Memorandum and Letter re FIDE Amended Statutes

[Mick Norris]

Analysis of and Response to FIDE’s Proposed Amendments to the FIDE Statutes and Electoral Regulations

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... y-2012.pdf

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... e-2012.pdf

[David Shepherd]

So nice to see that second egregrious l being removed from counsellor.

[Roger de Coverly]

Analysis of and Response to FIDE’s Proposed Amendments to the FIDE Statutes and Electoral Regulations

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... y-2012.pdf

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... e-2012.pdf


These seem to have caused some controversy at the recent FIDE board meeting

http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... inutes.pdf

Mr. N. Freeman said that the matter was you signed the letter. He said this was being
exceptionally unhelpful to FIDE.
Mrs. R. Haring said this is a fact we signed the letter and it speaks for itself.
Mr. N. Freeman said then you instructed them and we can go back to the court based on what you were telling me and say that what Mr. Danailov said to the CAS was untrue. Mrs. R. Haring said they were not going to discuss the attorney-client privileged information. Mr. N. Freeman said that if you did not instruct, there is no attorney-client relationship here.
Mrs. R. Haring said White and Case was their lawyer for that matter.
Mr. N. Freeman said that he was not very happy with an uncooperative response from the USCF. If Mr. S. Danailov told something to the CAS, which was wrong, you should tell us that because FIDE could re-claim the expenses for that case, it would be a good basis for that. Apparently, Mrs. Haring was the only one there who could tell us, and you are unhelpful. He said this is not a sensible reaction, the question was very simple, but by her behaviour and prevarications, the majority at the Board (Ms. B. Marinello excluded) think that the USCF did not instruct White and Case, because actually if you did instruct, you would have told us. So we have a feeling that you did not instruct and
therefore it is exceptionally wrong for the three federations (Mr. S. Danailov had said he did not), to write a letter to FIDE saying we have instructed when you did not. We have of course no proof, as you are being unhelpful, but from what Mr. S. Danailov told to the CAS that it was Garry Kasparov who did it, and the Federations liked it and we agreed to support this letter. But it is completely different to say that Three Federations have instructed and signed as a Federation, or that we have liked what Mr.
G. Kasparov has paid and done. We are an organisation based on Federations, we do not accept things from private individuals, then we would not have spent so much time and energy, we would deal with it and take some things on-board beforehand, but if it was a Federation who did it as we believed it. We trusted the 3 Federations, took it very seriously. If it was a proposal from an individual, we would have treated it differently. Therefore, if it was a case that you misled FIDE, I think it was wrong.

It appears that FIDE management think they would have responded differently had they realised that it was the ECF, the USCF and the Bulgarian Federation putting their names to research commissioned by and presumably paid for by Kasparov or one of his organisations.

I'm think the forum asked the then CEO who was paying for legal opinions about FIDE structures. I don't think we got much further than that it wasn't the ECF with a hint that it was "you know who".

The signed letter did however say

Because we know that FIDE can do – and deserves – better, we asked White & Case LLP, a leading international law firm that has in-depth knowledge of theFIDE rules and regulations, to examine FIDE’s proposals.