CAS case clarification required

[Alex McFarlane]

Martin,

If the President or someone else started legal action before informing the Board as the CAS document seems to suggest, it is not me who has done the damage to English chess but him. You are not privvy to emails sent. I would not have gone public had I had some sort of reasonable acknowledgement. In any case the matter was serious enough to go public from the beginning. It is amazing that no board member spotted the discrepency in the dates and raised the matter before I did. There are two or three non-executive directors whose remit is do that sort of thing. The CAS result was published some time ago now. The Board should already have had an examination in progress without my intervention. Therefore I don't think the timescale was unreasonable.

My position in Chess Scotland has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I consider that I have done a considerable amount for English chess over the years, often being out of pocket to do so. There are not many people who have spent more time than me promoting chess in England.

I don't think I am doing that much to bring him down. I have stated that I'm not even sure that it was him who instigated the legal action.

You raised the matter of T-shirtgate. An apology from CJ De Mooi would have ended that matter quite some time ago. An attempt to fundraise for this year's event may have even exonerated him completely. Until the last failed attempt at a meeting I would have genuinely settled for those (there were several people involved directly and on the periphery who can witness to that). Following the failure of this meeting to take place then I will admit that I now hold the view that a President who is unwilling to meet with members with a genuine grievance (as he promised in his election campaign) is one who should consider his position for the good of English Chess.

I will repeat what I have saidseveral times before. CJ De Mooi would have continued to be an excellent President had he been given firm guidelines and been kept within them.

[JustinHorton]

It's not entirely clear to me how removing this particular, manifestly uncommunicative and unsatisfactory president would do "damage" to the "image of English chess". But there you go.

[Ernie Lazenby]

When the unmuzzled greyhound is let out of the trap there's no stopping it until it until it's run the course.

[Roger de Coverly]

If the President or someone else started legal action before informing the Board as the CAS document seems to suggest, it is not me who has done the damage to English chess but him.

The context seems to imply reasonably obviously that the President and Delegate agreed with the financial supporter and the the Georgian Federation to continue the action. After that decision, the support of the ECF Board was sought. Presumably if the ECF Board had voted against, the CAS action would have continued with only the Georgians making the case.

[Peter Sowray]

Alex

I have considerable sympathy for you after “T-shirtgate” and thought (and still think) the President handled the whole thing appallingly.

However, this ceaseless attempt on your part to bring him down, regardless of the damage you might do to the image of English Chess is, respectfully, becoming obsessive.

Having a legitimate query is one thing, but sending an email on the Tuesday and announcing the failure of communication on this forum on the Thursday is a tad eager to my eyes. Why not just pick up the phone?

As for the matter in hand - how can anyone possibly guess what the board was or was not told beforehand? There could be an adequate explanation, there could not.

My problem is that you, for all your declarations to the contrary, want it to be the latter, as that would further your particular feud.

I have to say that your being a director of Chess Scotland and swinging such a wrecking ball at the ECF board in general and the ECF President, sits uneasy with me.

Martin - I completely agree with this post.

[Ernie Lazenby]

I would have been surprised if you had said otherwise. You were part of Martins team were you not?

[JustinHorton]

Well, we can all question one another's motives, but that's not likely to lead anywhere, except to obscure the original question. So I would propose that we leave off the personal questioning and return to the issue as originally raised.

[Paul Buswell]

I would have been surprised if you had said otherwise. You were part of Martins team were you not?

Peter Sowray may have been one of Martin Regan's team, but I was not. Indeed, to the best of my recollection I have never met Mr Regan, or if I have so fleetingly that I have forgotten it. But by and large I agree with the tenor of his post: I fear that Alex McFarlane is losing a sense of proportion and I encourage him to move on - some battles will never have a tidy end.

PB

[Jonathan Bryant]

Peter Sowray may have been one of Martin Regan's team, but I was not ...

Last year, I wrote a number of blog posts noting discrepancies in the figures given by CJ de Mooi relating to his fundraising activities for the British Championship in Sheffield. Martin Regan posted a rather fevered message here suggesting it was a non-issue and, as I recall implying the series was some kind of personal campaign against Ray Keene.

Here again we find the raising of a curious discrepancy dismissed by Martin as some kind of personal vendetta. Same response on both occasions: even if Martin is right (he wasn't in my case, but lets give him the benefit of the doubt for argument's sake) the discrepancy still needs to be accounted for.

[Roger de Coverly]

the discrepancy still needs to be accounted for.

Once knowledge of the action taken by the ECF in CAS became common, it was equally clear some of the chess public in general and ECF Council members in particular had serious reservations. It was curious that the ECF board seemed not to have anticipated this. The Board's acceptance of the action can be better understood if they were making a decision not to initiate action, but to support continued legal action.

In general, issues involving FIDE particularly issues involving obscure constitutional points, you might expect to be dealt with by the FIDE delegate or perhaps the President without the rest of the Board being involved. The lack of perceived financial risk to the ECF may have muddied the waters, if the ECF had been committing its own funds, the Board as a whole, or at least the Finance Director needed to be involved.

So the sequence of events suggested by Alex McF is quite plausible.

The more strategic issue for the ECF is that whilst it continues to oppose the FIDE leadership and some of its activities and policies, is it prepared to take action going beyond asserting its right to vote against particular candidates?

[Jonathan Bryant]

So the sequence of events suggested by Alex McF is quite plausible.

The more strategic issue for the ECF is that ....

I agree about plausibility, although I wouldn't yet want to jump to the conclusion that it is therefore exactly how it happened.


As for strategic issues for the ECF, I would say that if the discrepancy over dates turns out to be real rather than apparent (e.g. caused by a typo or some other mistake) then I would say there's a very real and important question as to somebody being mislead. In that case, I can see only two options: (a) the board were misled - i.e. not told the action had already started or (b) the chess public have been misled - i.e. the information that the action had already been started was deliberately withheld.

This, it seems to me, is the fundamental issue. It's what gives the whole matter its importance even though, as I say, there's still an 'if' to be resolved.

[Roger de Coverly]

However the CAS report clearly states that part of the action taken by Georgia and the ECF was initiated on February 24th. (See Sec III para18). Indeed the initial required fee was paid to ensure the case proceeded.

The CAS material is at
http://www.fide.com/images/stories/ches ... ly2012.pdf

From which

14 7th January 2011 a letter from the President of the European Chess Union and 16 Federations requesting an appeal to the FIDE Presidential Board about the VP issue.

15 21st January - FIDE reject the request

16 21st January - The appellants (ECF & Georgia) make a fresh appeal to the FIDE PB.

18 24th February - The appellants go to CAS.

The ECF Board had agreed to be a signatory to a collective letter back in October's Board meeting. It's reported on the ECF site. Even if the dispute was still at that stage internal to FIDE, the nature of the ECF's actions changed on 21st January and so a January decision to continue needed to have been taken. The other unknown is when White & Case got involved.

[Andrew Zigmond]

A few points I'd like to pick up on.

I fear the delay could be because a certain person has verbaly promised to underwrite the £6000 costs of the venue at Torquay - and as Adam has already signed a contract there is an £80,000 'damages' clause payable if the event does not take place there.

We all know that "a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on" as Samual Goldwyn once famously said.

Coupled with the fact that a November discussion with a potential £20,000 sponsor to stage the event in Scotland in 2013 was a non-starter due to this penalty clause the ECF Board could definitely be left with egg on its face.

The ECF board must be aware that `a certain person` has to win re-election in October prior to Torquay which, given that he only survived a de facto confidence motion at the Finance Council meeting by the skin of his teeth, is by no means guaranteed.

Alex

I have considerable sympathy for you after “T-shirtgate” and thought (and still think) the President handled the whole thing appallingly.

However, this ceaseless attempt on your part to bring him down, regardless of the damage you might do to the image of English Chess is, respectfully, becoming obsessive.

Up to a point I agree with Martin Regan. However too many people overlook that the second half of T-Shirt gate (the first can be viewed as an unfortunate misunderstanding) had a deeply profound affect on somebody very close to Alex. In that respect I can understand his attitude towards those responsible; let's not forget that the President has so obviously been complicit in some of the unpleasant comments made since by others.

It's also sad that we all know that the only member of the ECF board who will have the decency to attempt to answer Alex's question is Andrew Farthing who was the only member of the board to vote against the lawsuit. It would be nice to hear from the president or even the FIDE delegate on this.

That said, I think the focus for the next fortnight has to be on the British where Lara looks set to deliver a fantastic event and even Raymond Keene is using his Times column to promote the championships positively - now is perhaps not the best time to rock the boat.

[Paul Cooksey]

That said, I think the focus for the next fortnight has to be on the British where Lara looks set to deliver a fantastic event and even Raymond Keene is using his Times column to promote the championships positively - now is perhaps not the best time to rock the boat.

I don't agree with much of what Andrew wrote, but I do agree that this is an unwelcome distraction from the British.

This might be an important point, but I do not see any element of time criticality. The kind of thing the board could be expected to deal with in its normal cycle of business, rather than requiring an immediate response within days. I'll assume Alex was not deliberately trying to put some heat into the debate ahead of the British, and his timing is just unfortunate.

I think this is something that can and should wait until after the British. I imagine we can rely on Alex to ensure it is not forgotten completely.

[JustinHorton]

In that respect I can understand his attitude towards those responsible

Don't forget that it's not necessarily about Alex and people who he may not like. Other people too have extremely legitimate questions about this.

It's also sad that we all know that the only member of the ECF board who will have the decency to attempt to answer Alex's question is Andrew Farthing

We don't "know" this.

even Raymond Keene is using his Times column to promote the championships positively

To be fair, Ray will normally promote anything that has the word "chess" attached to it, and quite a lot that hsan't.