NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
Neil,
The point I am making is currently GMan isn't entering the strongest team due to the travelling aspects of the MCCU, if GMan played in the NCCU you will most probably see alot stronger team entering the competition
I can see your point around the NCCU only having Lancs & Yorks competing (although the open was over 16 boards at the jamboree) being a poor situation in the north. But just having a third teams in each section would be a massive improvement on the current situation
You have to remember that the 3 places that the MCCU put in the Open section, have almost invariably been Staffs, Warks, and GMan over the past years, so if you lose GMan, the Midlands will gain new county going through national stages
The point I am making is currently GMan isn't entering the strongest team due to the travelling aspects of the MCCU, if GMan played in the NCCU you will most probably see alot stronger team entering the competition
I can see your point around the NCCU only having Lancs & Yorks competing (although the open was over 16 boards at the jamboree) being a poor situation in the north. But just having a third teams in each section would be a massive improvement on the current situation
You have to remember that the 3 places that the MCCU put in the Open section, have almost invariably been Staffs, Warks, and GMan over the past years, so if you lose GMan, the Midlands will gain new county going through national stages
-
- Posts: 1225
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
- Location: NORTH WEST
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
Its precisely because of the Northampton type situation that I suggest some counties `merge teams` for the purposes of counties events. Herefordshire is another example..could maybe merge teams with Worcestershire. & Northants with Leicestershire.
Anything that constructively improves the ability of counties to participate should be considered..if only to help ensure our keener players in those areas can get to play.
The Gman situation is not just about some players prefering to travel north. GMan is a very small county, and certain elements trying to assert that it should reside totally within the M60 ring road really doesnt help. Some realism & fair play is needed to resolve this...
Looking at the NCCU situation, it would almost make sense for counties like Merseyside, Cheshire, South Yorks etc..to consider joining the MCCU (maybe creating an MCCU (North) grouping. At least they`d find some great chess opportunities that they could actively participate in without feeling they might get blown away by monster counties. A splitting of the MCCU & NCCU to create a third group, based around the M62 corridor might be worth doing, and would result in more manageable sized groups. Maybe this could be handled as a joint venture between the NCCU & the MCCU without trying to create any new Union structures.
Those of us who have attended county AGMs know that they cover a fair breadth of issues. Check out the agenda for say the MCCUs latest meeting. One problem is travel to these meetings, which can be held in remote spots, and sometimes could benefit from being held more centrally. Unfortunately these meetings can be dictated by certain parties, and proper debate limited. However, it is a major effort to ensure these meetings function properly and are well supported. The MCCU doesnt do too bad a job, but, as I said before, it is a struggle getting out the correct & full messages to all constituent members...even more difficult reaching rank and file membership. And too much work falls on the shoulders of the few...more volunteers would greatly help such bodies, who often strive bravely to ensure a meaningful chess offering. Maybe more feedback (both ways) should be facilitated via county captains/teams and also via congresses. Maybe copies of minutes/agendas, etc should be circulated via these networks, vie one-page summeries and newsletters...and particularly asking for volunteers.
Just to pick one issue...junior chess. Derbyshire have run the U18 & U13 National competitions in recent years...very good efforts from Derbyshire organisers, but not great support or recognition from the MCCU as a whole. Communications need to be improved...both ways.
Another issue relates to MO schemes. The MCCU could do with an MO scheme comparible to that running in the NCCU...but I slightly worry that these schemes are effectively subsidising some groups at the expense of the general membership, and also, that the ECF is losing out. Are these schemes transparent & sufficiently accountable..is my other concern.
Anything that constructively improves the ability of counties to participate should be considered..if only to help ensure our keener players in those areas can get to play.
The Gman situation is not just about some players prefering to travel north. GMan is a very small county, and certain elements trying to assert that it should reside totally within the M60 ring road really doesnt help. Some realism & fair play is needed to resolve this...
Looking at the NCCU situation, it would almost make sense for counties like Merseyside, Cheshire, South Yorks etc..to consider joining the MCCU (maybe creating an MCCU (North) grouping. At least they`d find some great chess opportunities that they could actively participate in without feeling they might get blown away by monster counties. A splitting of the MCCU & NCCU to create a third group, based around the M62 corridor might be worth doing, and would result in more manageable sized groups. Maybe this could be handled as a joint venture between the NCCU & the MCCU without trying to create any new Union structures.
Those of us who have attended county AGMs know that they cover a fair breadth of issues. Check out the agenda for say the MCCUs latest meeting. One problem is travel to these meetings, which can be held in remote spots, and sometimes could benefit from being held more centrally. Unfortunately these meetings can be dictated by certain parties, and proper debate limited. However, it is a major effort to ensure these meetings function properly and are well supported. The MCCU doesnt do too bad a job, but, as I said before, it is a struggle getting out the correct & full messages to all constituent members...even more difficult reaching rank and file membership. And too much work falls on the shoulders of the few...more volunteers would greatly help such bodies, who often strive bravely to ensure a meaningful chess offering. Maybe more feedback (both ways) should be facilitated via county captains/teams and also via congresses. Maybe copies of minutes/agendas, etc should be circulated via these networks, vie one-page summeries and newsletters...and particularly asking for volunteers.
Just to pick one issue...junior chess. Derbyshire have run the U18 & U13 National competitions in recent years...very good efforts from Derbyshire organisers, but not great support or recognition from the MCCU as a whole. Communications need to be improved...both ways.
Another issue relates to MO schemes. The MCCU could do with an MO scheme comparible to that running in the NCCU...but I slightly worry that these schemes are effectively subsidising some groups at the expense of the general membership, and also, that the ECF is losing out. Are these schemes transparent & sufficiently accountable..is my other concern.
BRING BACK THE BCF
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
I do agree with David that the a better regionalisation of the zonal competition could be beneficial
Maybe having areas like the following
1) SCCU would keep the same format as it work perfectly well (3 entries)
2) M62 Corrider - Lancs/Yorkshire/GMan/Cheshire/Merseyside (2 entries)
3) WMidlands - Shropshire/Staffs/Worcestershire/Warwickshire (2 entries)
4) EMidlands - Notts/Lincs/Leics/Derbyshire/Northants (1 entries)
5) North of England - The rest of the NCCU (1 entry)
6) Suffolk/Norfolk/Bedfordshire/Cambridgeshire/etc. (2 entries)
7) Devon/Cornwall/Somerset/Dorset/Hampshire (1 entries)
8) Gloucester/Hereforshire/Wiltshire/Berkshire (1 entries)
These have been quickly done so pardon some of my geography, but this should significantly reduce the travelling at zonal level which is the main problem at the moment, it also means there could be a better presence at the national stages
But we shouldn't allow counties to merge with other counties, or ask counties to split up, as this defeats the object of the current system of a county championship
Thoughts?
Maybe having areas like the following
1) SCCU would keep the same format as it work perfectly well (3 entries)
2) M62 Corrider - Lancs/Yorkshire/GMan/Cheshire/Merseyside (2 entries)
3) WMidlands - Shropshire/Staffs/Worcestershire/Warwickshire (2 entries)
4) EMidlands - Notts/Lincs/Leics/Derbyshire/Northants (1 entries)
5) North of England - The rest of the NCCU (1 entry)
6) Suffolk/Norfolk/Bedfordshire/Cambridgeshire/etc. (2 entries)
7) Devon/Cornwall/Somerset/Dorset/Hampshire (1 entries)
8) Gloucester/Hereforshire/Wiltshire/Berkshire (1 entries)
These have been quickly done so pardon some of my geography, but this should significantly reduce the travelling at zonal level which is the main problem at the moment, it also means there could be a better presence at the national stages
But we shouldn't allow counties to merge with other counties, or ask counties to split up, as this defeats the object of the current system of a county championship
Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
I believe Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire both entered some sections last year too. Greater Manchester and Warwickshire did this year.David Pardoe wrote: Just to pick one issue...junior chess. Derbyshire have run the U18 & U13 National competitions in recent years...very good efforts from Derbyshire organisers, but not great support or recognition from the MCCU as a whole. Communications need to be improved...both ways.
I think asking for twelve Under 18 players is stretching it a bit. I think teams of 6 would be far easier to get. The SCCU might not like it, because most of their counties can field teams of 24 if they wanted to (their jamboree probably has far larger team sizes). Unfortunately, the rest of us don't have such an extensive player pool.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
If you do it that way, you may as well get the teams which qualify for the national stages to add up to 16, rather than 13! Perhaps add a third entry to the M62 Corridor, a fourth to the SCCU, and one more entry to the zone whose county won it last year?Alan Walton wrote:I do agree with David that the a better regionalisation of the zonal competition could be beneficial
Maybe having areas like the following
1) SCCU would keep the same format as it work perfectly well (3 entries)
2) M62 Corrider - Lancs/Yorkshire/GMan/Cheshire/Merseyside (2 entries)
3) WMidlands - Shropshire/Staffs/Worcestershire/Warwickshire (2 entries)
4) EMidlands - Notts/Lincs/Leics/Derbyshire/Northants (1 entries)
5) North of England - The rest of the NCCU (1 entry)
6) Suffolk/Norfolk/Bedfordshire/Cambridgeshire/etc. (2 entries)
7) Devon/Cornwall/Somerset/Dorset/Hampshire (1 entries)
8) Gloucester/Hereforshire/Wiltshire/Berkshire (1 entries)
These have been quickly done so pardon some of my geography, but this should significantly reduce the travelling at zonal level which is the main problem at the moment, it also means there could be a better presence at the national stages
But we shouldn't allow counties to merge with other counties, or ask counties to split up, as this defeats the object of the current system of a county championship
Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
Alex,
Those numbers are fully adjustable, currently the national stages have a prelim stages anyway so maybe 3/4 of these (SCCU1&2, M62, WMidlands) get byes into the first round proper, and the rest play-off, otherwise we would have 16 qualifiers and an extra national round
Those numbers are fully adjustable, currently the national stages have a prelim stages anyway so maybe 3/4 of these (SCCU1&2, M62, WMidlands) get byes into the first round proper, and the rest play-off, otherwise we would have 16 qualifiers and an extra national round
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
Alot of interesting ideas being submitted to the Holowczak and Hewitt Chess Prevention Society. Which is odd, if it isn't broke!Alan Walton wrote:I do agree with David that the a better regionalisation of the zonal competition could be beneficial
Maybe having areas like the following
1) SCCU would keep the same format as it work perfectly well (3 entries)
2) M62 Corrider - Lancs/Yorkshire/GMan/Cheshire/Merseyside (2 entries)
3) WMidlands - Shropshire/Staffs/Worcestershire/Warwickshire (2 entries)
4) EMidlands - Notts/Lincs/Leics/Derbyshire/Northants (1 entries)
5) North of England - The rest of the NCCU (1 entry)
6) Suffolk/Norfolk/Bedfordshire/Cambridgeshire/etc. (2 entries)
7) Devon/Cornwall/Somerset/Dorset/Hampshire (1 entries)
Gloucester/Hereforshire/Wiltshire/Berkshire (1 entries)
These have been quickly done so pardon some of my geography, but this should significantly reduce the travelling at zonal level which is the main problem at the moment, it also means there could be a better presence at the national stages
But we shouldn't allow counties to merge with other counties, or ask counties to split up, as this defeats the object of the current system of a county championship
Thoughts?
I think the main problem is that the current structure is designed with large (and therefore mainly SCCU) counties in mind. That is why the current model works so well in the SCCU (hence their understandable opposition to changing it) but fails to provide meanigful competitions to a greater or lesser extent elsewhere.
My suggestion is therefore to srap the Union stages. Allow those counties that want to play in the National Stages to do so. If that means we get 6 SCCU counties enter a division, but only 3 MCCU, 2 NCCU, EACU and 1 WECU then so be it. This would necessitate one additional round in some, but not all events which I think is manageable.
Of course, the first round draw could be regionalied (if desired) to reduce travelling.
The beauty of this suggestion in my opinion is that the Unions can retain their own competitions and titles, although they would no longer be qualifying competitions. This means that, if a Union felt changing something (perhaps a grading band, or number of boards) to facilitate more internal competition then that could be done without affecting their number of qualifying places.
It may go some way to addressing some of the Gtr Man / Oxon / Bucks / Berks issues.
It may also help address the inequality where currently SCCU and MCCU both get three qualifying places in the Open, despite the SCCU clearly being the stronger event.
I hope no-one thinks that this suggestion is, in any way, an attempt at chess prevention or seeking to destroy a successful event
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
Sean,
Some good points to dwell over, anyway that's me done for 3 weeks on this Forum
Alan
Some good points to dwell over, anyway that's me done for 3 weeks on this Forum
Alan
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
Good luck in Canada!Alan Walton wrote:Sean,
Some good points to dwell over, anyway that's me done for 3 weeks on this Forum
Alan
-
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:30 pm
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
Well perhaps half of it - we need to find somewhere for Oxon and Bucks to play!Sean Hewitt wrote:It may go some way to addressing some of the Gtr Man / Oxon / Bucks / Berks issues.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
I accept your assurance in your last sentence. I nevertheless fear that your proposals would have that effect.Sean Hewitt wrote:I think the main problem is that the current structure is designed with large (and therefore mainly SCCU) counties in mind. That is why the current model works so well in the SCCU (hence their understandable opposition to changing it) but fails to provide meanigful competitions to a greater or lesser extent elsewhere.
My suggestion is therefore to srap the Union stages. Allow those counties that want to play in the National Stages to do so. If that means we get 6 SCCU counties enter a division, but only 3 MCCU, 2 NCCU, EACU and 1 WECU then so be it. This would necessitate one additional round in some, but not all events which I think is manageable.
Of course, the first round draw could be regionalied (if desired) to reduce travelling.
The beauty of this suggestion in my opinion is that the Unions can retain their own competitions and titles, although they would no longer be qualifying competitions. This means that, if a Union felt changing something (perhaps a grading band, or number of boards) to facilitate more internal competition then that could be done without affecting their number of qualifying places.
It may go some way to addressing some of the Gtr Man / Oxon / Bucks / Berks issues.
It may also help address the inequality where currently SCCU and MCCU both get three qualifying places in the Open, despite the SCCU clearly being the stronger event.
I hope no-one thinks that this suggestion is, in any way, an attempt at chess prevention or seeking to destroy a successful event
If the ECU Counties Championships were to attract a worthwhile entry as open knock-out events, then even one extra round would inevitably mean that they would have to start earlier than the current National Stages do. Teams aren’t going to want to take part both in them and in the current Union Championships – there aren’t enough available weekends.
Hence either the Union events (and in particular the SCCU Counties Championships) will suffer, or the ECF events will. I’m confident that it would be the latter if it came to it, but I don’t wish that to happen.
About ten years ago, similar arguments, and similar problems in one or two Unions, resulted in the then BCF turning the U18 Counties Championship into an open competition. The Union events could continue (and the SCCU one has done), but they ceased to be qualifying competitions.
Does anyone now believe that either the Union U18 Championships or the ECF U18 Championship are in better shape than they were before the changes were made?
I did apologise for the jibe. As you said, personalising the discussion is usually a sign that you’re losing the argument.Sean Hewitt wrote:A lot of interesting ideas being submitted to the Holowczak and Hewitt Chess Prevention Society. Which is odd, if it isn't broke!
If I’ve counted correctly, thirteen people (including you and me) have posted on the thread since I made my earlier remarks. You are one of no more than two or three who still seem to be opposed to my contention that the SCCU Counties Championships should be retained in their present form as an integral part of the ECF Counties Championships.
Meanwhile, unless there are any defaults, 208 people will be assembling in Leicester next Saturday for the National Finals of these supposedly broken events.
I believe that you’re about to requisition an Extraordinary General Meeting of Council on the Chess for Schools issues. If you think that your ideas about the Counties Championships are worthwhile, why don’t you seek Council approval for them by tabling an additional resolution for the EGM? People will want to turn up and oppose you and that will help you to obtain the necessary quorum for the Chess for Schools matter.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
I put this down to the general decline of junior chess in that period, rather than the changing format. The emergence of the NYCA (I don't know when it was founded) has also given it competition.David Sedgwick wrote: About ten years ago, similar arguments, and similar problems in one or two Unions, resulted in the then BCF turning the U18 Counties Championship into an open competition. The Union events could continue (and the SCCU one has done), but they ceased to be qualifying competitions.
Does anyone now believe that either the Union U18 Championships or the ECF U18 Championship are in better shape than they were before the changes were made?
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
Brian - they could play in both the Chiltern league and the National Stages. Win Win!Brian Valentine wrote:Well perhaps half of it - we need to find somewhere for Oxon and Bucks to play!Sean Hewitt wrote:It may go some way to addressing some of the Gtr Man / Oxon / Bucks / Berks issues.
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
On that basis, you would consider 14 entries in total (2 in each of the 7 divisions) a success. I wouldn't.David Sedgwick wrote:Meanwhile, unless there are any defaults, 208 people will be assembling in Leicester next Saturday for the National Finals of these supposedly broken events.
Are you seriously suggesting that one extra game would mean that teams would either withdraw from the Union stage or not particiapte in the National Stages? That seems rather far fetched, given that teams may already have to play a preliminary round or find themselves playing a different number of Union stage matches dependent on the entry.David Sedgwick wrote: If the ECU Counties Championships were to attract a worthwhile entry as open knock-out events, then even one extra round would inevitably mean that they would have to start earlier than the current National Stages do. Teams aren’t going to want to take part both in them and in the current Union Championships – there aren’t enough available weekends.
Because, quite frankly, I don't care enough to do so. It's not something that affects me greatly either way. But even so, I can recognise that all is not well with the event.David Sedgwick wrote:If you think that your ideas about the Counties Championships are worthwhile, why don’t you seek Council approval for them by tabling an additional resolution for the EGM?
Last edited by Sean Hewitt on Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: NCCU AGM Minutes 2010
Some statistics:Sean Hewitt wrote:On that basis, you would consider 14 entries in total (2 in each of the 7 divisions) a success. I wouldn't.David Sedgwick wrote:Meanwhile, unless there are any defaults, 208 people will be assembling in Leicester next Saturday for the National Finals of these supposedly broken events.
Number of Divisions: 2008 - 6; 2009 - 6; 2010 - 7
Number of Nominations for the National Stages: 2008 - 43; 2009 - 58; 2010 - 58
Number of Defaulted Matches in the National Stages: 2008 - 3; 2009 - 7; 2010 - 4
I consider that to be a success. Moreover, it's the exact opposite of what you were predicting a year ago.
It's the old story of the straw and the camel's back. A number of SCCU counties and teams have mixed feelings about whether the National Stages are really worth the effort. However, they're proud to play in an event for which they've qualified. If that link were removed and they were faced with having to fit an extra match into an already crowded calendar, some of them might well decide to give the ECF competitions a miss.Sean Hewitt wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that one extra game would mean that teams would either withdraw from the Union stage or not particiapte in the National Stages? That seems rather far fetched, given that teams may already have to play a preliminary round or find themselves playing a different number of Union stage matches dependent on the entry.
When the corresponding change was made at U18 level, several teams continued to enter the SCCU event but didn't bother with the ECF one.
I'm not suggesting that everything is perfect. But the Counties Championships are in considerably better shape than they were three or four years ago. There seem to be far fewer complaints from actual or would be participants in the National Stages than there were at that time.Sean Hewitt wrote:I can recognise that all is not well with the event.
If people feel that they are problems with the Counties Championships within their Union, they should seek to address them at that level.