CAS case clarification required

[JustinHorton]

I always find it hard to understand why people use "muppets" as an insult. I like the Muppets. And you'd never use it as an insult to Miss Piggy's face.

[Roger de Coverly]

Thank you Roger. I thought that this might be the case, but I have not read all the paperwork myself and was not sure.

Having looked through the documents, I don't think those who wrote the paperwork setting up the ECF actually envisaged taking legal action against FIDE in CAS, I didn't find anything specific about powers to take legal action.

However the Financial Regulations
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... w-No-4.doc
are quite strict on non-budgeted expenses and could be applied on the grounds that a legal action is an expense.

[Krishna Shiatis]

Everything that is being discussed here, looking at the time-line and the questions which have risen from it all lead to an awareness that once it has been identified exactly what went wrong, then hopefully the ECF can take the necessary steps to introduce the necessary controls which not only protect itself as an organisation but also its directors.

You miss the point. You may not agree with the CAS action (I don't either) but the board were perfectly entitled to make the decision to commence the action. No controls in the world are going to prevent the ECF from making a decision simply because you don't agree with it.

I think you miss the point Sean.

It is not about whether I agree or not. Or even whether you agree or not. It is about following the rules to make sure that the ECF is protected. I am not sure your background Sean, but I think pretty much everyone agrees that something is not right here. It seems that even you do believe this, so I am not sure what you are arguing about. It is almost as if you want to create an argument in a room on your own when there is none.

It is just ensuring that they are aware of exactly what went wrong.

It might help if you could articulate what it is that you think 'went wrong' as you put it.

I'm afraid that I do not know exactly what went wrong. I am sorry that I can not articulate it because I do not know. That is why all the questions have been asked.

Whilst some people like Sean may perceive the good people of this forum to be 'muppets'.

I find it's often best to properly read what someone wrote before commenting. If you had done so you would have realised that it was not me who said that the forum was full of muppets - I simply reported the reason that another gave for not bothering to read the forum. At the moment, I do find it a hard to counter his claim.

By saying that you find it hard to counter the claim, you are saying that you do agree. Therefore you are saying this forum is full of muppets. Would you like to clarify your comment on all the people of this forum?

Sean, I was not born yesterday. I am fully aware of what you are saying. I think that your comments are highly personal and offensive not only to yourself but everyone who has ever participated and who will ever participate on this forum. It is your choice what you call people and what you say, but everyone here is intelligent enough to see.

[Peter Sowray]

I’ve read much of this and associated threads in the year since Sheffield with an increasing sense of bewilderment.

I don’t know Andrew Farthing. But I have been knocking around the English chess scene for over 40 years and he is by quite some distance the most effective leader that the ECF (BCF as was) has had during this time. He has obviously been backed up by a number of highly competent individuals on the Board. It is a great shame that many of them have decided not to seek re-election for entirely understandable reasons.

I think the ECF was absolutely right to support the CAS action. It is a dreadful stain on the chess world that the International Federation is headed by a serial human rights abuser. Taking action on this should be the #1 priority of the ECF’s FIDE delegate, and I for one am grateful that Nigel Short has been active in this cause.

Best,

Peter

[Gerard Killoran]

I think the ECF was absolutely right to support the CAS action. It is a dreadful stain on the chess world that the International Federation is headed by a serial human rights abuser. Taking action on this should be the #1 priority of the ECF’s FIDE delegate, and I for one am grateful that Nigel Short has been active in this cause.

But this futile and self-defeating court case had nothing to do with replacing the FIDE President. Indeed it has made the possibility of doing so even harder. Countries who might have been won over to the 'cause' by persuasion will have been alienated by the ECF allying itself with Gary Kasparov and his shady American backers.

I'd take a guess that Nigel Short has never read How to Win Friends and Influence People.

[Richard Bates]

...

WE MUST HAVE ANSWERS!

Er, what was the question again?

[Roger de Coverly]

I think the ECF was absolutely right to support the CAS action. It is a dreadful stain on the chess world that the International Federation is headed by a serial human rights abuser. Taking action on this should be the #1 priority of the ECF’s FIDE delegate, and I for one am grateful that Nigel Short has been active in this cause.

But having decided to take action, why the secrecy? It took some while to get most of the facts even after Kirsan had himself revealed the CAS action. If it's that important, you don't just "forget" to mention it, particularly for two consecutive Council meetings.

The other problem is that it was only indirectly aimed at the FIDE President. Whilst FIDE's finances and those of its President are in some circumstances conjoined, there's enough independence for FIDE to be able to say that its ability to finance chess activity has been constrained by the need to spend it on lawyers.

[Krishna Shiatis]

I’ve read much of this and associated threads in the year since Sheffield with an increasing sense of bewilderment.

I don’t know Andrew Farthing. But I have been knocking around the English chess scene for over 40 years and he is by quite some distance the most effective leader that the ECF (BCF as was) has had during this time. He has obviously been backed up by a number of highly competent individuals on the Board. It is a great shame that many of them have decided not to seek re-election for entirely understandable reasons.

I think the ECF was absolutely right to support the CAS action. It is a dreadful stain on the chess world that the International Federation is headed by a serial human rights abuser. Taking action on this should be the #1 priority of the ECF’s FIDE delegate, and I for one am grateful that Nigel Short has been active in this cause.

Best,

Peter

Hi Peter,

We have met at the London Classic and it was a pleasure to meet you. I agree with everything you have said above with one proviso.

I think that you have to weigh up the pros and cons before you take action which has possible disastrous consequences for your own Federation.

I believe that FIDE should be united about how to proceed. The 'serial human rights abuser' was voted in by FIDE to be their leader. Rightly or wrongly, it is FIDE as a whole who has to agree on how to fix things. It has to be done in a way that does not mean that money is lost to solicitors (by anyone) and in a democratic and united way.

We are not the only members of FIDE. Surely all other avenues have to be exhausted (which must be to approach other member states and gain sufficient support to either vote him out or whatever the due process is to remove him) before the very expensive legal route is chosen? Surely, we can work together with other member states to achieve a common goal?

If we do not have the support of FIDE, then we have to bide our time and to talk to other delegates.

In addition, all the consequences of these actions have to be reviewed formally.

If the Council does not agree then, we have to be democratic and follow the wishes of our own Council. Rightly or wrongly, we do have to protect ourselves as well as to innovate and move chess forward.

Kind regards,

Krishna

[Alex Holowczak]

Surely all other avenues have to be exhausted (which must be to approach other member states and gain sufficient support to either vote him out or whatever the due process is to remove him) before the very expensive legal route is chosen? Surely, we can work together with other member states to achieve a common goal?

To a large extent, this was presumably the point of Karpov's campaign in 2010 - to exhaust other avenues.

At the General Assembly, it was reported that many European federations were pro-Karpov, but many African federations were pro-Ilyumzhinov. I've no idea if this is true: I wasn't there. If it is true though, it shows that Ilyumzhinov is very popular in those countries, mainly due to being able to make financial promises to improve chess in Africa. Hence the "Year of Africa" campaign. Under a system with one vote per country, irrespective of its size, it's far easier to make financial promises to improve chess in Africa, than it is to improve chess in Germany (to pick a European country at random). Under the pretences that you're helping to globalise chess, you might even get votes from other countries around the world, who might similarly hope to profit.

This was seen during the ECU elections where Danailov won the Presidency. Ireland, amongst other countries, were promised a visit from Topalov (who Danailov manages) if he won the election. It would be very easy to interpret this as bribing Ireland to vote for Danailov in the ECU election.

Winning these things isn't necessarily about being the best candidate, but it's about being able to give things to the countries you want to vote for you. Danailov could promise Topalov to Ireland, because he manages him. Another candidate might not have given Ireland the best deal. For example, one of his opponents was Ali Nihat Yazicki. He presumably couldn't send a 2700+ GM to Ireland, because he doesn't manage one. And lo and behold, Danailov won the election.

In the FIDE context, Ilyumzhinov has recognised that's what he needs to do to get back in at each election, whereas so far, the campaigns against him have probably realised what they need to do, but haven't been able to promise as much as he could to those countries.

To that extent, talking to other member states as you suggest isn't going to make any difference.

[Roger de Coverly]

We are not the only members of FIDE. Surely all other avenues have to be exhausted (which must be to approach other member states and gain sufficient support to either vote him out or whatever the due process is to remove him) before the very expensive legal route is chosen? Surely, we can work together with other member states to achieve a common goal?

There have been several previous attempts to replace Kirsan as FIDE President at the elections every four years. In 2002, the candidate stood down before the election, having been offered a Vice-Presidency . In both 2006 and 2010, the defeated candidate (2006 Bessel Kok, 2010 Karpov) scored about the same number of votes. Whilst Kirsan gets the support of some large Federations, it's one Federation one vote and Federations representing a majority of the world's chess players can be out-voted by those representing a handful. It's further alleged that votes of smaller Federations are decided by the inducements an incumbent President can offer the voting delegate.

[Sean Hewitt]

It is not about whether I agree or not. Or even whether you agree or not. It is about following the rules to make sure that the ECF is protected.

But the ECF did follow not only their own rules, and also those laid down by the Companies Act.

I am not sure your background Sean, but I think pretty much everyone agrees that something is not right here. It seems that even you do believe this, so I am not sure what you are arguing about.

I am arguing, as if I really have to spell it out, that the ECF did nothing wrong. They made a decision that they were perfectly entitled to make to take action, and they followed through on that. I would not have made the same decision, but they did nothing wrong doing what they did. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that they broke some rule that does not exist. When asked what you think went wrong you said

I'm afraid that I do not know exactly what went wrong. I am sorry that I can not articulate it because I do not know. That is why all the questions have been asked.

Priceless!

By saying that you find it hard to counter the claim, you are saying that you do agree. Therefore you are saying this forum is full of muppets. Would you like to clarify your comment on all the people of this forum?

Finding it hard to argue against something is very different from agreeing with the statement. If you want this clarifying, how about "Some forumites are muppets - get over it!"?

[Krishna Shiatis]

In the FIDE context, Ilyumzhinov has recognised that's what he needs to do to get back in at each election, whereas so far, the campaigns against him have probably realised what they need to do, but haven't been able to promise as much as he could to those countries.

To that extent, talking to other member states as you suggest isn't going to make any difference.

If this is the case Alex, then what I say is even more relevant.

If Ilyumzhinov knows how to 'play' the system, then what chance is there that we are not voted out come September?

He will know exactly which countries to canvass. Do we really want this? Was this what we hoped to achieve? If it was, then fine. I can not truly believe that all our players would be happy about losing their FIDE ratings which they have worked so hard to achieve, that we are happy to operate outside of FIDE.

At this stage, it is even more important to use the system against Ilyumzhinov. If Kasparov and Short had funds for the legal case, then why not use them to help grassroots chess in any country which supports them? To do a few free simuls in those countries? These are the kind of things which will get them support all over the world and also to put their viewpoint across in an acceptable way which will win them the support and appreciation of many.

The legal route IMO should have been an absolute last resort and I just do not think we were there yet.

[JustinHorton]

I for one am grateful that Nigel Short has been active in this cause.

Although less a tad less active in telling us about it.

[Richard Bates]

In the FIDE context, Ilyumzhinov has recognised that's what he needs to do to get back in at each election, whereas so far, the campaigns against him have probably realised what they need to do, but haven't been able to promise as much as he could to those countries.

To that extent, talking to other member states as you suggest isn't going to make any difference.

If this is the case Alex, then what I say is even more relevant.

If Ilyumzhinov knows how to 'play' the system, then what chance is there that we are not voted out come September?

Presumably you are aware (maybe not, having "not read the paperwork") that, the proposal is not just to suspend "us", but also Georgia, France, Germany, America, Switzerland and Ukraine! I reckon a lot of people in these federations are really rather hopeful that it might happen...! (I would be surprised if it's not accurate to say that Ilyumzhinov probably isn't).

[JustinHorton]

I don't believe that it's going to happen. If it does happen nevertheless, don't we just spend a period of time laughing about about it and thumbing noses until they change their mind?