clubs and players. They may be right and they may not, but their views won't change unless a group turn up at the Lancs AGM to challenge them. With such small numbers attending the Lancs AGM, I would have thought them vulnerable to individuals motivated to overturn their anti-GMCCA or anti-MCF policy. Perhaps the voting rights are severely restricted.

[Mick Norris]

Take the MCF/NCCU issue. A paper is submitted to the AGM. As far as I'm aware that paper, and Lancashire's response, has not been published (not even after the event).

It depends what you mean by published - the MCF paper was slightly revised twice after discussions within MCF Council (which is our governing body, and runs the MCF between AGMs)

This was then submitted to the NCCU (as we were asked to do, and have now been criticised for doing ) and we asked that it was passed to all NCCU county reps, who if they wished could then pass it on to anyone within their county

Subsequently, that paper has been sent to all MCF club secretaries as part of the first batch of papers for the MCF AGM on June 28th

It hasn't been published yet on the MCF website, because the webmaster tends to put lots of papers on at once, rather than piecemeal

The Lancs paper was issued to the MCF only after the NCCU AGM and only after we asked sight of it - had we seen it beforehand, we could have answered the points in it - indeed, if we had been invited to the NCCU AGM, we could have answered the points there and then

If you want to see the Lancs paper, you can either ask Lancs for it, or the NCCU, or another county (e.g. Yorks) who has been given it

[Michael Farthing]

Lancashire officials are presuming that their long standing policy of hostility towards Greater Manchester ever joining (or rejoining) the NCCU has the support of local clubs and players. They may be right and they may not, but their views won't change unless a group turn up at the Lancs AGM to challenge them. With such small numbers attending the Lancs AGM, I would have thought them vulnerable to individuals motivated to overturn their anti-GMCCA or anti-MCF policy. Perhaps the voting rights are severely restricted.

Ah the sweet simplicity of arithmetic calculations!

My chess club is like a family
We are disparate people with different ideas, some of them strongly held.
We are rivals and jockey with each other. We have little tensions over board orders and the like.
We rejoice in each others successes at congresses and try to keep up our friends' spirits when they lose.
We give each other lifts and we drink and dine together.
We look at each others games: we get freely given tuition from our better players.
We are there at times of distress and difficulty and hope and joy.
In the last year we have had a bereavement and a christening.
And our officials are re-elected. They do a good job; it runs smoothly. We want to support them, even if in some areas we have different ideas.
And I don't want to risk any of that for MCF v NCCU.

The Lancashire Chess Association is a family of chess clubs.
We organise ourselves into leagues.
We get annoyed when other clubs can't raise a team, but usually we agree just to change the date.
If a club can only manage home games because they can't organise transport - well, we go along with it (sometimes).
If a team is late arriving, we're tolerant (usually).
And the officials are re-elected by our club delegates. They do a good job; it runs smoothly. We want to support them, even if in some areas we have different ideas.
And I don't want to risk any of that for MCF v NCCU.

The NCCU organises some inter county activities. Maybe it could be more successful.
But a lot of players get a lot of fulfillment from it, including members of my club, my family.
I don't want a revolution. I don't want ill feeling. I don't want to risk what we have.

I'd like to be able to persuade, to bring round, to change minds.
I want to play at Heywood this weekend and smile and thank the organiser.
He works hard: he's doing a good job.

Roger would like me to organise a coup against him.
It ain't a matter of arithmetic.