CAS case clarification required
-
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: CAS case clarification required
I have been busy today setting up for the British and have only recently had the time to check my emails.
I am pleased to say that John Philpott (sorry if I've mis-spelled it again) has replied to me stating that the Board are treating this matter very seriously and it will take a few days more to reach its conclusion.
I am very happy to have had this reply and await the official statement/explanation.
I am pleased to say that John Philpott (sorry if I've mis-spelled it again) has replied to me stating that the Board are treating this matter very seriously and it will take a few days more to reach its conclusion.
I am very happy to have had this reply and await the official statement/explanation.
- IM Jack Rudd
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
- Contact:
Re: CAS case clarification required
I spent the entire weekend at a board game convention, and am only just online. Let me be clear about my involvement here:
1. When I voted in favour of the White & Case action, I was working on the assumption that it was an action that had yet to be initiated.
2. When the discrepancy in times was brought to my attention by Alex McFarlane, I immediately checked the times for myself and then forwarded Alex's message to the Board for comment.
1. When I voted in favour of the White & Case action, I was working on the assumption that it was an action that had yet to be initiated.
2. When the discrepancy in times was brought to my attention by Alex McFarlane, I immediately checked the times for myself and then forwarded Alex's message to the Board for comment.
-
- Posts: 21291
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: CAS case clarification required
If you look at the chronology as published by CAS , the action was arguably started when in January 2011, the Georgian Federation and ECF issued a protest to the forthcoming Presidential Board in early February on the VP issue. It has to work that way, as CAS require that internal methods of resolving disputes need to have been exhausted before they will accept jurisdiction.IM Jack Rudd wrote:1. When I voted in favour of the White & Case action, I was working on the assumption that it was an action that had yet to be initiated.
-
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: CAS case clarification required
IM Jack Rudd wrote: 1. When I voted in favour of the White & Case action, I was working on the assumption that it was an action that had yet to be initiated ....
Thanks for this clarification Jack.
The Abysmal Depths of Chess: https://theabysmaldepthsofchess.blogspot.com
Re: CAS case clarification required
Much respect to Jack for his comment, I for one hope he continues in post after the AGM. A few more like him and we would not have a problem.
-
- Posts: 4634
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: CAS case clarification required
DittoJonathan Bryant wrote:IM Jack Rudd wrote: 1. When I voted in favour of the White & Case action, I was working on the assumption that it was an action that had yet to be initiated ....
Thanks for this clarification Jack.
(gheesh, people are going to have trouble distinguishing between the two Jonathans at this rate!)
Re: CAS case clarification required
Please pardon my above post - it was just meant as a cheap shot at the ECF Board (excluding of course those directors who had the wool pulled over their eyes and those like Jack who tend to take things at face value and on good faith.)
-
- Posts: 21291
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: CAS case clarification required
Nigel himself now confirms the start of one of the actions as being 24th February 2011.
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/nigel ... ase-closed
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/nigel ... ase-closed
Mr. Freeman also misstates when the appeal was first filed, as the case was not started on 29 March 2011 but on 24 February 2011 (well within 21 days of the publication of the GA Minutes.)
-
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: CAS case clarification required
I look forward to an ECF response to
(a) the issue itself
and
(b) how it is that the FIDE delegate is able to write open letters to Chess Vibes before an accurate account of the instigation of the ECF's involvement in the lawsuit is given to ECF members
(a) the issue itself
and
(b) how it is that the FIDE delegate is able to write open letters to Chess Vibes before an accurate account of the instigation of the ECF's involvement in the lawsuit is given to ECF members
The Abysmal Depths of Chess: https://theabysmaldepthsofchess.blogspot.com
- Christopher Kreuzer
- Posts: 8781
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: CAS case clarification required
I got a curious sense of deja vu when I read the chessvibes comments thread.Jonathan Bryant wrote:I look forward to an ECF response to
(a) the issue itself
and
(b) how it is that the FIDE delegate is able to write open letters to Chess Vibes before an accurate account of the instigation of the ECF's involvement in the lawsuit is given to ECF members
Re: CAS case clarification required
Ernie wrote:
I had missed this, but will not let it pass unremarked. The many on this board who know Peter Sowray will know that the idea he would support a point of view, regardless of its merits, because he is acquainted with the people propounding it, is simply wrong. To suggest otherwise, even by innuendo, is simply wrong.I would have been surprised if you had said otherwise. You were part of Martins team were you not?
Re: CAS case clarification required
Alright Martin I will accept that and offer an apology to Peter. in all other respects I offer no apology.
BTW why bring it up now it was old news that post, perhaps to do so is intended to divert attention away from the main point of the thread. Not good reading is it. Perhaps you would like to comment about the main issue raised rather than attack the original messenger.
I hope when all is revealed, and if there has been a breach of ECF regs, you dont try and defend those responsible.
A lot to defend would it not be. The ECF sues FIDE but in doing so fails to comply with its own rules. It will be interesting to see the final outcome of this.
BTW why bring it up now it was old news that post, perhaps to do so is intended to divert attention away from the main point of the thread. Not good reading is it. Perhaps you would like to comment about the main issue raised rather than attack the original messenger.
I hope when all is revealed, and if there has been a breach of ECF regs, you dont try and defend those responsible.
A lot to defend would it not be. The ECF sues FIDE but in doing so fails to comply with its own rules. It will be interesting to see the final outcome of this.
-
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: CAS case clarification required
I had hoped that there would be an ECF statement by today. However, I believe that the ECF are seeking answers to some supplemental questions which were only asked today.
I eagerly await the ECF getting those answers and taking appropriate action.
My belief is that only one person is in a really awkward position as a direct result of this but that others may be affected by incorrect subsequent action that was taken without due process.
I eagerly await the ECF getting those answers and taking appropriate action.
My belief is that only one person is in a really awkward position as a direct result of this but that others may be affected by incorrect subsequent action that was taken without due process.
-
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: CAS case clarification required
I am still awaiting info from the ECF on this matter.
I have also asked if the costs awarded to FIDE have been paid yet. Does anyone know if this is the case?
It may be a worrying time for some of the Directors as it might be argued that in taking the vote to 'start' action against FIDE article A68 was possibly not followed to the letter. This requires a motion to be circulated and voted on. It is unclear if the reply from one Board member constitutes a further amended motion or merely a comment on the official motion.
This is certainly not totally clear but the possibility exists that in legal terms no motion was distributed to the Board to vote on regarding only proceeding if the financies were secure. If this were to be proven then it is possible that the £1 maximum penalty could be over-ruled in court and the Directors held responsible.
This, of course, is only a problem if the Kasparov money has not been paid.
I have also asked if the costs awarded to FIDE have been paid yet. Does anyone know if this is the case?
It may be a worrying time for some of the Directors as it might be argued that in taking the vote to 'start' action against FIDE article A68 was possibly not followed to the letter. This requires a motion to be circulated and voted on. It is unclear if the reply from one Board member constitutes a further amended motion or merely a comment on the official motion.
This is certainly not totally clear but the possibility exists that in legal terms no motion was distributed to the Board to vote on regarding only proceeding if the financies were secure. If this were to be proven then it is possible that the £1 maximum penalty could be over-ruled in court and the Directors held responsible.
This, of course, is only a problem if the Kasparov money has not been paid.