CAS case clarification required

[Alex Holowczak]

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.

I totally agree with Krishna. I'm new to this forum and don't intend to stay here much longer. Some of the posts here are shocking and I wonder why the posters aren't ashamed of themselves for typing them. Some people on here are spitefull and hide behind their keyboards typing comments that I'm sure they wouldn't dare say to anybody face to face in real life.

You've never met Sean, have you?

[E Michael White]

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.

During at least the last 10 years or so, many activities have not been reported as accurately or as completely as they should have been in the ECF/BCF board/council minutes. Andrew Farthing allowed this to continue under his watch and understandably players are seeking clarification. Many statements read as if they might be literally true but lacking detail.

Ed. I notice Adam is taking action in the next post he considers appropriate. Do we want a similar approach by the next CEO ?

[Adam Raoof]

This thread has more than run it's course now so I am considering locking it down so we can move on

Lock fail ;-(

[Matthew Turner]

I think there are two main issues here

1. Was the ECF allowed to take this legal action?

I think everyone agrees that the timeline provides pretty much all the facts. There are very significant differences over what those facts mean, but I'm not sure that debate is going to progress much further

2. Was the ECF right to take legal action?

Here again there is a lot of agreement over the facts. I think the vast majority of people agree

A. FIDE would be better led by Kasparov rather than Illyumzhinov
B. The Kasparov team has more money than Illyumzhinov
C. Illyumzhinov stays in his position by spending money in small nations to 'buy votes'

Now we come to the contentious bit. Are the people who support the legal action really saying that the best way to use Kasparov's financial advantage is to sue FIDE to exhaust the President's funds? Wouldn't it be better (in every sense) for Kasparov simply to spend more money on chess in the smaller nations?

[Paul Buswell]

In my opinion, everybody's comments are valuable.

I'm sorry, I must disagree: I think that postings on this Forum demonstrate that some people's comments are less valuable than others' and to give people equal worth on this Forum is flying in the face of reality. There are people posting whose views I pay attention to because of the manner and content of their postings over recent months; and others of whom the exact opposite is true.

I am aware of course of the danger of giving certain people too much credibility, and of overlooking the occasional valuable nugget in other postings, but to assign equal value to every poster's comments just does not run.

This should not be taken as expressing a view either way about the value of your own postings in general, although I do align myself instinctively with the views Sean Hewitt expresses over your opinion as to how open Andrew Farthing has been.

PB

[Paul Buswell]

I'm not saying this is wrong but it does mean that things that would be better debated in a limited forum have to be expressed in the widest possible arena.

May I therefore suggest that you canvass all ECF Council delegates beforehand, by e-mail or snail mail?

PB

[John McKenna]

Rewind (ECF Matters - Re:Karpov candidate for FIDE president, Thu May 13, 2010 2:18 pm)

May I request that the thread be kept purely for the subject for which it was intended please?

I made it very clear who I supported and that choice was echoed by the ECF board. Working together is the best (perhaps the only) way forward and I hope we can look forward to a encouraging result when the FIDE elections take place. However, of a more pressing concern is when the Russian Federation makes its choice tomorrow and that was why Nigel and I were so eager to have the ECF's declaration established with such haste.

We have done what I, and the majority of people I've spoken with, consider to be the right thing. I know it is not my place to force my personal credo on others and certainly not on the federation but I've never been afraid of doing something which may prove unpopular when I believe it to be right or justified. I hardly think that if Ilyumzhinov wins, the ECF will be persecuted, but even if it is, that wouldn't stop me pursuing the same course in the future (indeed, it would probably make me more determined!)

[Angus French]

... the board were perfectly entitled [Sean's emphasis] to make the decision to commence the action.

... the ECF did [Sean's emphasis] follow not only their own rules, and also those laid down by the Companies Act.

The board acted within its powers.

I’m not sure that it's reasonable to say that "the board were perfectly entitled to make the decision to commence the action." that it "followed its own rules", that it "acted within its powers".

The ECF’s Memorandum of Association – see here - describes the organisation’s objects. These include, for example, "To encourage the study and practice of chess in England..." (section 3.1), "To institute and maintain British Chess Championships." (section 3.2) and so on. It’s not clear to me that the decision to take legal action against FIDE - because a greater number of Vice Presidents were appointed than was apparently allowed – can be said to be in pursuit of any of the ECF’s objects.

This is a point I’ve made a number of times and I know Jonathan Rogers has made it too. Like other points it remains unaddressed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's important that it gets consideration and is not forgotten about.

[Gerard Killoran]

Here again there is a lot of agreement over the facts. I think the vast majority of people agree

A. FIDE would be better led by Kasparov rather than Illyumzhinov

Is this the only choice? Remember when the ECF chose Nigel Short over Gerry Walsh, when given the outcome there had to be a better third candidate.

I suggest Kasparov hasn't a snowball's chance of winning, so by backing him you are entrenching Kirsan in his position. Not a clever move.

A couple of suggestions:

Find a candidate who will unite FIDE - not divide it.

Don't accuse people of corruption if you want their vote. For some strange reason they don't like it.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Paul B.

"I'm sorry, I must disagree: I think that postings on this Forum demonstrate that some
people's comments are less valuable than others' and to give people equal worth on this
Forum is flying in the face of reality."

What part of the term: 'Public Forum' don't you understand or disagree with.

I'd be interested to see a list of those who you deem worthy of posting
and a list of those you don't.

I'd be disapointed if I don't make it to the top of the 'Unworthy List' all this effort wasted.

Anyway, Whilst I'm here:
I cannot make head nor tail of what is going is on.
Can someone do a 'This Thread in Nutshell' for me (and no doubt others).
I have an unworthy post or two to contribute and I want to make sure
I get my facts wrong.

[John Upham]

May I therefore suggest that you canvass all ECF Council delegates beforehand, by e-mail or snail mail?
PB

Paul,
How can one obtain a mailing list for all ECF Council delegates?

Thanks!

[Peter D Williams]

Paul Buswell says I'm sorry, I must disagree: I think that postings on this Forum demonstrate that some people's comments are less valuable than others' and to give people equal worth on this Forum is flying in the face of reality. There are people posting whose views I pay attention to because of the manner and content of their postings over recent months; and others of whom the exact opposite is true.



Do not agree with that at all. I could say that about your comments if i see yours i pay less attention works both ways! every one views should be allowed on here and if possible one should read what the members are saying on here.This is a chess forum where views on chess issues are welcome from every one.

[David Gilbert]

Can someone do a 'This Thread in Nutshell' for me (and no doubt others).
I have an unworthy post or two to contribute and I want to make sure
I get my facts wrong.

So far as I can remember it all started with (Dirty) Den and Angie who ran the show until they split up - if you thought they were a bit dodgy you should see what followed. To start, along comes Frank Butcher and Pat Butcher, but Frank goes a bit bonkers and Pat Butcher runs the place on her own. But she runs into money problems and sells up to Eddie Royle, a local painter and decorator who does the place up. But no one seems to like him, maybe because he wore the odd silly jumper. Then somehow (I must have missed a few posts here) it’s Sharon (daughter of Den and Angie) and Grant Mitchell behind the bar. Well Grant isn’t happy and he burns the the whole place down. And so Sharon has an affair with Phil. Sharon jumps ship and Grant’s mum Peggy turns up and suddenly she’s the governor - you couldn’t write it. Then there’s a lot of stuff going on that I missed because I started playing chess, but Peggy sells out to the enemy who could have been a bloke called Steve. And then this Alfie-fella turns up and takes over after coming out of pokey and there are lots of gangsters and then the whole street burns down and they take FIDE to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. After losing out because it was well passed closing time we find Sharon is coming back and she’s got Bronze membership and seems to be a ghost wearing a wedding dress.

I’m probably considered one of the wiser and worthier contributors, but I don’t mind.

[Roger de Coverly]

Can someone do a 'This Thread in Nutshell' for me (and no doubt others).
I have an unworthy post or two to contribute and I want to make sure
I get my facts wrong.

The ECF, along with the Georgian Chess Federation objected to FIDE's or the FIDE President's appointment of additional Vice Presidents during the 2010 FIDE Congress. Being unable to resolve this dispute within FIDE, they escalated it as a reference to the Court of Arbitration in Sport.

They then didn't tell anyone about it for the next nine or ten months.

Much of the thread has been about whether all of the ECF Directors knew what was going on and the order of events. It could appear that actions which should have taken place after a vote took place before the vote. Also as the ECF doesn't have any money, it could only be a party to the case if someone else was paying, so there were other questions as to when the ECF got formal assurances that someone else would pay.

You may recall this thread, as you contributed to it.
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3735

[David Gilbert]

You see - almost plagiarism.