
Originally Posted by
chesslover
In the AFL and Rugby League, it is the club that is the heart and soul of the game.
Most people follow Carlton, Essendon, Port Adelaide, West Coast, Kangaroos and Syndey - not the AFL as such. Similarly in the premier Rugby League comp in the world, the NRL, most people follow Souths, Brisbane, Canberra, Parramatta - rather than NRL. In my circumstances it is true for I follow the Sydney Swans, and the South Sydney Rabbotohs - and most AFL fans and Rugby League fans have their own clubs that they follow passionately. And the AFL and Rugby League supremos, know this - the game needs the club, and the club needs the game. If there are no clubs, there would be no game, and all clubs need other clubs to play with.
However in chess it seems that the role of clubs is different. Some clubs in NSW are "self sufficent", and are "self contained". Members of the big clubs like North Sydney, St George and even Rooty Hills can play their entire year in the club, and only will need the state chess federation for inter-club matches, weekenders, and the rating services. MCC is another example of a big club, with many members that is "self contained"
The club is the closest decentralised unit to the chess player. The chess player plays in the club tournaments, and is able to vote in AGMs to elect people who will represent his/her views and lok after the best interest of the club. The elected members of the club, are more likly to be aware of the issues of concern to the chess players, and are able to articualte that view to the state and australian chess federations. Being "close to the ground", there is also going to be more responsivness to the views and needs of the chess players in the club (in comparision to the state or australian chess federations), and their actions can be more closely scruntinised and be held accountable.
is it time for us to recognise the imprtant role that the club pays in the chess scene, and in particualr the way there is accountability, and grass roots democracy in the chess club scene that is lacking in a state federation, or for that matter moist certainly in the ACF scene?
Should we in the next AGM, look at a club based structure for the NSWCA, rather than the current membership based structure?
If that is too radical, then why not do what the great democracies like USA and Australia have to ensure that the rights of the states are looked after, and have a 50/50 vote for NSWCA AGM votingand Council elections - with half the reps elected by the clubs (akin to a Senate) and the other half by the rank and file NSWCA members?
A club based chess structure is the way to go - it will lead to more empowerment, accountability, democracy, responsivness and flexibility