PDA

View Full Version : The role of clubs in chess



chesslover
18-01-2004, 11:53 AM
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

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 06:14 PM
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
Then I therefore suggest you move to Victoria. :-''

NSW used to have a club based scheme for many years but it was not working successfuly and was replaced some time in the late or early 80's.

As for the Senate it is one of the most useless bodies in the country. Emulating it isnt the way to go.

ursogr8
18-01-2004, 06:57 PM
A club based chess structure is the way to go - it will lead to more empowerment, accountability, democracy, responsivness and flexibility
Then I therefore suggest you move to Victoria. :-''



I am not one to knock back volunteers.
But Bill. CL?

Convince me that he is a contributor of other than posts.

starter

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 07:48 PM
A club based chess structure is the way to go - it will lead to more empowerment, accountability, democracy, responsivness and flexibility
Then I therefore suggest you move to Victoria. :-''



I am not one to knock back volunteers.
But Bill. CL?

Convince me that he is a contributor of other than posts.

starter
I have no clue who his is.
He has not in any of his posts indicated that he is a contributor to chess admin in any capacity.

Garvinator
18-01-2004, 07:50 PM
A club based chess structure is the way to go - it will lead to more empowerment, accountability, democracy, responsivness and flexibility
Then I therefore suggest you move to Victoria. :-''



I am not one to knock back volunteers.
But Bill. CL?

Convince me that he is a contributor of other than posts.

starter
I have no clue who his is.
He has not in any of his posts indicated that he is a contributor to chess admin in any capacity.

as you would know starter, that was one of the great guessing games of the old bb, who is CL? :-$

shaun
18-01-2004, 09:40 PM
as you would know starter, that was one of the great guessing games of the old bb, who is CL? :-$

Oh this is easy. To give the answer would spoil the fun. But if you must know, the big clue is in the Olympiad Selection thread.

chesslover
18-01-2004, 09:59 PM
Does it really matter who I am?

Instead of speculating about me, why not look at the merit of what I have stated?

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 10:07 PM
Does it really matter who I am?

Instead of speculating about me, why not look at the merit of what I have stated?
I did and rejected it like the NSWCA and its members did years ago.

skip to my lou
18-01-2004, 10:12 PM
So...... who is CL? 8-[

Garvinator
18-01-2004, 10:13 PM
So...... who is CL? 8-[
send shaun a pm and let him answer there :)

chesslover
18-01-2004, 10:26 PM
So...... who is CL? 8-[
send shaun a pm and let him answer there :)

But that could be just pure speculation on the part of Shaun. Just becuase Shaun thinks I am Mr X, does not mean I am Mr X - that is just his guess on who I am

I have been accused of being 6 different people during the time in the BB, and only once has a person come close to the mark

chesslover
18-01-2004, 10:32 PM
Then I therefore suggest you move to Victoria. :-''

NSW used to have a club based scheme for many years but it was not working successfuly and was replaced some time in the late or early 80's.

As for the Senate it is one of the most useless bodies in the country. Emulating it isnt the way to go.

What were the main weaknesses that caused us to go to the membership based system? How come then that the Victorians still continue with the club based membership system?

And for your info, the Senate is importamnt for it ensures that there are checks and balances.

You will correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recollect that the senate based system (50% by clubs/ 50% individual) was ever mooted as a replacement for the club based system

skip to my lou
18-01-2004, 10:44 PM
So...... who is CL? 8-[
send shaun a pm and let him answer there :)

But that could be just pure speculation on the part of Shaun. Just becuase Shaun thinks I am Mr X, does not mean I am Mr X - that is just his guess on who I am

I have been accused of being 6 different people during the time in the BB, and only once has a person come close to the mark

Are you Mrs X? :oops: :D :x

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 10:46 PM
Then I therefore suggest you move to Victoria. :-''

NSW used to have a club based scheme for many years but it was not working successfuly and was replaced some time in the late or early 80's.

As for the Senate it is one of the most useless bodies in the country. Emulating it isnt the way to go.

What were the main weaknesses that caused us to go to the membership based system?
I believe it was felt that club delegates voting was not as democratic as individual members voting. For more details you could always ask Peter Parr as I'm sure he would know.


[How come then that the Victorians still continue with the club based membership system?
Don't be stupid thats Obvious. They are Victorians, they dont know any better. ;)


[And for your info, the Senate is importamnt for it ensures that there are checks and balances.
Thats your opinion.
As Paul Keating said "unrepresentative swill".


[You will correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recollect that the senate based system (50% by clubs/ 50% individual) was ever mooted as a replacement for the club based system
Firstly its incorrect for you to refer to such a thing as the senate based system as it is in now way related to how the Australian senate is elected.
Secondly the system you propose is undemocratic.

Lastly we would be better off thinging of ways to actually improve chess in NSW and Australia instead of this exercise in rearranging chairs.

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 10:59 PM
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
That isnt correct.
A member of a chess club has an individual vote.
A member of the NSWCA has an individual vote.



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?
Apart from the fact that I dont see this as being democratic(some people could effectively get 3 votes because they belong to 2 clubs), it isnt even true to suggest that one group should be elected this way.
In politics you have a house of reps and a house of review(senate).
All NSW senators do not vote against legislation because it is bad for NSW they vote along party lines.
As such the senate is anything but representaing states rights.

Also how would you determine which positions of the NSWCA Council are voted for by clubs and which by members.


A club based chess structure is the way to go - it will lead to more empowerment, accountability, democracy, responsivness and flexibility
Actually I would argue that it leads to less of all those things rather than more.

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 11:01 PM
So...... who is CL? 8-[
send shaun a pm and let him answer there :)

But that could be just pure speculation on the part of Shaun. Just becuase Shaun thinks I am Mr X, does not mean I am Mr X - that is just his guess on who I am

I have been accused of being 6 different people during the time in the BB, and only once has a person come close to the mark

Are you Mrs X? :oops: :D :x
:D

chesslover
18-01-2004, 11:25 PM
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
That isnt correct.
A member of a chess club has an individual vote.
A member of the NSWCA has an individual vote.



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?
Apart from the fact that I dont see this as being democratic(some people could effectively get 3 votes because they belong to 2 clubs), it isnt even true to suggest that one group should be elected this way.
In politics you have a house of reps and a house of review(senate).
All NSW senators do not vote against legislation because it is bad for NSW they vote along party lines.
As such the senate is anything but representaing states rights.

Also how would you determine which positions of the NSWCA Council are voted for by clubs and which by members.


A club based chess structure is the way to go - it will lead to more empowerment, accountability, democracy, responsivness and flexibility
Actually I would argue that it leads to less of all those things rather than more.

1.Ok fair enough. I thought it was a good idea when I thought of it, but obviously there are some holes in it

2. The general principle is that a club elected rep is going to be more representative, accountable of the views of that local club chess players, than a person elected by individuals to the state chess federation.

The question is how to marry up and link the state chess federation, and the democracy, responsiveness, representiveness and empowerment that happens when the local club elects it's local club executive...

the three tiers of chess administration, local club, state chess federaton and the australian chess federation, approxinmate to the local government, state government and federal government structure.

Here Carr has responsibility for the local councils, and has a minister who is responsible for local councils.

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 11:44 PM
2. The general principle is that a club elected rep is going to be more representative, accountable of the views of that local club chess players, than a person elected by individuals to the state chess federation.
That may sound good in theory but would fail in practice.
The larger clubs would just colude to ensure that they each got a club rep on the Council.
Council members directly elected by their members is more democratic.
Also all council members do actually belong to clubs.

St.George by Charles Z, Kerry Stead, Manuel Weeks and others
North Sydney by Norm Greenwood.
Rooty Hill by Peter Cassettari
Canterbury by Bob Keast and Paul Sike and in the past Fred Flatow.
Ryde Eastwood by me.


The question is how to marry up and link the state chess federation, and the democracy, responsiveness, representiveness and empowerment that happens when the local club elects it's local club executive...

the three tiers of chess administration, local club, state chess federaton and the australian chess federation, approxinmate to the local government, state government and federal government structure.

Here Carr has responsibility for the local councils, and has a minister who is responsible for local councils.
I'm not sure thats an analogy I'd be wanting to make. ;)

ursogr8
19-01-2004, 07:09 AM
A club based chess structure is the way to go - it will lead to more empowerment, accountability, democracy, responsivness and flexibility
Then I therefore suggest you move to Victoria. :-''



I am not one to knock back volunteers.
But Bill. CL?

Convince me that he is a contributor of other than posts.

starter
I have no clue who his is.
He has not in any of his posts indicated that he is a contributor to chess admin in any capacity.

Bill
We have our quota of these already. Thanks for the implied offer. But no.
starter

eclectic
12-02-2004, 02:11 PM
my word,

this poll sure provides an ECLECTIC range of answers from which to choose

:rolleyes:

(can you vote for more than one?)

chesslover
12-02-2004, 06:00 PM
my word,

this poll sure provides an ECLECTIC range of answers from which to choose

:rolleyes:

(can you vote for more than one?)

The poll got stuffed in the move to the new version of the BB

The poll question was whether the VCA's club based state membership was better than individual based membership - with the options being Yes/ NO

I have no idea why there is so much incorrect options