Mid-Sussex Chess League Minutes

Meeting Title: / Mid-Sussex Chess League Annual General Meeting
Date: / Tuesday 19th June 2012 7.30pm
Voting Representatives: / Mike Card (The Argumentatives), Sue Chadwick , Luke Rutherford, Geoffrey James, Paul Batchelor, Rob Council (Brighton & Hove 1-5), Jonathan Tuck, David Fryer (Crowborough 1&2), John Moore,Mike Elgin (Eastbourne 1&2), Bob Dyke, Suzanne Marshall (East Grinstead 1&2), Richard Almond, Paul Buswell, Joe Sharp (Hastings & St Leonards 1-3), Anthony Higgs, Ian Comley, John Cannon, Julie Denning, Richard Moorhouse (Horsham 1-5), Simon Wrigley (Knoll Knights), Barry Maufe, Danny Brooks (Lewes 1&2), Jeffrey Broadman, Roland Ratray, Dick Mercer (St Francis & Haywards Heath 1-3), Sue Carter, Ken Swanton (Uckfield 1&2), Chris Jones (Worthing 1)
Others Present: / Doug Stevenson, Robert Elliston, Robert Dyke, Jonathan Tuck, Robert Counsell, Matthew Britnell, John Herbert
Item / Minutes
Chairman’s opening remarks and apologies for absence:
  • Don Grant sent his apologies (due to an accident)

Minutes of 2011 AGM (previously circulated)
  • Subject to correction of the year (to 2011) the meeting unanimously agreed the minutes as a true record.

Secretary’s report and matters arising
  • There were no matters to report on this occasion.

Page 1 of 9

Mid-Sussex Chess League Minutes

Treasurer’s report and matters arising:
  • Doug Stevenson, the treasurer, presented the accounts which had been audited by John Herbert
  • There had been more teams than budgeted before with a net gain of £20.
  • There was a surplus in engraving costs of £30 but following the drawing up of the accounts an additional charge of £45 had arisen which will appear in next year’s accounts.
  • The Holt had contributed £110 to the league as they closed their operations. Some of this money had been used to buy and engrave a new Knockout Trophy (as the previous one was completely full).
  • There was a surplus of £70 which the treasurer and the committee recommended should be carried forward which will allow a float for new trophies etc going forwards.
  • The accounts were proposed by Bob Dyke and seconded by Chris Jones and unanimously carried.
  • Looking forwards to next year’s subscriptions the treasurer noted the ECF changes to the game fees. In future ECF members will not be charged a game fee but non-members will be charged £2 per game.
  • Subject to the agreement of the rule change to be considered later which would allow the League to reclaim the game fees from the clubs the treasurer recommended to charge team fees of £5 for each team with no fees for Knockout teams.
  • Jeffrey Boardman proposed also charging £5 for Knockout teams which might allow the league some float but this was not agreed following a vote with 6 in favour and 8 against.
  • This was proposed by Jeff Boardman and seconded by Sue Carter and the vote was carried in favour 19-2.

Fixtures Secretary’s report and matters arising including guidance on arrangements for next season:
  • Julie Denning , the Fixtures Secretary, presented the Fixture Secretary’s report (see annex)
  • Matthew Britnell, supported by other members , thanked Julie for her excellent work throughout the season
  • Looking forward to next season she sought guidance from the meeting as to how to arrange the divisions next year.
  • Current expectations were that there might be additional2 or 3 teams next season although this remained uncertain. There was a discussion around whether 3 or 4 divisions preferred.
  • If 4 divisions are preferred then there were two approaches:
  • Dividing the divisions into 4 equally sized divisions (to achieve 4 equal divisions immediately)
  • Enhanced promotions and relegations (this will require more than 1 season to achieve balance). If any division is particularly small a double round could be considered.
  • There was also a possibility of having a double round if the bottom division ended up less than 6.
  • The discussion was opened to the floor:
  • Luke Rutherford argued for 3 divisions on the basis that this resulted in more chess
  • David Fryer made the point that he played for Uckfield which was in the lower end of the first division but he enjoyed his chess nonetheless and this argued against the feeling that some divisions had become polarised in terms of strength.
  • John Moore said that Eastbourne was in favour of 4 divisions rather 3 because one of their teams had had a torrid time, suffering serious mismatches week after week.
  • Mike Card argued for four divisions on the basis that this provided more stability and stability was highly desirable in its own right.
  • Jeff Boardman congratulated Uckfield on achieving their only win against St Francis and Haywards Heath but argued for 4 divisions as their second team had suffered being the whipping boys in their division. In answer to Luke Rutherford’s point about maximising chess games he argued that the season was already quite full by the time you included other Sussex competitions such as the MacArthur’s cup and Paul Watson cup
  • David Fryer said that many teams liked to stay in a higher division despite being heavily outgraded because they enjoyed playing stronger opposition.
  • Jonathan Tuck accepted that the committee had raised the possibility of this occurring but said that it still seemed unfair to individual clubs who had worked hard to avoid relegation. He proposed deciding the approach tonight but deferring its application for a year so that it is absolutely clear what will happen in 2013-14.
  • Sue Carter mentioned the possibility of having a lower division consisting of juniors playing,perhaps, 1 hour time limits. The chair reminded the meeting that this had also been floated last year but no specific proposals had come forward to progress this.
  • Following this discussion there was a vote on Jonathan Tuck’s proposal that the league should return to 4 equal divisions in 2013-14. This was agreed by 17votes in favour and 8 against.
  • There was a further discussion about how best to arrange this including Anthony Higgs’ suggestion of providing scenarios for 34,35, 36 and 37 teams; Jeff Boardman’s proposal to do normal relegations and demotions and then split absolutely equally; Paul Buswell argued that this was a matter for the committee to consider and resolve at the start of the season; John Herbert supported Paul Buswell’s proposal
  • It was agreed by a vote of 21-1 that the committee should arrange the teams into “4 equal divisions as far as possible”

Match Recorder’s report and matters arising:
  • The chair read the Match Recorder’s report (see annex) due to his absence
  • The chair thanked the Match Recorder for his work during the season

County Adjudication Secretary’s report and matters arising:
  • There were 11 adjudication’s with 2 appeals (only 1 upheld)
  • This was the first season where adjudications could be submitted by email and this worked well with losing parties paying promptly
  • John Herbert reminded the meeting that the new rules appeared on the MSL website

Presentation of Trophies:
  1. Brighton & Hove 1 – winners of division 1
  2. Lewes 1 – winners of division 2
  3. Hastings & St Leonard’s 3 – winners of division 3
  4. Uckfield – winners of Knockout
  5. Richard Moorhouse – best individual performance (8/9 for Horsham 3,4 & 5)
  6. Luke Rutherford – best individual performance in division 1 (9/11 for Brighton & Hove 1)
  7. Martin Costley – best individual performance in division 2 (7.5/9 for Lewes 1 & 2)
  8. Richard Moorhouse – best individual performance in division 3 (8/8 for Horsham 3 & 4)

Election of Officers:
  1. Chairman – Doug Stevenson
  2. Secretary – Ian Comley
  3. Fixtures Secretary – Julie Denning
  4. Treasurer – Doug Stevenson
  5. Match Recorder – Don Grant
  6. Web manager – Julie Denning
  7. Auditor – John Herbert
  • All the current officers agreed to stand again and they were unanimously re-elected
  • Mike Card paid specific thanks to Don Grant for serving as Match Recorder for so long
  • John Cannon also asked that the minutes should record the appreciation of the League for the good work of the committee

SCCA matters relating to the League and its clubs.
  • There was nothing to report on this occasion.

Proposals for rule changes:
  1. Lewes proposal to reinstate partially the previous Rule 1.3 which accommodated the option for a 2nd division team to decline promotion
  2. Barry Maufe proposed the new wording on behalf of Lewes as follows:
1.3Promotion & relegation From season to season, promotion and relegation shall operate on a two-up, two-down basis across all divisions. Each team that wins promotion must take their place in the higher division next season, with the exception of the team placed second in the second division, who may decline promotion. Should this option be exercised only one team shall be demoted from the first division. Other adjustments may also be made by the Management Committee from time to time as teams enter or withdraw from the League.
  1. The chair reminded the meeting that this provision had dated back to when the first division was six boards and lower divisions were five. As a result some teams could not muster a credibly strong six board team.
  2. John Cannon said that in the past Horsham 2 had sometimes chosen to decline promotion because of the disparity in standard
  3. Dick Mercer argued that this rule should only be applied if the team being relegated agreed to not being relegated
  4. David Fryer argued that if you are promoted then you should go up
  5. Luke Rutherford and Jonathan Tuck also agreed that promotion should be accepted
  6. Barry Maufe proposed an amendment to the original proposal so that promotion is reliant on the agreement of the club not being relegated.
  7. The amendment was agreed 16 votes in favour to 9 against and the subsequent vote agreed the amended proposal 16 in favour 10 against.

  1. Lewes proposal to amend Rule 14.1 to specify clearly the AGM agenda timetable
  2. Matthew Britnell proposed this on behalf of Lewes emphasising that this was no criticism of the secretary but instead sought to regularise the arrangements:
“14.1 Annual General Meeting The Annual General Meeting of the League will be held in June each year. The League Secretary shall require AGM business to be submitted 28 days prior to the date of the meeting and shall give notice of this requirement at least 49 days prior to the date of the meeting by circular to member clubs. The agenda shall be published at least 14 days but not more than 28 days before the date of the meeting. The business of the meeting shall include reports from league officers, submission of annual accounts and election of officers for the forthcoming season, and may include proposals for rule changes and consideration of other matters of concern to the league.”
  1. Sue Chadwick argued that the proposal was restrictive and the chair said that the current arrangements were done on a reasonable basis
  2. Ian Comley , as the existing Secretary, argued that it could give rise to practical difficulties with holidays etc leading to an inadvertent contravention of the rules
  3. This was not agreed following a vote with 5 in favour and 19 against

  1. Lewes proposal to amend Rule 14.3 concerning voting rights
  2. Danny Brooks introduced this saying that although the change was not democratic it would offer a cap and prevent block votes by larger clubs:

“Proposed amendment (a)

14.3 Voting at meetings A club may be represented at any general meeting by one member for each team it had during the current season, subject to a maximum of three representatives per club. All matters to be determined shall be decided by a simple majority of such representatives who are present and voting.

Proposed amendment (b) if (a) fails

14.3 Voting at meetings A club may be represented at any general meeting by one member for each team it had during the current season, subject to a maximum of four representatives per club.All matters to be determined shall be decided by a simple majority of such representatives who are present and voting.”
  1. Sue Chadwick said that Brighton do not vote together and it was only fair and democratic for a club to have the same number of votes as teams
  2. Anthony Higgs argued that this was penalising successful clubs and did not allow a club to fully represent its interests
  3. Luke Rutherford made the argument that a club does not always vote together with the joke that Brighton 1 was not really interested in their lower teams
  4. Doug Stevenson, speaking as an Eastbourne member, said that he had never felt this was a problem. On behalf of the Management Committee he argued that this was not democratic and should be opposed.
  5. Mike Card pointed out that he had only 1 vote and he relied on his skills as a speaker
  6. Ian Comley, speaking as a Horsham member, asked the proposer how he would choose which team should be disenfranchised particularly as some issues affected different teams in very different ways (eg the quickplay debate)
  7. This proposal was not passed following a vote with 4 in favour and 20 against.

  1. MSL Committee proposal to amend Rule 2.6 concerning fixture changes
  2. Julie Denning proposed this on behalf of the committee following an incident during the season whereby two clubs had mutually agreed a fixture change.
“2. 6Fixture Changes.Upon receipt of the fixture lists, clubs should check their viability. Changes may be made:
- by mutual agreementconcluded up to 14 days after the date of issue of the fixture lists for matches scheduled to be played in October or November; or
-by mutual agreementconcluded 28 days prior to the originally scheduled date for matches scheduled to be played in December or later; or
- under exceptional circumstances.
All fixture changes, and any resulting disputes, must be notified within 7 days to the Fixtures Secretary.”
  1. The Management Committee had felt they had no option but to enforce a default point in the light of the current rules but wanted to offer the League the opportunity to allow a less harsh response in future.
  2. The chair reminded the meeting that this had originally been introduced to combat the situation where clubs chose to re-arrange a fixture when faced with the non-availability of key players
  3. There was a further discussion and this proposal was approved by a vote 22 in favour and 2 against

  1. MSL Committee proposal to amend Rule 2.2 to allow reclaim of ECF charges
  2. Doug Stevenson introduced this on behalf of the Management Committee:

“2.2 Entries. Team applications must be submitted by 14th September. League entry fees must be submitted concurrent with the Team Entry Application on order for teams to be included in the Fixtures List. Clubs must also pay any non-ECF members game fee incurred by 31 July. Payment shall be by cheque unless a BACS transfer is arranged in advance with the treasurer. “

  1. The ECF had introduced changes which meant that if a non-member played in the Mid-Sussex Chess League then the League will be liable to pay £2.
  2. It does not seem fair to share these fees out equally among all clubs and the Management Committee felt clubs should be responsible for their own fees. This rule change allowed the reclaiming of this money.
  3. Paul Buswell updated the meeting that the ECF intended to take funds on 31 July 2013 as well as an interim point during the season.
  4. There was a brief discussion and given the uncertainty around the ECF arrangements it was agreed to change the proposal to requiring a club to pay “within 14 days of being invoiced by the League”
  5. Paul Buswell offered to assist with any additional administration that may arise
  6. This proposal was agreed 21 in favour and 1 against

Location of next year’s AGM:
  • Lewes offered to host next year’s AGM and the meeting gratefully agreed.

Any Other business
  • Jonathan Tuck updated the meeting on the successes of Sussex Junior Chess
  • They had won 5 out of 9 of their matches
  • 380 attendees at the UK Chess Challenge in Cuckfield
  • Ian Comley mentioned that he had attended the UK Chess Challenge as a father and commended all involved on an excellently run event
  • There are special teaching arrangements in 20 schools across Sussex
  • Clubs , such as Horsham, held weekly junior meetings with 30 or more
  • Sussex Juniors were heavily represented for England in both European and World events
  • Perhaps there was scope for some junior competitive chess
  • John Cannon remembered that in years gone by, one club had been willing to offer the 7 year old David Howell a pedal cycle as a transfer fee

The meeting was concluded at 10.15 pm.

Page 1 of 9