ECF loses case

[Peter D Williams]

Krishna says-"I do not think that it is too much to ask for reassurance".
I agree we should get a reassurance that ECF members are not going to foot the bill.
Krishna thoughts on this subject make perfect sense to me!

I am sorry, not to me. Andrew Farthing, the CEO of the ECF has answered this question already.

Asking Andrew to answer it again seems to me a criticism of either his judgement or his honesty. (Or the consequence of not reading this thread and the preceding ones). If people want to challenge him, or ask follow up questions, that is fine by me. But I'm irritated by the suggestion we are not being told anything.

Simple question are ECF members going to foot the bill? yes or no will do from Andrew.

[Paul Cooksey]

Simple question are ECF members going to foot the bill? yes or no will do from Andrew.

I suppose he might answer, if he doesn't mind repeating himself and the considerable debate already had on this point.

While this forum is excellent in many ways, I lament the absence of the "head banging against a wall" emoticon.

[Jonathan Rogers]

.....
The problem is that since the fallout from the incident at Sheffield (rather than the incident itself) the ECF board and the President in particular have struggled to command the respect from the grassroots they need to follow this difficult process through. ..

Well yes, but deciding not to tell the grassroots about the action for as long as possible contributed to the lack of respect too ...!

[Jonathan Rogers]

Hopefully this post will remain until after the October AGM when I may be able I told you so.

Don't be surprised if Mr De-Mooi and Mr Short don't turn up at the AGM but send in reports saying they have managed to get a lot of sponsorship for the 2013 British, the anniversary event.
Some of the rabbits in the headlights will once again be star struck and be happy to forget Sheffield, FIDE legal action and anything else to get the loot.
All the current pages of discussion will be meaningless.

That said perhaps the members of council who have good sense will not be clouded in their judgement and recognise who should be helped on their way out. Laras event has shown that major sponsorship is not needed because the genuine grass root players, of whom there are many,and all round good egg GM's and IM's will support next years event without loads of cash being offered as some kind of sweetener.

As the main reason your posts don't remain on the forum is that you yourself have them deleted, I'm quoting this to make sure it does.

Time will tell. In the meantime, does anyone think that he or she has a better idea of what will happen in the October AGM?

[Krishna Shiatis]

understood, though it seems odd that we are publicly disagreeing over an issue on which we presumably privately agree!

I didn't think I was disagreeing with you, except insofar as I corrected one error of fact.

I've scrupulously avoided offering my personal opinions about the subject, because in the end they're a side issue. I have tried to address the substantive points, such as:

- Was the Board empowered to take this action without Council approval? (Yes.)
- Did the Board weigh up the political risks in taking its decision? (Yes.)
- Did the Board take steps to protect the ECF from any adverse financial consequences. (Yes.)
- Was the decision the responsibility of one or two individuals? (No. The Board discussed it vigorously and at length. Each Board member reached his own conclusion.)
- Should the Board have briefed Council earlier. (Yes.)
- Was it a deliberate policy decision or the result of legal advice that it did not brief Council earlier? (No.)

and:

- Was it the right decision to take the action in the first place?

This last question comes down to a matter of opinion. The Board as a whole applied its best judgement, which is what it is elected to do. It's for others to decide whether it was the right choice.

Finally:

- Have lessons been learned?

The Board heard the clear message from Council concerning the failure to brief them about the case and, although I maintain that this was not a deliberate choice at the time, the very fact of it reduces the likelihood of similar oversights in future.

The Board also heard the views expressed by Council about the decision to take action and will, I am sure, take these into account in its future actions.

Hi Paul,

I think you are referring to the above-mentioned post when you say that Andrew F has already answered the questions. I do apologise if there is another which I have missed.

If it is the above-mentioned post, then I would draw your attention to the line below:

- Did the Board take steps to protect the ECF from any adverse financial consequences. (Yes.)

I am not asking for a repetition of the answer above, nor any head-banging.

I am asking to know what these steps are, whether they are adequate and reassurance that we will not have to pay. Perhaps you feel that passing on these details to us is not necessary, but actually it is very important.

The legal action was taken in OUR NAME. We have every right to ask questions and expect answers when those that are given are insufficient or non-existent. I am sorry if it offends you or anyone else, that is not my intention.

I simply want to find out exactly what is happening, what steps have been taken, in particular some direct answers to the following questions -

Has an Escrow account been set up?

Where are these monies?

Has anyone verified that the organisation which signed the legal document with the ECF has the monies?

Can we see the legal agreement between the ECF and Mr Kasparov's organisation?

(Does it even formally exist or was it a handshake?)

Who exactly did we get legal advice from in the first instance?

and most importantly what is our exposure in the event that Mr Kasparov does not pay?

As verified by Peter W (thank you!), there are others who would also like to know the answers to these questions. We are simply concerned and a formal statement on the ECF website explaining the answers to the questions above would I am sure be sufficient.

[Alex McFarlane]

I think a more relevant question is will the ECF tell its membership immediately that the bill is paid or indicate if an appeal is being made if that is the case?

Until it is certain that the debt has been met there will always be a nagging doubt which I'm sure the Board are suffering from at the moment. To use a Glaswegian phrase - I'm sure there's a few pairs of "squeeky pants" on the Board just now. Whilst the law gives them some protection is does not cover against negligance and, if as is being claimed, the ECF statutes do not cover this matter then the situation is anything but clear especially as the April Council meeting made its feelings on the matter quite clear.

Indeed fear of further legal action might explain why the Board has not expressed its sympathy/regret to the arbiters who suffered as a result of this action.

[Andrew Farthing]

There's a rain break in Murray - Federer, so I've caught up with this thread.

Simple question are ECF members going to foot the bill? yes or no will do from Andrew.

No.

The information I've received is that the legal costs on our side have already been settled by the third party guarantor and that the funds to cover the CAS settlement have been placed in an account ready to be paid to CAS and FIDE.

The position is as it always was: there will be no financial cost to the ECF arising from the CAS action.

[Krishna Shiatis]

There's a rain break in Murray - Federer, so I've caught up with this thread.

Simple question are ECF members going to foot the bill? yes or no will do from Andrew.

No.

The information I've received is that the legal costs on our side have already been settled by the third party guarantor and that the funds to cover the CAS settlement have been placed in an account ready to be paid to CAS and FIDE.

Thank you. This is good to know. Why is this not being stated formally anywhere?

[Mike Truran]

Maybe because the ECF webmaster gets time off for good behaviour at weekends?

[Krishna Shiatis]

Maybe because the ECF webmaster gets time off for good behaviour at weekends?

OK about the week-end!

In fairness, Gerard broke the news for us on Tuesday July 3rd - there has been a bit of time in between to announce that we have lost the case officially and to reassure everyone about the money.

[Mike Truran]

I imagine that:

1. The ECF would rather hear officially rather than through an ecforum post.

2. The ECF needs some time to agree on its public statement - unlike the FIDE mafia, which clearly feels it can bang out any old conconction of half-truths on its website: http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... under.html

In my view the ECF has played this less than well on various fronts (and that's being generous), but FIDE's egregious smugness and dissemblance still sticks in the craw.

The entire episode has been an utter shambles from start to finish.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In my view the ECF has played this less than well on various fronts (and that's being generous), but FIDE's egregious smugness and dissemblance still sticks in the craw.

The entire episode has been an utter shambles from start to finish.

Agreed. But one thing puzzles me. Why does the FIDE report refer to an "undisclosed funder"? Is this the name that has been mentioned, or is there someone else, or are they being coy?

[Angus McDonald]

As an interested onlooker.

Does nobody in the ECF or beyond see any problem with taking legal action in your name when funded by someone else?

That is not the same as thinking that the ECF should be funding such legal action.

I think it creates the possibility of an undesirable situation where people may seek to exert influence over the decision making of a body simply because they have the money to do so.

It could be almost endless. Smaller federations i.e. could be taking action against FIDE when funded by someone else. All the funder needs to do is find a federation which is prepared to take action on it's behalf. Chess would be the loser with the World body continuously using money to defend itself against such actions!!??

Perhaps it's naive of me to think that money will not talk in the end but I'd far rather the money on all sides was going to promote Chess. Including the money of the funder! who I guess is a supporter of Chess!?

FIDE may well be off the rails but the challenge for those wishing to reform the organisation is to work from within and pursuade with debate not money to do so if not this is going to be a mighty expensive operation with money flowing out of Chess instead of inwards I think.

[Sean Hewitt]

Does nobody in the ECF or beyond see any problem with taking legal action in your name when funded by someone else?

That is not the same as thinking that the ECF should be funding such legal action.

I think it creates the possibility of an undesirable situation where people may seek to exert influence over the decision making of a body simply because they have the money to do so.

I agree with you entirely. I think I've already said that the ECF should not have taken the action it did and asked the rhetorical question of whether they would have done so without Kasparov's funding.

Could you imagine the outcry in certain quarters if some action were taken by some minute federation, just because someone with money wanted to and offered to pay to do it?

[Angus McDonald]

Yes! I can imagine the outcry! and if I can then so should they be able to with their GM intellects

Basically it's easy for me to talk as I don't have to make any important decisions which effect lots of people

but!

Discretion is often the better part of valour