Page published 26 July 2012
Held 23 June 2012, 2.00pm at the Syston Conservative Club, High Street, Syston , Leics.
David Levens & Simon Gilmore
Julie Johnson (JJ) & Cyril Johnson (CJ) (Leics), Mick Norris (MN) (Manchester), Peter Sherlock (PS) & John Grasham (JG) (Lincs), Drag Sudar (DS) & Robert Richmond (RR) (Notts), John Pakenham (JP) (Warks), David Anderton (DA), Andrew Leadbetter (AL), Andrew Davies (AD) & Matthew Carr (MC) (Staffs), Ray Collett (RC), Andrew Farthing (AF), Paul Sharratt (PSt) & Alex Holowczak (AH) (Worcs), & Alan Leary (Hereford), P C Gibbs (President)
2) Minutes of the MCCU AGM 2011
3.11) Correspondence Chess:
3.12) MCCU Webmaster
4.1) President – Peter Gibbs re-elected unopposed
5) Appointment of the Auditor
R A Butters was re-appointed.
6) Levy for 2011/12, Finance Director
The meeting revised the budget to provide reserve fund of £1000 to support an MCCU congress, also to provide additional prizes for the GPs with a £50 prize for the best junior in the Open GP, & both a £100 prize for the winner & £100 bursary for the British qualifying place. There was some discussion about the need for MCCU GP, a motion to discontinue the RGP was lost. The prize fund for the RGP was increased to £100. There was some discussion about the grading levels for these, it was agreed that the Board would look at the grading sections for events in last years GPs and decide on grading limits and split of prizes. The junior budget was reinstated as part of the budget rather than removed. It was also agreed to support the costs of arbiter training sessions by up to £100.
7) MCCU County Championship
Separate documents were circulated concerning advice for captains - proposals from Worcestershire, & some alternative proposals from the Events Director were held over from the 2011 AGM. Following discussion the final decisions on these were delegated to the Board.
Rule 15 In the event of a tie on points between three or more teams for first an ECF qualifying place, places shall be decided by reference to the aggregate scores between the teams concerned. First place will be awarded to the team with the best percentage of aggregate score against the other counties concerned in the tie, second place to the next best score and so on. In the event of this procedure not producing a clear winner, then the tie shall be resolved by reference to board count in the matches between the tied teams and then by the elimination of the lowest board in each match until a result is reached. in favour of the county with the best percentage aggregate score of all other counties in the zone. If the application of the above rule still fails to break the triple (or greater) tie, a jamboree play-off shall be held. Where this rule provides a clear winner, but leaves a tie for other places rule 15 will continue to be applied until or unless only 2 teams are tied, when rule 14 will apply.
The increased incidence of conceded matches is of some concern under the existing rules. The changes are designed to completely remove the effect of such matches from the outcome, leaving it squarely related to the matches between the tied teams. As a result teams will be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by the inclusion or exclusion of conceded matches.
The revised rules are therefore as follows:-
Rule 14 If two teams in the same zone tie on points for an ECF qualification place, the winner of the tie shall be the winner of the match played between the two teams involved. In the event of that match having been a tie, the tie shall be resolved by firstly board count and then by the elimination of the lowest board until a result is reached. If all boards are drawn, the match shall be awarded to the team which had black on the odd numbered boards.
Rule 15 In the event of a tie on points between three or more teams for an ECF qualifying place, places shall be decided by reference to the aggregate scores between the teams concerned. First place will be awarded to the team with the best percentage of aggregate score against the other counties concerned in the tie, second place to the next best score and so on. In the event of this procedure not producing a clear winner, then the tie shall be resolved by reference to board count in the matches between the tied teams and then by the elimination of the lowest board in each match until a result is reached. If the application of the above rule still fails to break the triple (or greater) tie, a jamboree play-off shall be held. Where this rule provides a clear winner, but leaves a tie for other places rule 15 will continue to be applied until or unless only two teams are tied, when rule 14 will apply.
It was further agreed that where teams tie on points for first place they will be declared joint champions.
Rule 21 Grading limits apply at the start of each season and will be taken from the grading list (excluding the rapidplay list) current at September 1st. Subsequent grading lists will be used to assist in placing players in board order but not to determine eligibility. latest national grading list (excluding the rapid play list).
Some feel the existing rule to be a little ambigous. The revised wording removes any hint of this.
Amendment agreed giving a revise rule as follows:-
Rule 21 Grading limits apply at the start of each season and will be taken from the grading list (excluding the rapidplay list) current at September 1st. Subsequent grading lists will be used to assist in placing players in board order but not to determine eligibility
DA also asked that if there are only 2 teams in the Open next season they could play a double round rather than a single game. CJ proposed that “in any section where there are two teams only, they may agree to play a double round”
This was agreed.
The amendments proposed and included in separate documents are directly connected with the County Championship proposals and will therefore depend on the decisions made under item 7.
9) ECF Membership Scheme
9.1) MCCU involvement with membership
The MCCU encourages players to become members of the new ECF membership scheme, and encourages affliated counties to consider becoming MO’s. However, the Union does not intend to seek MO status for itself.
Some delegates will be aware that the MCCU sought MO status when the previous scheme was introduced, this was initially agreed, but following the ECF AGM, the new ECF Board overturned this decision. At that time there was no facility for players to become “basic” members except through an MO. The MCCU sought to provide an opportunity for them to do by seeking MO status.
The position with the new scheme is rather different, in that all players can apply for membership at what will be the nearest equivalent of the old “basic” membership, without the need to go through an MO.
Given that there is no need for an MCCU MO to provide an avenue for membership that would not otherwise exist for players, it has been suggested that an MCCU MO is not required. It has also been suggested that we do not have the mechanisms in place, & there is some doubt that there would be willing volunteers to carry out the administration required. In additon, it is likely that a number of MOs will exist within the MCCU, & having 2 different MOs covering those areas could cause confusion.
9.2) ECF Membership requirements for the MCCU county team events
Again the motion below is intended to facilitate discussion–
The following be added to the end of the first paragraph of rule 2 relating to eligibility –
If the above is not passed then the following be inserted -
A number of counties include juniors in their teams who do not play in graded leagues. In addition captains find themselves asking for clearance for players who are quite new to chess or are returning after a break. These players may well not be ECF members at that point, and some may not wish to become members.
Captains already have a diffcult task in raising teams, the need to establish who is an ECF member & who is not, would add another hurdle to raising a full team. Do we wish to make the job more difficult & perhaps risk losing captains and teams? Given the increasing incidence of conceded matches and boards, do we wish to risk a further increase due to players who are otherwise eligble being unable to play?
The first proposal was rejected, with the second adopted.
10) Any other business
The email correspondence rules referred to earlier were discussed. CJ clarified that the intention was to offer both an email only event and the existing option which covers both email & postal transmission of moves. CJ reiterated that the existing option was generally unpopular, with suggestion that players had stopped entering because they did not wish to play any games by post.
The proposed rules were agreed.
JJ explained that following last year's AGM, when the position of Northants had been queried, she had made contact with the secretary. However, this had not resulted in details of their treasurer being provided, nor in any further response to approaches. AL had recently confirmed that he had not submitted an invoice for levy to Northants.
Quite recently a player from Northants had been in touch with RC, who had directed him to JJ. Their AGM was due to be held very recently & she was informed that the secretary would not be seeking re-election. The contact had agreed to let her know who had been elected & she was awaiting that information.
JJ remains of the view that a county that has not been invoiced for levy cannot be considered to be in default. Northants had not expressed a wish to disassociate itself from the MCCU, therefore they were still members. She proposed that the county be invoiced this year, with no request for any past fees that were not invoiced. This was agreed.
RC noted that Oxfordshire are listed as past champions in MCCU county events and that they were not affiliated to any Union. He asked that the CEO approach them with a view to rejoining the MCCU. This was agreed.
MN reported that approaches had been made with a view to Manchester joining the NCCU. JJ pointed out that there had been other cases of bodies being members of 2 Unions at the same time.
AH reported that as ECF County Controller he has been approached about reverting to the previous grading bands, he asked that the MCCU make such a proposal. JJ felt that as this had not been a specific agenda item delegates may feel unable to do so without consulting their counties. Leaving matters until the next AGM would be too late for a proposal to the April Council meeting, It was agreed that delegates be asked to consult and report back to the CEO with views.
11) Date/place of next meeting
22nd June – West Midlands possibly same venue in Lichfield as 2011.
|© Midland Counties Chess Union 2002-2012. All Rights Reserved. Contact us with questions, corrections, or comments about this web site. Hosted by our Internet services partner, EazyWebz UK|