1 2 3 4 1+2 3+ tot g 97/8 8 7 7 6 15 13 28 778 98/9 8 7 8 7 15 15 30 882 99/0 8 8 6 7 16 13 29 848 0/1 8 8 6 16 6 22 680 1/2 7 8 8 15 8 23 714 2/3 7 8 8 15 8 23 714 3/4 8 7 8 15 8 23 714 4/5 8 8 11 16 11 27 1000 5/6 8 8 11 16 11 27 1000

1 2 3 4 5 1+2 3+ tot g 6/7 6 9 7 11 15 18 33 1118 7/8 5 8 8 11 13 19 32 1044 8/9 6 8 7 7 6 14 20 34 886 9/10 4 10 6 5 7 14 18 32 878 10/11 5 8 7 6 7 13 20 33 836 11/12 5 7 9 8 12 17 29 822 12/13 5 6 10 10 11 20 31 970 13/14 4 9 8 7 6 13 21 34 932 14/15 6 6 10 7 7 12 24 36 996

The table above shows the number of teams participating in each division each year, with the last nine seasons of promotion and relegation on the left, the first nine of our current system on the right. The final column g shows the total number of individual games provided. There has clearly been an increase in the number of teams playing since the change.

Discussions of the new season at pre-change AGMs was dominated by clubs saying that their teams did not want to be promoted as they would be cannon fodder, with teams at the bottom of divisions still wanting to be relegated as they had done their duty of being kicked from pillar to post for a year. Although clubs were more vociferous about crossing the div1/2 divide, there were still objections to moving up from 3 to 2. It is no surprise then that after the change the number of teams in the top two divisions has declined in total. With just the odd exception elsewhere it is only Cheddleton who are bringing through new players. Otherwise we seem to be relying on ready made imports to replace those strong players who have either retired from the game or suffered from declining powers.

Whilst nearly all top boards in division 3 are of at least fringe division one standard, the substantial increase in the number of teams in divisions 3 and below is surely driven by better retention of players of modest standard, many of whom have only taken up the game competitively on retirement.

As divisions one and two are contested over 5 boards, three and below over four, the increase in boards is smaller. Thus in 2005/6 the 27 teams provided 124 boards, by 14/15 the increase in teams by a third to 36 only resulted in an increase of about a quarter to 156 boards.

The total number of games is much more erratic as large divisions can provide far more games than a combination of smaller ones. For example the largest divisions in recent years have had 11 teams, giving rise to 110 matches. This is almost the same as two eight team divisions which between them provide 112 matches. However, whilst 9 years hardly constitutes a large sample, I'll still point out that the average number of games increased from 814 per year pre-change to 942 post-change.

Most importantly of all though we no longer hear complaints of "we don't want to play in that division as we'll just be cannon fodder", though there are quieter ones of "we want to duff people up, but nobody will play us".

	Als	Che	Cre	Fen	HC	Kid	Mac	Mei	New	Sta
before	1	15+1		1	3+1	1	2	3+1	2	0
after	1	16+3	0	10	2+1	0	2+1	2	2+2	3

Notes:
Alsager includes Broughton Arms, Cheddleton includes Leek St Edwards, Fenton includes Foley, Holmes Chapel includes RHHC, Meir includes Trentham and Creda.
I do not have division 3 winners from 2001/2.
Numbers after "+" denote involvement in a tie. There was one triple tie in the 9 seasons pre-change, a triple and two ordinary ties post-change.

Two comments seem obvious. Firstly the change has not put a dent in Cheddleton's success. This may be a disappointment to some, but was never part of the agenda for making the change.

Secondly the distribution of honours is near ideal, with the two clubs whose lead organisers are most closely associated with the motto "it is not the taking part but the winning that counts" taking the lions share of titles, but leaving enough for the other clubs to pick up the occasional bit of silverware. Thus all should be happy.

3a of our constitution currently says Any club whose venue is within 30 kilometres of Hanley bus station shall be eligible for membership of the Association. It is proposed to change the 30 km to 25 miles, which as near as makes no difference is 40 km. Not that our masters will tell us that they are intending a one third increase in the radius of our catchment area, or a near 80% increase in that area.

So what is the effect?

Below is a diagram showing the circles that enclose our current and proposed catchment areas. Current clubs are shown in large bold, the eight extra clubs that would fall into our new area by red dots. Both Stockport and East Cheshire play in that part of Cheadle Hulme that lies within the expanded area.

The table below the diagram gives straight line distances from Hanley bus station as found from a distance between two postcodes page hosted by the department for education. The table also includes Ashbourne Town Hall, because I felt like it, and Priorslee Lions, being the nearest of the three Telford clubs, and within a credible change of venue of becoming eligible. Malpas & Whitchurch would remain outside our area as they meet at Tilston, a village (hamlet?) northwest of the settlements that give the club its name.

		Miles	Km				Miles	Km
Hanley Bus Station	ST1 3AD	0	0		Ashbourne Town Hall	DE6 1ES	18.5	29.7
Newcastle	ST5 1EL	2.1	3.4		Newport	TF10 7DP	19.5	31.4
Fenton	ST3 4EB	3.4	5.5		Rugeley	WS15 2LB	21	33.7
Meir	ST3 7JF	4	6.4		Wilmslow	SK9 5EG	21.2	34.1
Kidsgrove	ST7 4JT	5.5	8.9		Northwich	CW8 4EB	22.3	35.9
Alsager	ST7 2NW	7.5	12		East Cheshire	SK8 6LQ	23.7	38.2
Cheddleton	ST13 8LU	7.8	12.5		Brewood	ST19 9BG	23.8	38.2
Crewe	CW1 2PY	12.5	20.1		Stockport	SK8 5AT	24.3	39
Stafford	ST16 3DR	14.1	22.6		Cannock	WS11 0JB	24.5	39.5
Holmes Chapel	CW4 7BE	14.2	22.8		Priorslee Lions	TF2 9NN	25.9	41.6
Macclesfield	SK11 6LL	16.4	26.4

I have to admit that my reaction is partly along "I'm all right Jack" lines. Newcastle is fairly central so I'd still be faced with shorter journeys than several have now. I don't drive, so can quitly snooze in the back of a car whilst someone else has to negotiate lengthy unpleasant driving conditions. Late nights have never worried me, and as I don't work early starts are no problem either. I've a sneaking suspicion that not every member of every club would feel equally untroubled about the prospect of some of the potential journeys. But no doubt our leadership will make everyone fully aware of the potential effects of the change before asking us to vote on it. On the other hand, nothing has been said so far, betraying an attitude of "if you don't spot the change or realise the implications, tough".

A change to Any club whose venue is within 30 kilometres of Hanley bus station shall automatically be eligible for membership of the Association; applications from clubs beyond this will be considered on a case by case basis would allow us to retain control over expansion, though no doubt it could be worded better. Perhaps however the question that needs to be asked is "Why the change from 30 km to 25 miles?" Are we really to believe that our leaders think there is no difference between the two?

There are plenty of people who like to receive results, myself included, and who hopefully are grateful for those that come their way. I certainly am. But we have a man in charge of makimg sure results get to those who need to know. No matter how easy it is for those comfortable with IT to send results to multiple recipients, I fail to see why it should be a necessity.

We don't have a post entitled webmaster no matter what the work of fiction misleadingly entitled Correct Rules and Constitution may say, though the proposed constitution names an officer "Publicity Secretary/Webmaster".

Meanwhile there is a great panic about turning the President into an Hon President, who would chair meetings when the chairman is unavailable, chair the disputes committtee, retain his vote and have a three year tenure. The idea arose after the second committee meeting, so has not gone through committee despite being a change in the constitution.

A further constitutional change that has not gone through committee would see the results secretary promoted from official to officer status, giving him a vote. This seems to be entirely the wrong direction of travel. As the NSDCA is an association of clubs there seems to be a strong case for voting at the AGM to be restricted to clubs, except of course for a chairman's casting vote. These proposals raise the number of non-club votes from 4 to 5, increasing the chance that in a close vote the executive will be able to overule the clubs. A final twist is that under the proposals, the chairman's will find his voting rights downgraded from full to casting only. Unless of course it is intended that he can use his vote normally to create a tie, and then again to break it.

It is clear that these changes have not been made with the Association in mind, but the current incumbents of the top table. Or are we to believe these changes would be being pushed if an entirely different group of people were in office?

Now you may have thought that officers were elected for the benefit of the Association. But we discover that the secretary wants more privileges, the publicity officer more titles, the results secretary a personal vote, and the president more tenure. When did we become the sort of tin-pot organisation where such self-aggrandizement became de rigueur? As an exercise the reader might like to make a list of all the ways in which the Association would benefit from these proposed changes. Does your list extend beyond zero items?

Currently the non-executive members of the executive committee are elected by the AGM. It is proposed to change this so that all clubs not otherwise represented on the committee nominate a member. It is not clear whether a single nomination is made by each club for the year, or whether they can nominate on a meeting by meeting basis. Who could possibly argue against the democracy of that?

Me.

Currently the size of the committee is fixed at eleven, and in terms of the size of the Association we are near to a Goldilocks situation in which all clubs could have a member on the committee. Ten clubs, Cheddleton grab three spots (president, secretary, treasurer), leaving 8 spots for the other nine clubs. Before Crewe were formed, Newcastle had two members on the committee - myself as well as Alan Paling - so there was still one space less than the number of remaining clubs.

The change looks tempting. But less so if the Association doubled in size giving an unwieldy committee in excess of 20. Or halved in size, meaning that a full meeting would be barely quorate.

Bill Armstrong is stepping down as treasurer. Suppose we appoint someone from Meir as his successor. That would mean that Bob Perry, a long standing and respected member of the committee would be ejected even though a nominated member from another club who might never attend meetings would be retained.

Indeed non-attending members may be a problem, as they are a short cut to allowing the executive to dominate committee meetings. Fine if said executive act on a belief that they are there for the benefit of all, not so good if they use their positions simply to further their own club's causes. Similarly those who believe they are supporting the Association simply by voting for whatever the officers want do little for the committee.

By far the biggest objection however is that the nominated members would not be answerable to the AGM, only to their own clubs. Thus if Newcastle nominated that horrible Harris chap, he could behave how he wished at meetings and there would be nothing the AGM could do about it, whereas currently the AGM can remove anyone for any reason - attendance record, voting record, behaviour, etc.

The whole idea seems based on the confrontational model that committee meetings are competitions to be won for the benefit of one's own club, rather than are opportunities for co-operation to lead to improvements for everyone.

Applehood and mother pie, not motherhood and apple pie.

EGMs

However it does not seem unreasonable to allow EGMs provided they are properly used, so the questions arise who can call one, and what can they be used for?

To me the answer to the second question is fairly obvious - anything that might normally be covered in an AGM but which cannot wait for the next one. There can be no need for rule or constitutional changes mid-season, so these would be excluded, whilst using an EGM to collect advice for the committee to ponder is a sledgehammer approach. Removal of non-performing officers and officials, filling executive vacancies (the constitution is silent on whether the committee has any right to co-opt anyone to fill these), taking advantage of opportunities that could create significant expenditure commitments are some things that might well require an EGM.

It has to be admitted though that EGMs are not an ideal tool. Inevitably their sudden appearance will not be convenient for all who might reasonably want to attend. They should not be called on a personal whim. I would have thought that a minimum requirement would be three people from three clubs. Instead the proposals make an EGM a tool of the executive only. Again this is design for the benefit of the executive rather than the association as a whole. Indeed I believe it should always be named individuals from named clubs who should call an EGM. If the executive want an EGM, they should have no problem finding three bodies from three clubs willing to put their names to the call. It should not be possible for one or two clubs with large numbers of officers to put everyone else through the inconvenience of an otherwise unwanted EGM.

The clause in all its procedural glory is

e) All decisions of this second Extraordinary General Meeting shall prove to be binding on the Association, and shall be put into operation immediately subsequent to such a meeting.

Now it is suggested that we be lumbered with two contradictory statements, one saying that what the EGM decides counts, and one telling the EGM how to dispose of assets. Question, once you have decided to dissolve the Association what is left to decide other than how to settle any outstanding debts or distribute remaining assets?

Lets take a step back. Suppose we had wanted to dissolve the Association before 2004. With no dissolution clause at that time, how might that have been achieved. Try this:
Committee meeting called, proposal of addition to constitution agreed: Association can be dissolved by simple majority vote to that effect at AGM.
AGM: Above proposal passed. Written straight into constitution and becomes immediately effective as per constitution. Later in AGM proposal to dissolve passed.
Done.

Read this quietly so as not to upset others, but there is nothing stopping a future committee taking this or a similar route when it comes to call time on our activities.

In order to test the quality of our dissolution clause we need not merely to consider whether a future committee will choose to overwrite it when the time comes for its use, but whether it will be of use at that time, be it 5 or 5 billion years hence.

How might the Association come to an end?

1. Some stuffed shirts decide the league is no longer viable and wish to bring things to an end properly.
2. Force majeure: A spoilsport government bans the game, or the earth is demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass.
3. It fades away through lack of players and/or organisers.
4. It gets taken over or merged with some other Association.

Does it matter if the Association just fades away? Its the assets stupid. If the Association takes on a neither dead nor alive zombie existence, then its assets are in limbo. Not that this would be a big deal if the assets consisted of twopence ha'penny in a bank account and a few battered cheap trophies. But some of our trophies are, as the saying goes, worth a bob or two. Hence the "or if two consecutive full years elapse in which the Association organises no competitions" part of my suggestion to enable the assets to be put to use even if no deliberate end has been made to the Association. Not that there is anything special about two years, it could say five if this was thought better at establishing that life has been extinquished beyond recall.

The AGM agenda doesn't state how the proposals will be handled, individually or en masse, but if we are lucky there will be a single propsal to accept the proposed new constitution so that it can be sorted with a single vote.

To me the whole thrust of the changes is to strengthen the position of the executive relative to the clubs, and made in an unexplained manner that seems to shout that it is up to clubs to look out for themselves rather than the elected officers and officials doing it for them. With future committee meetings almost bound to be barely quorate by proposed design, we would be set for a period in which the AGM would forever have to be on the watch to fend off unwanted proposals from an executive dominated committee that pushed their own clubs interests rather than looking after the needs of the Association as a whole. No prizes for guessing that this is not how I believe the Association should operate, and I'm hoping that enough of you will agree that we can vote down the proposed new constitution.

Don't we all love the grade limited cup competitions? You decide to enter a team, only to discover that critical members (captain, transport) are overgraded. Still it'll probably only be one or two games, and once we've lost we're out anyway. Might as well play.

It is difficult to be so relaxed about entering a team in a league with a strict individual grading limit, so fudging the limit somehow becomes desirable. Such fudging can have the following aims:

1. To enable forward planning by ensuring that those who would otherwise be just over the limit remain eligible,
2. to increase the chance of a club being able to create a competitive team, and hence be willing to enter,
3. to allow a club with a single strong player to enter a team in a competition suitable for the majority of their players rather than just their number one,
4. to create extra playing opportunities for strong players in general. Weaker players are eligible for lots of competitions anyway; without a fudge strong players would find their opportunities very limited.

If we wanted division five to be restricted to players graded at most 100, we could put a team limit of 400 on, with a minimum counting grade of 100. A small reduction in the MCG introduces some flexibility to field players graded over 100. Thus if the MCG was reduced to 90, the following teams would be eligible:
130, 90-, 90-, 90-
110, 110, 90-, 90-
104, 103, 103, 90-

To my mind these would be more in line with the division five philosophy than the current amended set-up of a strict limit of 125 and team limit of 400, which allows
125, 125, 125, 25- as a fifth division team. Somehow I cannot bring myself to see such a relatively strong combination of top boards as forwarding the objective of providing chess for players of modest standard.

Onwards. Time to consider division three, our 520 league, simply because its currently the biggest one with teams from 8 of our 10 clubs competing. Hence most clubs will automatically have a feeling of what is right for the division.

Currently the MCG is set at 25 below the divisional average. So average 130, MCG 105, possible line-ups on the limit:
205, 105-, 105-, 105-
155, 155, 105-, 105-
139, 138, 138, 105-.

This gives plenty of scope for a single strong player to compete, or possibly two fringe first division players to play together. At the beginning of discussions on the proposals, it was suggested that a further reduction in the minimum counting grade of 20 was in order, so the middle of the three line-ups given above could become 175, 175, 85-, 85-. Putting some names in, a Newcastle team headed by Reinhold Heinlein (181) and Alan Paling (168) would have become eligible last season if backed up by say Derrick Jones (83) and Ben Lack (65). Regardless of how you think your third division team would get on against such a side, would their presence enhance the third division experience?

There are those who feel that any sort of constraint impinges on their rights to field who they want, so the suggestion to reduce the MCG by 20 was replaced by one to do away with it altogether. That Newcastle team could now be headed by Reinhold Heinlein (181), Alan Paling (168) and Martyn Harris (163). Their grades total 512, leaving 8 left, which just happens to be the last known grade of May Jones, and 8 better than the well-known Mr D Fault. If the suggestion of doing away with the MCG ever comes to a vote you will have to decide whether this is how you want division three to evolve. Or how about a second division side of Dave Buxton (189), Simon Edwards (181), Simon Gilmore (173), Bill Armstrong (158) together with some random junior whose estimated grade happens to be small enough to render the team legal? My feelings are that we do not need to allow hordes of strong players to march through the lower divisions together. The decision may be yours.