CAS case clarification required

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Mike Gunn
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Mike Gunn » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:14 pm

With the benefit of hindsight this whole episode may not represent the ECF board's finest hour, but from the point of view of process the minor mistakes made by CJ and the lawyers had no overall negative effect. (If the board had voted no then no action would have taken place and so really the facts that CJ signed the power of attorney earlier than he should and the lawyers were a bit trigger happy are of no real consequence). The board took the decision to proceed in a measured way with full discussion and we took legal advice on the validity of the financial guarantee we had received.

If you think we were completely wrong-headed in taking the original decision or that our failure to inform Council merits it, then you should vote us out, but to blame the whole episode on CJ is not fair - we all did this!

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:27 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:... but to blame the whole episode on CJ is not fair ....
Indeed. Some of us have been arguing for some time that the President has not been acting in a vacuum and that a review of how he can be best supervised/held to account was over due. I think I wrote "long overdue" in the immediate aftermath of the Sheffield. It's longer now and more pressing.


I have to say, I don't see allowing the board to act under the belief that he had not already signed a crucial document to be a minor matter. It may be irrelevant to how the ECF's involvement in the course proceeded, but it's absolutely vital in the matter of how the President interacts with the Federation as a whole.

I'm also curious as to whether anybody has inquired into this "oral authority" claimed by Kasparov. Is the ECF position that,

(a) he was lying?
(b) he was wrong but believed what he was saying was true (if so, how did this confusion come about)?
(c) was telling the truth?

Again, irrelevant to the question of whether White & Case should have proceeded, but crucial as to how the President views the rest of the organisation and whether he is accountable to it.


That said, I do feel let down that it is now said that the board knew all along that the action had been started - even if only 'technically' - prior to the meeting of 26th February.

It seems to me that if nothing else there are rather important lessons to be learned as to how the ECF communicates with its members. I wish I didn't agree with Roger's comments above, but I'm afraid it does sometimes look as if the Federation I've just been forced to join will go to almost any lengths rather than be open with me about what it is doing in my name.

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:31 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
It seems to me that if nothing else there are rather important lessons to be learned as to how the ECF communicates with its members. I wish I didn't agree with Roger's comments above, but I'm afraid it does sometimes look as if the Federation I've just been forced to join will go to almost any lengths rather than be open with me about what it is doing in my name.
I agree.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Carl Hibbard » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:37 pm

Whatever your thoughts on this forum would any of this ever have been discovered without it?
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:43 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote: I'm also curious as to whether anybody has inquired into this "oral authority" claimed by Kasparov. Is the ECF position that,

(a) he was lying?
(b) he was wrong but believed what he was saying was true (if so, how did this confusion come about)?
(c) was telling the truth?
(b) or (c) presumably. I'd imagine GK presumed the ECF President was acting with the full backing of the ECF Board, or had the power to override the Board were there to be any objections.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Mike Gunn » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:47 pm

>>>I'm afraid it does sometimes look as if the Federation I've just been forced to join will go to almost any lengths rather than be open with me about what it is doing in my name.<<<

Isn't the fact that we did produce the time line document (actually all Andrew's work as usual) an indication of our commitment to try and be transparent? (There is nothing in our articles or bye-laws that says that we have to respond to requests for this level of detail about the board's activities.)

Of course when you provide the detail it turns up all sorts of inconsistencies and minor cock-ups that would be found in any organisation.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:56 pm

Mike Gunn wrote: Isn't the fact that we did produce the time line document (actually all Andrew's work as usual) an indication of our commitment to try and be transparent?
No it isn't. Once the phrase "first discussed in February" was used and then defended, it was an attempt to either deliberately or accidentally mislead. Had the paper for the April 2012 Council meeting said that the legal action had been first discussed in January 2011 as a follow up to the October 2010 letter with the formal go ahead for action authorised in March 2011, little could have been said, it also being clear that the President was acting in accordance with the wishes of most of the Board. This followed on from misleading statements made to the October 2011 AGM regarding the financing of "conditions" at the Sheffield British.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Alex McFarlane » Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:04 pm

Perhaps the timeline could have included the following to reduce the number of questions.
From a De Mooi email of 1st March at 1.25pm
“I’m happy to stand up on my own if necessary to fight for what I know is wrong (sic) and invite the consequences”
It would seem from the timeline that he already had. It seems to me from that statement that even if the ECF had voted against it may not have been as easy as they say to extricate themselves, certainly not without incurring the wrath of the President.
On 28th Feb in an email from White and Case to CJ De Mooi
“We will begin working on it (Statement of Appeal) shortly and understand from Garry that ECF is inclined to lend its name to this important case.”
CJ De Mooi certainly had the opportunity to correct Garry’s wrong belief if it were such.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:07 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:Isn't the fact that we did produce the time line document (actually all Andrew's work as usual) an indication of our commitment to try and be transparent?
I'm not saying people aren't trying, Mike. I *am* saying we have a right that folk try harder and/or have a good think about what 'commitment to transparency' actually means. I also think it's fair to say that some of your colleagues simply don't wish to try.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Matthew Turner » Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:13 pm

I wonder if White and Case maintain power of attorney and could initiate more legal action on the ECF's behalf?

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Angus French » Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:21 pm

Matthew Turner wrote:I wonder if White and Case maintain power of attorney and could initiate more legal action on the ECF's behalf?
For all we know, it could already have happened - and without the knowledge or approval of the ECF Board. This may sound ridiculous, but:
Summary Timeline wrote:April 18 Appeal Brief (see notes under February 24 above) filed at CAS by White & Case
The Board received no further communication on this matter, from White & Case or any other party, after the vote on March 1
... rather indicates that the Board had ceded control and didn't really care.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:59 pm

Angus French wrote: ... rather indicates that the Board had ceded control and didn't really care.
which goes quite some way towards explaining how they "forgot" to mention it at two Council meetings running.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Angus French » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:50 pm

Summary Timeline wrote:February 24. Statement of Appeal filed at CAS by White & Case... White & Case have confirmed to the ECF the following concerning this filing: “The Statement of Appeal filed on 24 February 2011 marks the official beginning of the case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland. As per CAS Rule 48, the Statement of Appeal provides a preliminary overview of the appellant’s contentions and must be followed within a set time period by a full Appeal Brief (see CAS Rule 51). CAS Rule 51 specifically states, among other things, that if the Appeal Brief is not filed, “the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn.” The filing of the Statement of Appeal in no way obliged the ECF to file an Appeal Brief or to continue with this matter in any way – ECF could have withdrawn its Power of Attorney and its participation at any time up until the conclusion of the matter.”.
Summary Timeline wrote:April 18. Appeal Brief (see notes under February 24 above) filed at CAS by White & Case... The Board received no further communication on this matter, from White & Case or any other party, after the vote on March 1.
This seems to say that the ECF Board didn’t receive a copy of the “Appeal Brief” (described by CAS in their Rule 51 as "a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal, together with all exhibits and specification of other evidence upon which [the Appellant] intends to rely") before it was filed – and therefore wouldn’t have approved the same (before submission to CAS). Is that correct?

Further, were the ECF Board not aware, as the Timeline entry for April 18 seems to suggest, of the following:
CAS Arbitral Award for appeals CAS 2011/A/2360 and CAS 2011/A/2392 wrote:20. On 10 March 2011, the Respondent filed a request pursuant to Article R49 of the CAS Code, arguing that the appeal filed by the Applicants was “manifestly late”.
i.e. that there was a timeliness issue.
CAS Arbitral Award for appeals CAS 2011/A/2360 and CAS 2011/A/2392 wrote:23. In accordance with Articles R47 and R48 of the Code, on 29 March, the Appellants filed a Statement of Appeal in the procedure CAS 2011/A/2392, challenging an alleged decision by the GA to confirm the appointment of the Five presidents.
i.e. that a second appeal was necessary as the first appeal - against the FIDE Presidential Board - may have incorrectly targeted?

Simon Brown
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent, if not in Costa Calida, Spain

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Simon Brown » Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:15 pm

Matthew Turner wrote:I wonder if White and Case maintain power of attorney and could initiate more legal action on the ECF's behalf?
Unlikely. You would normally grant a PoA for a specific purpose or for a limited period of time. Even the ECF wouldn't say "you can do whatever you like in our name for as long as you like". Or so I would hope.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:48 pm

Angus French wrote: i.e. that a second appeal was necessary as the first appeal - against the FIDE Presidential Board - may have incorrectly targeted?
I suspect most of us lost interest by this stage of the report. Despite being from a part of the world where adjudication of chess games has long since been abolished, I still have vague memories of results being determined, not by the expected outcome of the position on the board, but by whether you had filled in the right number of forms or made the cheque payable to the right person. So it would seem with CAS, but wouldn't you expect White & Case to know these procedural things?

Post Reply