ECF Membership

[Roger de Coverly]

I believe the competition should be far more focused on players who actually live and actively play within the recognised localities/counties

If you take a step or two back and notice that what you are really trying to do is run a weekend team competition, does it really matter what eligibility rules you apply? In the limit you just need to find out who wants to play Saturday afternoons, what differences in standard of opposition they would accept and how far they're prepared to travel. From that you structure teams. County leagues are a convenient focal point if you have to build a weekend team out of a coalition of midweek league clubs.

Basing eligibility on ceremonial counties is one way of doing things and historically British amateur sports and games used that approach, probably taking the idea from cricket. Professional and top level amateur football and for that matter both codes of Rugby were very much more club based.

[LozCooper]

Then we have the rediculous situation where `outsiders` are bused in to play for these `mega counties`. I`d like to see the eligability rules tightened so that `current local players` are given `priority` and all the `imports` are blocked or have some penalties/ limits/restrictions imposed. Maybe limit `outsiders` to a max of `two places`. Also, its not on in my view, for `local players` to get excluded because `big guns` can be bused in to boost the big boys..... It should not be about `pulling power`...

When you say outsiders do you mean players who are eligible but no longer live there?

Hi Loz...
Just to illustrate my point by example. I noticed on one occasion tbat a player based in Litchfield, the capital city of Staffordshire, was actually playing for Warwickshire, because he played in the Birmingham league.
This in my view is totally laughable and makes a complete mokery of the counties competitions, and any notion that they have anything to do with counties.
Intil we tighten up these rules, along lines I and others have suggested, we will continue to have a virtually meaningless hotch-potch competition..in my view.
Unfortunately nobody at the ECF seems to have the conviction to actually do anything to shange things...because they are too frightened of upsetting the status quo (I suspect..).
I believe the competition should be far more focused on players who actually live and actively play within the recognised localities/counties... I can see some arguement for having a second category of (less `directly connected` players) given eligablity, and maybe there should be a limit on the numbers of these, or they should be given a qtr point handicap/penalty...

I'm not sure who you refer to but is it possible they either work in Warwickshire, were born there or used to reside there? If you believe that someone is playing for a county that they are not eligible for then you should contact Adrian Elwin, the County Championship Controller about your concerns. If you aren't satisfied with the response then you should speak to Adam Raoof the Home Director and if necessary Andrew Farthing the Chief Exeuctive. If you haven't done this then it seems premature to say "Unfortunately nobody at the ECF seems to have the conviction to actually do anything to shange things...because they are too frightened of upsetting the status quo (I suspect..)."

I had thought that your concerns were regarding the set up in the NCCU and if you do have concerns about specific cases then you should follow the same procedure as outlined above. As yet I'm not aware of the players to whom you are refering so am unable to verify their eligiblity. However, if you are saying that players who move outside the boundaries of their county should no longer be able to play then I think you would find a lot of opposition to that view.

[David Pardoe]

Loz, The present rules allow players in this situation to play for neighbouring counties..
As I`ve said, such rules are in my view crackers, and devalue the competition..
Yes, I accept that some measure of flexibility is desirable, but the current rule set allow various parties to run coach & horses through the competition.
I have pointed out these things before on these forums....I`m sure the `chiefs` at the ECF are aware of this....and have read some of the debates. I have in the past contacted senior people at the ECF about these matters.....and mentioned them in `county` circles/Union delegates...etc.

Alex..your comments about including Derbyshire & Lincolnshire into the NCCU might have some merit...but Lord Cyril might have your guts for garters for attempting to shrink his empire...
If however Yorks was to split into East & West...and they maybe run the NCCU counties events in two zones, it might help. But Im sure that the locals in these areas will have various views on ways to create more interest & participation in the NCCU county events....and the current committee I believe are quite keen to see some improvements.

And here`s what Google says about Staffordshires leading city...
Lichfield is Staffordshire's premier heritage city nestled in the heart of the country's most creative county, just north of Birmingham. ...

[LozCooper]

Loz, The present rules allow players in this situation to play for neighbouring counties..
As I`ve said, such rules are in my view crackers, and devalue the competition..
Yes, I accept that some measure of flexibility is desirable, but the current rule set allow various parties to run coach & horses through the competition.

Have you raised your point with the controller as I suggested? Or sought the views of others in case they share your opinion? Time consuming though it may be that is the only way to try and get things changed.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex..your comments about including Derbyshire & Lincolnshire into the NCCU have some merit...but Lord Cyril might have your guts for garters for attempting to shrink his empire...

He'd have to join the queue, I'm afraid.

And here`s what Google says about Staffordshires leading city...
Lichfield is Staffordshire's premier heritage city nestled in the heart of the country's most creative county, just north of Birmingham. ...

I think the key word in that in "heritage".

Wikipedia suggests: "Stafford is the county town of Staffordshire. The population of Stafford was given in the 2001 census as 63,681 ... making Stafford the fourth largest settlement in the Ceremonial county, after Stoke on Trent, Tamworth and Newcastle under Lyme."

If we're talking about historic Staffordshire, rather than ceremonial Staffordshire, you could also safely include Wolverhampton, Walsall and West Bromwich as being bigger than Lichfield in terms of population.

[Mick Norris]

Mick, apologies for my factual inaccuracies. I didn't realise the MCF only existed since 2004. Given it was a constituent unit, I thought it was a constituent unit of the old BCF, hence was far more historic than that. I didn't realise GMCCA even existed at all, since it no longer appears on the voting register. I guess I shouldn't speak about something that I don't know enough about.

I'm still entitled to think that Greater Manchester shouldn't play in the County Championship, but it's not something I plan to do anything about. It seems I'm not the only one, at least. I'm not just prejudiced against Greater Manchester; I don't think Merseyside or Cleveland should either. Or even Cumbria (which should be Cumberland). I think it would have been much better to use the historic counties, which the rest of the country seems to (continue to) do.

I don't understand why some Greater Manchester players wouldn't want to play for Lancashire under any circumstances. It's still a county chess team, so what's the difference? The juniors play under the banner of Lancashire and Cheshire in the UK Chess Challenge without any fuss.

Apology accepted

Of course by historic counties, why aren't Wessex playing? Or are you picking a particular date in history?

It is pretty basic, there are only 16 places in any Lancashire county team, by having a G Man team we increase this to 32, so more players get the chance to play

The junior situation is more complicated with teams from Lancs, Manchester, Oldham and Tameside (who all appear to get along fine)

[Alex Holowczak]

Of course by historic counties, why aren't Wessex playing? Or are you picking a particular date in history?

The particular dates I'm referring to is Domesday up until 1974. The 39 counties between those dates remained pretty constant, save for some minor transfers. E.g. Oldbury (where I live) transferred from Shropshire to Worcestershire in 18somethingorother.

I.e. these ones. I also find this site useful for telling you where each town is. E.g. a search for "Old Trafford" yielded the county of Lancashire, which is in the Unitary Authority of Trafford, the Police Area of Greater Manchester and the North West region.

The reason for Wessex not being a county is simple. It never was a county. It was a Kingdom until 927, when it became part of the brand new Kingdom of England.

[Mick Norris]

You can probably tell I failed History O level and gave up Geography when I was 12

[MSoszynski]

What is the "Warwickshire" of the Warwickshire Chess Association?

When I was the WCA Webmaster I included this on the website:

Area Definition of Warwickshire

For Warwickshire Chess Association purposes, Warwickshire is the region made up of the following administrative areas.

Birmingham, Coventry, North Warwickshire, Nuneaton & Bedworth, Rugby, Solihull, Stratford-on-Avon, and Warwick.

This was the Collier Definition that was incorporated into the WCA Constitution in 1998.

Eventually it is hoped to display a map on this page. In the meantime note that Warwickshire as defined does not include the western third of the West Midlands (principally Dudley, and Walsall), which is part of Staffordshire.

In other words, the area was defined by a WCA official (Lee Collier), with no precise map available.

Currently, on http://www.warwickshirechess.org.uk/, we can read:

What do we mean by Warwickshire?

The county of Warwickshire is smaller today compared to the traditional county whose boundaries were in everyday use up until 1974. To find out about the traditional county of Warwickshire [...]

This is even less precise than in my day.

[Chris J Greatorix]

I didn't mean to cause any grievences about the county situation, it was just an observation. I mean, If you take someone like a Peter Kay, from Bolton, his accent is very much lancashire sounding.

[Roger de Coverly]

Currently, on http://www.warwickshirechess.org.uk/, we can read:

which prompted a look

where I found a cross-table of eligibility via club

http://www.warwickshirechess.org.uk/war ... -clubs.htm

Lichfield is under Staffs.

[Mick Norris]

I didn't mean to cause any grievences about the county situation, it was just an observation. I mean, If you take someone like a Peter Kay, from Bolton, his accent is very much lancashire sounding.

Chris

Peter has a Bolton accent (his niece is in my daughter's class at school, and his child is at the nursery on school grounds), he just sounds normal to me (not that I have a Lancashire accent...)

My Mum (who was from York, but brought up in Egypt, Palestine and South Africa) always found it amusing in the mill canteen that the Leyland lot sat together and wouldn't mix with the Chorley lot, the Preston lot and so on - she thought they all sounded similar, they thought they all sounded different

Worst problems I have seen at a football match I attended were when Chorley played Preston in an FA Cup match at Ewood Park (before it was redeveloped under Jack Walker) and some Blackburn fans were there too - the Lancashire police couldn't cope (as they are nowhere near as good as Greater Manchester Police)

[Alex Holowczak]

What is the "Warwickshire" of the Warwickshire Chess Association?

As an Officer of the Warwickshire CA, I can tell you that I have absolutely no idea, but I've been told off for using the wrong one last year. (No one told me what the right one was. Just that I was using the wrong one.)

Some of what is shown on that page is incorrect in that they're not in traditional Worcestershire. Mutual Circle play in King's Heath (Worcestershire), Olton play in Tyseley (Worcestershire), South Birmingham play in Moseley (Worcesteshire), Westminster play in Acock's Green (Worcestershire). (Look at the Gazetteer for confirmation of those things.)

I am told that in times gone by, anyone who lived in "Greater Birmingham" tended to play for Warwickshire no matter what. This is much the same today.

I think the Collier definition of Warwickshire competes with the Worcestershire definition of, well, Worcestershire. That is to say they have competing claims on the same bits of land. I don't think anyone around here cares enough to do anything about it, though.

[Alex Holowczak]

Lichfield is under Staffs.

Lichfield is in Staffordshire nowadays anyway. The "West Midlands" doesn't interfere with Lichfield. It's just included there because it's a Birmingham League team, which is affiliated to the Warwickshire CA.

[LozCooper]

Lichfield is under Staffs.

Lichfield is in Staffordshire nowadays anyway. The "West Midlands" doesn't interfere with Lichfield. It's just included there because it's a Birmingham League team, which is affiliated to the Warwickshire CA.

Most Lichfield players play for Staffordshire, Paul Wallace and John Keaveney being two examples this season, although I remember years ago that Robert McFarland started playing for LIchfield having already played for Warwickshire beforehand.