CAS case clarification required

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:50 pm

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.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4815
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford
Contact:

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:30 am

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.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:03 pm

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.
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.

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

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:07 pm

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.

Ernie Lazenby

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Ernie Lazenby » Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:50 pm

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.

John McKenna

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by John McKenna » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:45 pm

A black and white case of rubber-stamping?

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4634
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:22 pm

Jonathan 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.
Ditto

(gheesh, people are going to have trouble distinguishing between the two Jonathans at this rate!)

John McKenna

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by John McKenna » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:35 pm

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.)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:54 pm

Nigel himself now confirms the start of one of the actions as being 24th February 2011.

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.)

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

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:47 pm

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

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8781
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:57 pm

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
I got a curious sense of deja vu when I read the chessvibes comments thread.

Martin Regan

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Martin Regan » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:55 pm

Ernie wrote:
I would have been surprised if you had said otherwise. You were part of Martins team were you not?
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.

Ernie Lazenby

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Ernie Lazenby » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:10 pm

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.

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

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Alex McFarlane » Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:08 pm

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.

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

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Alex McFarlane » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:50 am

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.

Post Reply