CAS case clarification required

[Kevin Thurlow]

Alex McFarlane wrote

"If I am proved wrong then I will apologise."

Really? - I am still awaiting an apology for a disgraceful personal attack made on me many years ago. And I know it will never happen.

I really think these attempts to bully Andrew Farthing are unacceptable, and I commend Andrew for taking the trouble to reply on this forum. I think my replies would be seven letters long by now.

[E Michael White]

.... I assume that my predecessor must have contacted David Anderton prior to the meeting, which is why there was nothing in my own e-mail records....

That is one of the snags of an individual board member requesting informal legal advice away from a meeting. The advice is rarely fully documented and the original facts and scenarios posed to the legal advisor to form his opinion seem never to be documented, leaving plenty of scope for misunderstandings by other board members. The words "there was no legal reason" should be interpreted as:- Mr Anderton was not made aware of any facts which might lead him to believe that there was a legal reason not to sign. On a matter of this nature it would be sensible for the the CEO at the time to minute both the information given to the legal advisor and the replies received or attach appropriate email exchange to the minutes.

[Roger de Coverly]

The advice is rarely fully documented and the original facts and scenarios posed to the legal advisor to form his opinion seem never to be documented, leaving plenty of scope for misunderstandings by other board members.

I can see your point. There is presumably a difference between "should we sign this collective letter?" and "should we sign this collective letter, given that it appears to be part of a campaign by third parties to undermine the FIDE President and indirectly FIDE itself?".

[Jonathan Bryant]

It is part of the story alleged by some bloggers....

On the assumption that Gidders is unlikely to have written anything question of Nigel Short, let alone directly critical, I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that you might be referring to S&B here.

I've not got time to write a full reply at the mo, but for the record I'm not sure that the posts on our blog up to a direct allegation as you suggest.

Thanks for reading though.

[Roger de Coverly]

I've not got time to write a full reply at the mo, but for the record I'm not sure that the posts on our blog up to a direct allegation as you suggest.

Thanks for reading though.

I'll change it to "speculated".

[Steve Rooney]

About half the Board chooses not to post on the forum at all, which is their choice to make. This is not always a pleasant environment. ECF officials have to take account of confidentiality, due process and the need to resist speculation; everyone else is much freer to offer opinions, insinuations and conspiracy theories without worrying about whether the facts support them.

I post here out of a sense of duty and the hope that it does some good. I'm not at all sure that after 13 October I'll want to stay a member.

This is a very sad indictment of what has happened to this forum over the past year.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I'll change it to "speculated".

I think I might quibble about that too, but hey, let's not fall out over it.

I post here out of a sense of duty and the hope that it does some good.

I think it does an awful lot of good for English chess that there is a channel of communication between the ECF and average joe chesser. It doesn't have to be here, of course, and it need not be you that shoulders the entire burden. Perhaps an annoucements page on the website would do the job just as well. There perhaps wouldn't be feedback then, but that's not necessarily a disadvantage. It depends what you're trying to achieve.



Edit:
Oops - my apologies to Roger and Andrew for the mistake - now fixed. Hopefully the intention was clear from the context.

[Andrew Zigmond]

This is a very sad indictment of what has happened to this forum over the past year.

I seem to remember when this forum pretty much existed so that Gerry Walsh could be slagged off. With regard to what has happened in the past year it's unfortunate that the aftermath of Sheffield continues to throw a long shadow.

I think it is only proper that the members of the ECF board should be held accountable to the chess playing community and should come on this forum (for all its faults the only one of its kind) to justify their actions where necessary. I appreciate this will involve having to shout over a rabble that is at times ignorant and ill informed (and I include myself in that - I have made statements that I've later regretted) but unfortunately that's pretty much how democracy works.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

-- text omitted --

I post here out of a sense of duty and the hope that it does some good.

-- text omitted --/quote]

[JustinHorton]

I seem to remember when this forum pretty much existed so that Gerry Walsh could be slagged off. With regard to what has happened in the past year it's unfortunate that the aftermath of Sheffield continues to throw a long shadow.

I think it is only proper that the members of the ECF board should be held accountable to the chess playing community and should come on this forum (for all its faults the only one of its kind) to justify their actions where necessary. I appreciate this will involve having to shout over a rabble that is at times ignorant and ill informed (and I include myself in that - I have made statements that I've later regretted) but unfortunately that's pretty much how democracy works.

Quite so.

It's worth adding a few points.

One is that if there had been a commitment to share information with ECF members earlier, there would be less discontent now.

A second is that this is not the only issue of which this has been true (notably the Affair of the Non-Existent Invoices) and this, too, contributes to an atmosphere where people really aren't going to let this lie until they're sure they understand who did what, and when, and whether they should have done it.

A third is that certain people holding ECF posts (and I refer to nobody who has posted on this thread) really have operated in a way which it is difficult to think of as acceptable.

I'd appreciate that timeline, whenever it can be produced. I am sure that rather than settle things, it'll lead to the production of a lot more questions, but it's called-for nevertheless. And as Andrew Zigmond says, that's democracy.

[Alex McFarlane]

My sources say that some form of statement may be imminent.

[Roger de Coverly]

I seem to remember when this forum pretty much existed so that Gerry Walsh could be slagged off.

That was rather more a speciality of the now inactive atticus forum.

I think it is only proper that the members of the ECF board should be held accountable to the chess playing community and should come on this forum (for all its faults the only one of its kind) to justify their actions where necessary.

If the ECF insists on non voting individual membership as a condition of playing graded chess, it and its directors and officials are going to have to live with greater scrutiny.

One of its credibility problems is a recent history of being economical with reality.

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF's statement on this is now at

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=20741
and
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... MELINE.doc

This rather confirms the overview that the ECF started the process which led to the CAS action in their name in January 2011 and that White & Case were involved from the start. The formal CAS action not starting until later. As always with legal actions, it would have been possible for the ECF to back out as late as early March, if not later.

Personally I think the ECF's earlier public statements tried to suggest that the ECF Board had no involvement in the process until end February/early March and as often seems to have been the case in recent years, the true position had to be prised from them.

In fact in

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... report.doc, we read

Legal action

One of the matters referred to in the Finance Committee report is the legal action undertaken at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to challenge FIDE’s actions in its appointment of five Vice Presidents. Our FIDE Delegate, Nigel Short, has provided a report on this, which I shall not replicate here.

The ECF Board first discussed this matter at a meeting on 26th February 2011, at the instigation of its President. Following this, I consulted with the ECF’s legal adviser, David Anderton, on the potential risks and how these could be managed. In due course, the Board decided by a majority e-mail vote on 4th March to authorise the initiation of legal action.

How should one interpret the phrase "first discussed this matter"?

[Angus French]

So, now we know:

February 24 Statement of Appeal filed at CAS by White & Case... White & Case have confirmed that they acted on the instructions of Garry Kasparov, who had advised them that he had the “oral authority” of CJdM.

February 25 CJdM signed and returned the Power of Attorney to White & Case... CJdM states that this was sent in order not to delay proceedings after the Board vote but that it was on the understanding that it should not be used before the Board had approved action... White & Case state only that the Power of Attorney was received by CJdM on February 25.

March 1 Proposal put to the Board for e-mail vote... No Board member other than CJdM was aware that CJdM had already signed the Power of Attorney and sent it to White & Case.

CJdM did not advise the Board at the time of the e-mail vote on March 1 that he had signed the Power of Attorney or seek to correct AF’s statement in the proposal to the Board which referred to the need to sign a Power of Attorney as an action still to be completed.

One wonders: Does the Board have confidence in its President? I know I don’t.

[Roger de Coverly]

One wonders: Does the Board have confidence in its President? I know I don’t.

Or for that matter, Council in the Board. Even once the story had to be revealed at the April 2012 Council meeting, important elements were suppressed, notably that the go ahead for action had been given on February 24th 2011. It can be accepted that this had the implicit support of the Board who had previously been discussing going to CAS in January. It most certainly isn't first discussed in the end February meeting as the Council meeting was led to believe.