Re: FIDE Law Suit
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:18 pm
No, but if you put your thinking cap on, I'm sure you'll work out who it is.John Upham wrote:Are you authorised to name the person providing such advice?
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
No, but if you put your thinking cap on, I'm sure you'll work out who it is.John Upham wrote:Are you authorised to name the person providing such advice?
I should not need to do this. Is it a condition of providing legal advice that he or she remains anonymous?Alex Holowczak wrote:No, but if you put your thinking cap on, I'm sure you'll work out who it is.John Upham wrote:Are you authorised to name the person providing such advice?
Well, if you say so. I can't envisage any of the Trustees being at all supportive of the FIDE President.Roger de Coverly wrote:Assuming the JRT Trustees haven't changed recently, one of the other Trustees is someone who some would suspect ( perhaps including Alex McF) of being rather more supportive of the FIDE President than many others in the British chess community.Alex Holowczak wrote: The ECF's famed legal-eagle is also a JRT trustee. If there were a problem, he would have said so.
and under a case listclients say:
"Garry Kasparov … [t]he former chess world champion said the [team led by Ms. Santens] displayed 'a combination of big-picture understanding and management of the smallest details despite heavy time pressure.' 'I would never consider going to any other firm. Anyone considering arbitration in sports should not hesitate to engage them.'" (GAR 100, 2011)
Court of Arbitration for Sport cases:
Represented the ticket of 12th World Champion Anatoly Karpov and several national chess federations in a CAS arbitration against the World Chess Federation (FIDE) in relation to FIDE's 2010 internal elections.
Represented two national chess federations in a CAS arbitration against FIDE in relation to the improper appointment of five Vice Presidents in FIDE's 2010 internal elections.
Does that mean the case has finished? Or they've been sacked?Roger de Coverly wrote:
Represented two national chess federations in a CAS arbitration against FIDE in relation to the improper appointment of five Vice Presidents in FIDE's 2010 internal elections.
Nigel Short's published report to the ECF AGM mentions the case as taking place early next year, but omits to note the ECF's direct involvement. Perhaps they were sacked, they don't mention the results of their cases, whether their side won or lost.Richard Bates wrote: Does that mean the case has finished? Or they've been sacked?
It would have been logical to post on this forum which has an insatiable appetite for gossip and scandal. Whilst the forum would, I expect, be critical of an ECF decision to take legal action against FIDE, it might equally ask why smaller federations with a minority of the world's chess players persist in supporting Kirsan. There are those who say that the ECF's voting methods, which only give votes to chess organisations, are less than desirable. They do however attempt to weight voting power by number of events and number of players.NickFaulks wrote:I've been trying to tell people in England about this for ages, I don't think anyone believed me.
ECF elections have the concept of a candidate who is "None of the above". I think that sums up the attitude of many English players to Kirsan and we lack understanding as to why FIDE delegates persist in re-electing him.NickFaulks wrote: We are, however, waiting for an even vaguely constructive alternative.
I am sure that most people think they know very well why small countries with little financial muscle think it in their interests to vote for Kirsan.Roger de Coverly wrote:
ECF elections have the concept of a candidate who is "None of the above". I think that sums up the attitude of many English players to Kirsan and we lack understanding as to why FIDE delegates persist in re-electing him.
Even without a vote, what did the ECF Directors hope to achieve by keeping silent? Taking legal action against FIDE is something that is bound to become public and not telling your AGM about it is getting very close to a no-confidence issue.Jonathan Rogers wrote: To declare war on the FIDE presidency has to be the decision of the ECF as a whole, in some meaningful way: we should need Council to vote on it, at the least, I should think.
Any organisation or individual requesting such a motion might be branded as a FIDE puppet. Indeed there's very little or no English support for Kirsan. Equally there's little support, I would hope, for taking money out of chess and giving it to lawyers.Jonathan Rogers wrote: I am surprised that an EGM has not been called already - perhaps everyone is waiting for someone else to do it?
Perhaps that is it, though they could rightly retort "well, Kirsan isn't actually asking or paying us to do this, whereas the ECF. on the other hand ..."Roger de Coverly wrote:Any organisation or individual requesting such a motion might be branded as a FIDE puppet....Jonathan Rogers wrote: I am surprised that an EGM has not been called already - perhaps everyone is waiting for someone else to do it?