NCCU and the MCF

[David Robertson]

If Lancashire did drop off being able to field a competitive team...and dropped to a minor county or something

This is unlikely. They'd apply to join the MCCU first; or the WECU

[Andrew Zigmond]

Not at all sure if Lancs would be doomed to third. They're very strong over 12 boards still - +-200 vs Yorkshire this year. A bit softer in the K/O stages/16 boards. Where their next generation of players is coming from might be another matter, but suspect county chess might well be rather dead by the time that's a real worry.

The Unions can nominate up to three teams in any section so Lancashire would need the other Northern Counties to re-energise as well as Manchester being admitted before they were in any danger of not being nominated.

By virtue of being the only Northern County that has an organised infrastructure Lancashire were the only county to have a team in all the graded bands. They have expressed frustration that all their matches had to be played in the same day but it's no wonder that they struggled.

[Mick Norris]

The Unions can nominate up to three teams in any section so Lancashire would need the other Northern Counties to re-energise as well as Manchester being admitted before they were in any danger of not being nominated.

That's not exactly right, the ECF rules are

B2. Each union may nominate two counties for the Final Stage of any section, whether or not it has conducted a qualifying competition for that section.

B3. If a Union conducts a qualifying competition for a section of the Championship, and in the qualifying competition five or more teams complete their fixtures without defaulting a match, the Union may nominate three counties for the Final Stage of that section.

Hence, if there are 3 teams in the Open in the NCCU, only 2 qualify for the National Stages, although the third could be nominated for the Minor Counties

[Mick Norris]

You'll shortly see my 15 page report on this

Get a shift on then. We're on tenterhooks here

It is on the MCF website now, so it might as well be here too

[Roger de Coverly]

It is on the MCF website now, so it might as well be here too

It does rather confirm that the Lancashire view is that they "own" players on their territory. It seems to me that chess in particular and competitive sport in general have moved on from that and that players should be free to make their own choices as whether to play in a competition and if so for what county.

It doesn't appear that club players in Lancashire are willing to attend county meetings and reverse this attitude from their officials. So be it, but it leaves them partly to blame for the continued dispute.

[MartinCarpenter]

Well mostly they have, but by going to play 4NCL and stuff instead with hugely looser eligibility rules attached It does seem like a rather unhelpful attitude, but you can't say that its entirely unfounded in terms of how county chess is structured.

Bill (O'Rourke) does also have a point of sorts about the metropolitan counties and fielding teams, although GM are obviously doing better (being much bigger). Interesting to have it confirmed that Lancs do think they're slightly starting to run out of players. That isn't going to be calculated to make them want to compromise

If we ever do reach a position where neither GM or Lancs can/do field proper strength open/U180 teams (which we perhaps aren't far off now over 16 boards, although GM masses of reserve strength on paper) it'll be even sadder/sillier than things are at present

[raycollett]

Mick Norris' executive summary chapter 8 states "I believe that players should be given the choice, and allowed to play for any county for which they are eligible" and the appendix quotes the current ECF eligibiity criteria for county affiliation. As noted there, most players will have several options. This, I believe is appropriate when many people commute significant distances to places of work and education.

Strict geographical county boundaries present difficulties because they are altered from time to time and after a few years old boundaries are forgotten and postal addresses no longer include counties to help residents remember where they live. Anyone who helps Mike Basman organise County Megafinals in UK Chess Challenge will be aware of these issues.

[raycollett]

If there were a vote among NCCU council members to admit MCF as a new NCCU CA, would MCF have the support of two thirds of existing council members or does any single CA have a veto and can any dissenting CA representative exercise that veto?

[Roger de Coverly]

If there were a vote among NCCU council members to admit MCF as a new NCCU CA, would MCF have the support of two thirds of existing council members or does any single CA have a veto and can any dissenting CA representative exercise that veto?

I don't know whether there is a formal veto, but I believe the other NCCU counties have indicated that they won't collectively vote to overrule Lancs.

[Mick Norris]

If there were a vote among NCCU council members to admit MCF as a new NCCU CA, would MCF have the support of two thirds of existing council members or does any single CA have a veto and can any dissenting CA representative exercise that veto?

I don't know whether there is a formal veto, but I believe the other NCCU counties have indicated that they won't collectively vote to overrule Lancs.

Really? Who told you that?

[Roger de Coverly]

Really? Who told you that?

I expect I read it somewhere on this forum, or possibly on the NCCU site or the MCF site. It is the case though, is it not that the rest of the NCCU feel unable or unwilling to end the dispute by telling Lancs they have been overruled?

[Michael Farthing]

Really? Who told you that?

I expect I read it somewhere on this forum, or possibly on the NCCU site or the MCF site. It is the case though, is it not that the rest of the NCCU feel unable or unwilling to end the dispute by telling Lancs they have been overruled?

Well just maybe the person on this forum, or the NCCU site, or the MCF site that you may or may not have read had heard it in a coffee bar or a pub or from Roger de Coverly... You have made a specific allegation that can only have the effect of stirring up resentments and antagonisms and putting back any chance of cooperative progress. Back up your assertion with some evidence, or withdraw it or (preferably) simply keep quiet and don't make mischief. Some of us would like a solution, but we don't want to achieve it by having another 40 years of dealing with embittered colleagues.

[Roger de Coverly]

You have made a specific allegation that can only have the effect of stirring up resentments and antagonisms and putting back any chance of cooperative progress.

Try a Google on "Lancashire veto on Greater Manchester", which for me anyway links back to a thread on this forum on which Mick Norris describes Lancashire's attitude towards Greater Manchester's membership of the NCCU as a veto.

Here it is http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=4218&p=87819

Move down a few entries and you get to
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 819#p87819
in which Mick corrects an assertion by Alex H that there is no such veto.

I've just looked at the NCCU constitution - I have nothing better to do on a Friday night - and I see no constitutional mention of a veto for Lancashire. So their veto can be overturned by a simple majority. This is the same simple majority that you'd need to incorporate Greater Manchester within the NCCU. So the concept of a Lancashire veto is a complete fallacy.

You don't look very hard, do you? They use 3 below, and it has been looked at carefully on our side

"3) Membership of the NCCU is limited to recognised County Chess Associations within the territory of the NCCU (A recognised CCA is defined as any Association of Chess Clubs combined on a regional basis with the express consent of the NCCU Council). Each CCA that joins the NCCU undertakes to pay the annual subscription and/or fee as defined and determined by the NCCU at a previous Annual General Meeting. No new CCA will be admitted to the NCCU unless the following two conditions are met:

a) There is evidence that the new CCA has the support of a majority of both Clubs and Players in the area it purports to cover.
b) The existing CCA covering that area has been consulted and given twelve months notice in writing of the intention to admit a new CCA. Unless otherwise agreed any CCA newly admitted to the NCCU assumes the rights and obligations of all other constituent organizations."

[Michael Farthing]

Where exactly in that post is there evidence that:

"the other NCCU counties have indicated that they won't collectively vote to overrule Lancs".

THAT is the SPECIFIC ALLEGATION that I ask you to justify.

If, in fact, it is true then to some extent it indicates a determination by other representatives to seek a solution rather than an escalation of ill-feeling. A situation in which GM is admitted and Lancashire expelled is not a solution. Lancashire won't want it; the NCCU won't want it and I doubt very much that Manchester would want it. All that I can be thankful for Roger is that you are exercising your diplomatic skills on this issue rather than in an area such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria or Palestine.

[Roger de Coverly]

Where exactly in that post is there evidence that:

"the other NCCU counties have indicated that they won't collectively vote to overrule Lancs".

THAT is the SPECIFIC ALLEGATION that I ask you to justify.

I suspect you will find it in NCCU minutes or discussions here of NCCU matters. If you are challenging me, I expect I can justify it. But is it not the case that the other NCCU counties will not overrule Lancashire and admit Greater Manchester regardless?

It is ridiculous to sustain a dispute for thirty nine years over as trivial a matter as eligibility to play for county teams and Lancashire officials are in my view mostly to blame, with the unwillingness of Lancashire clubs and their membership to challenge this a contributory factor. That's an outside observer's view by the way. I thought the dispute ludicrous in 1975 and I still think that today. There might have been some ill-feeling over the creation of the Greater Manchester county not present in the almost parallel circumstances of the creation of Cleveland and Merseyside, but you might have hoped it could have been resolved by the early 1980s.

(edit) Just read back in the thread and it is extremely apparent that it is believed that Lancs officials consider they have a permanent veto against GMCCA's membership of the NCCU. If that isn't the case and by giving twelve months' notice and getting support from a majority of other NCCU counties, GMCCA could join the NCCU, this would finally put the dispute to bed, provided that Lancs officials didn't throw the toys out of the pram. (/edit)