League Management Committee – Minutes – 2009–10
Go to minutes summary page
In Attendance: M. Hill (Chair), S. Burke, D. Griffiths, D. Sudar, T. Walker
Apologies - K. Harvey, C. Holt
DS reported a reasonably smooth season but with quite a few changes to club details. There were 7 postponements due to snow and 4 without ‘valid’ reasons that he allowed as both captains were in agreement. There was one dispute, relating to the interpretation of LoC article 12.3. DS said he erred in not consulting the local NCA senior arbiter who had later stated, when asked, that if a phone sounded the win had to be claimed by the opponent.
DG received approx 50% of results by email from both captains, approx 25% by email from just one captain, and the rest by post / hand by one or both captains. As the fixtures took time to post on the web he would appreciate the LS providing them as early as possible. DS said if he was still in the role, he would try to produce them before the end of July.
The draft fixtures last August caused confusion as they had not been clearly marked as ‘draft’. DS reported that he hadn’t compiled the fixture list and had clearly instructed the compiler to let DS check them before distribution, but unfortunately this had not happened.
The LMC agreed that the WB4 v WN6 dispute yet again showed that the FIDE rules are geared towards events with Arbiters and are not adequate for events without an Arbiter.
DG reported a player had queried a result. As DG had not received the result from that player’s captain he instructed the player to provide evidence of who had actually played else the result would have to stand, based on the only official result he had received.
Various possible RRM proposals were discussed. There will be proposals for a quorum of 5 at LMC meetings, for allowing 2 players from one club (i.e. MH & DG) at meetings, for amendments to the ‘mobile phone’ rule, for time limits on appeals against penalties and for a rule regarding interference.
The LMC discussed a suggestion that the association president should be a non-voting member but agreed that was for the AGM to decide. The LMC was not in favour as it valued its independent status, and a non-voting member could still potentially influence the vote.
DS would look at creating LMC procedural guides; members were welcome to contribute.
The next meeting was provisionally arranged for Monday 5th July.
In Attendance: M. Hill (Chair), S. Burke, D. Griffiths, C. Holt, D. Sudar, T. Walker
Apologies - B. Redburn
The minutes of the previous meeting on 7th April 2010 were accepted.
DS reported he had yet to start creating the LMC procedural guide.
DG asked DS to highlight in the fixtures handbook that both captains must submit the results (preferably by email).
There was a quick review of the proposals submitted to the rules revision meeting. All the proposals had been approved, three with minor amendments.
DS agreed to highlight the new mobile phone rule (D5) in the fixtures handbook.
DS reported that 39 teams had been entered for 2010-11; Gambit and West Nottingham had each withdrawn their lowest each team while Radcliffe & Bingham and West Bridgford had each submitted an extra team.
There will be 8 teams in the top 4 divisions, and 7 teams in division 5 in 2010-11.
|Division 1:||Nottingham Central 1 and West Nottingham 1 were relegated to division 2|
|Division 2:||Mansfield 1 and Long Eaton were promoted to division 1|
|Nomads 2 and Radcliffe & Bingham 1 were relegated to division 3|
|Division 3:||Grantham 2 and Ashfield 3 were promoted to division 2|
|Mansfield 2 and West Nottingham 3 were relegated to division 4|
|Division 4:||West Nottingham 5 and Nomads 3 were promoted to division 3|
|Ashfield 4 was relegated to division 5|
|Division 5:||Radcliffe & Bingham 2 and Nomads 4 were promoted to division 4|
New teams Radcliffe & Bingham 3 and West Bridgford 5 were placed in division 5.
The West Nottingham teams were renumbered accordingly.
Therefore the 2010-11 league structure will be:
|Div 1:||Grt 1, Uni 1, Gam 1, Ash 1, WB 1, New 1, Man 1 (p), LE (p)|
|Div 2:||NC 1 (r), WN 1 (r), Uni 2, Gam 2, Ash 2, Nom 1, Grt 2 (p), Ash 3 (p)|
|Div 3:||Nom 2 (r), RB 1 (r), Gam 3, New 2, WB 2, WN 2, WN 3 (p), Nom 3 (p)|
|Div 4:||Man 2 (r), WN 4 (r), Uni 3, NC 2, WB 3, Gam 4, RB 2 (p), Nom 4 (p)|
|Div 5:||Ash 4 (r), WN 5, WB 4, NC 3, NC 4, RB 3 (new), WB 5 (new).|
The meeting agreed the LMC chairman should be the LMC representative on the association’s executive committee.
There being no other business, the meeting was closed at 20:30