CAS case clarification required

[Paul Cooksey]

Am I the only one to find this thread increasingly resembling a witch hunt.

No, indeed I think you could say forum rather than thread. But I think this:

Perhaps I am also wrong in thinking that the type of unreserved apology you are undoubtedly owned by CJ is the type of unreserved apology you undoubtedly now owe to Mr Farthing.

is premature, until we have the ruling. An apology from someone on either side of the dispute, or more, might be justified. But important to have the facts first.

[Alex McFarlane]

I agree with Paul to the extent that I am convinced that the timeline being produced will make very interesting reading.

If I am proved wrong then I will apologise. I have seen various Board papers and am not convinced I have anything to apologise for. Time will tell.

[Roger de Coverly]

But important to have the facts first.

It seems fairly clear that the actions which led to the CAS appeals were started in January 2011 if not earlier. If the ECF tried to give the impression that the option of participating in the action was first presented to the ECF Board towards the end of February, that was only true to the extent that it was the last chance to pull out.

Signing a public circular letter being critical of FIDE or its decisions is to my mind a different engagement from taking on FIDE in secret and with only one other Federation in support. As others have said, the number of Vice Presidents in FIDE isn't really a vital interest of the ECF. We know the FIDE President retains power by patronage and inducements, but until the smaller Federations stop voting for his ticket, what can be done?

[Paul Cooksey]

I take Roger's point that some facts are already in the public domain. But I do feel whether we should have been involved in this case, and whether it was handled properly, are two different questions.

Still, I think I should wait for the facts to be fully clarified before I start campaigning for Alex to resign from his various positions of authority in English chess, for making frivolous allegations against the ECF (hello Paulo! )

[Jonathan Bryant]

, here is a link for the next blog. )

... your wish ....

[Jonathan Bryant]

Andrew, thanks for joining the discussion your comments are most welcome.

Do we have an estimated time of arrival regarding the statement.

I suspect the time it takes for him to write the statement is inversely proportional to the number of times he's asked how long it'll take him to write it.

I suspect the time it takes for him to write the statement is proportional to the number of times he's asked how long it'll take him to write it.

You both may be right - I assume Alex meant what you said Bill - but then again, Andrew is hardly the only board member with access to the internet. The FIDE delegate was able to find the time to write a letter to Chess Vibes after all. Maybe he - or somebody else - could have managed to squeeze in a one line "Yep, we're looking into and we will let you know when we've finished our investigations" post here?

Anyway, I thank Andrew for his reply and for making clear that a report would be published.

Whilst I take the point about train announcements....

and I take yours in return. I know Paul was only teasing, but for the record I was trying to say something about communication rather than equating the ECF to British Rail.

Talking of communication, I think it's a great pit that

The point raised clearly demanded serious attention, and I preferred not to comment at all than to comment without the benefit of the full facts

Did not appear ten days ago - not necessarily written by you but by somebody. Together with your commitment to publish a statement I think it would have made a big difference.

The silence here was in rather marked contrast to the Nigel Short's enthusiasm for writing letters to Chess Vibes, I'm afraid to say.


Anyway, thanks again for your comments today.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Regarding Martin Regan's witch hunt comment, as far as I can see Alex has not criticised Andrew Farthing directly, except to note that he has failed to answer one specific question on several occasions and to ask whether he (Alex) can draw a conclusion from that.

I for one have no doubt about Andrew Farthing's honesty and integrity. I stated earlier on in this thread that Andrew would be the only member of the board who would have the decency to attempt to answer Alex's query; in the main (Jack Rudd has of course also commented) I have been proven right.

We also know that Andrew Farthing was the one member of the board to dissent when the CAS arbitration came to the vote. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the ECF's dispute with FIDE (and I would rather the ECF tried to censure the FIDE president for associating with some of the worlds most reviled dictators rather than picking over a point of procedure) it has had far reaching consequences for officials and apparently now for players as well. Perhaps (I'm making a bit of a leap here and don't insist upon this point) Andrew Farthing foresaw all this unlike some members of the board (mentioning no names) who seem quite incapable of seeing past their own egos. If the rest of the board still believe in the case against FIDE perhaps one of them could come and answer the legitimate questions raised on here for once rather than leaving Andrew Farthing to do it as usual?

[Roger de Coverly]

I take Roger's point that some facts are already in the public domain. But I do feel whether we should have been involved in this case, and whether it was handled properly, are two different questions.

Let's go back to October 2010. The ECF were signatories to a letter of protest about the appointment of additional FIDE Vice Presidents. No particular issues there, except even then the ECF felt the need for legal opinion as to what they were committed to. So why? Was the October 2010 letter part of an anti FIDE strategy orchestrated by White and Case?

[Andrew Farthing]

Let's go back to October 2010. The ECF were signatories to a letter of protest about the appointment of additional FIDE Vice Presidents. No particular issues there, except even then the ECF felt the need for legal opinion as to what they were committed to. So why? Was the October 2010 letter part of an anti FIDE strategy orchestrated by White and Case?

It's news to me that the ECF sought a legal opinion in October 2010. Can Roger point me towards whatever I'm missing? As far as I can tell, his statement is incorrect.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's news to me that the ECF sought a legal opinion in October 2010. Can Roger point me towards whatever I'm missing?

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Report.doc

which contains the statement

This concerned a draft letter protesting at the appointment of five FIDE Vice-Presidents, when the rules allow for a maximum of three. It was reported that David Anderton had said there was no legal reason not to sign the letter. It was agreed nem con to add the ECF’s name to the signatories.

Is it wrong to interpret the words "David Anderton had said" and "there was no legal reason" as a legal opinion?

That is the first and last mention of the Vice-Presidents issue in the summaries of the ECF Board meetings.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I for one have no doubt about Andrew Farthing's honesty and integrity ... rather than leaving Andrew Farthing to do it as usual?

Seconded on both points.

[Andrew Farthing]

Andrew Farthing foresaw all this unlike some members of the board (mentioning no names) who seem quite incapable of seeing past their own egos. If the rest of the board still believe in the case against FIDE perhaps one of them could come and answer the legitimate questions raised on here for once rather than leaving Andrew Farthing to do it as usual?

We should be careful not to confuse two separate issues here.

This thread concerns a specific question raised about the process relating to the CAS legal action. Because my role tends to mean that I have easy access to the most comprehensive files on Board discussions and decisions, it seemed sensible for me to compile the dossier of what those files contained when the original query was raised. Since I did so immediately after I learned of the query and communicated it to the Board, with the message that I would follow up on the few points where clarification was needed, it seems reasonable for other Board members not to comment on the investigation.

The substantive issue about the merits of undertaking the legal action is something different. As I've said before, I respect the decision of the majority of the Board and share the Board's collective responsibility for its decisions. I confess that the disgraceful actions of one of the FIDE VPs concerned (the Olympiad arbiter selection scandal and the recent proposal to suspend any federation which had the temerity to mount a legal challenge to FIDE) have made me more sympathetic to the views of those who supported the legal action.

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.

[Andrew Farthing]

It's news to me that the ECF sought a legal opinion in October 2010. Can Roger point me towards whatever I'm missing?

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Report.doc

which contains the statement

This concerned a draft letter protesting at the appointment of five FIDE Vice-Presidents, when the rules allow for a maximum of three. It was reported that David Anderton had said there was no legal reason not to sign the letter. It was agreed nem con to add the ECF’s name to the signatories.

Is it wrong to interpret the words "David Anderton had said" and "there was no legal reason" as a legal opinion?

That is the first and last mention of the Vice-Presidents issue in the summaries of the ECF Board meetings.

Thanks, Roger. It seems such a long time since I came into the Chief Exec role (at the AGM immediately following the Board meeting you refer to) that I can sometimes forget there was once a time when it wasn't me dealing with these things. Since it is the custom for this done by the Chief Executive, 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.

I was present at the meeting in my old Strategic Planning / Alternate CEO capacity. I can't remember any discussion of whether the ECF was committing itself to legal action, but to be honest, two years on, I can't remember what was said on this subject at all and have to rely on the Minutes.

The first mention of CAS that I came across was in Jan 2011 (as alluded to earlier in the thread). I say that it was the first mention I saw because there is an e-mail from me asking what the acronym "CAS" stood for. Those were the days!

[Roger de Coverly]

We should be careful not to confuse two separate issues here.

It's not obvious there are two issues. In January 2011, if not earlier in October 2010, the ECF Board set in motion a series of actions possibly or likely to lead to an action against FIDE in CAS. The unknown is whether this process was spontaneous or had the support of White & Case from an early stage. The vote in late February 2011 was whether to continue the action against FIDE, with an escalation to the appeal to CAS. The CAS chronology as noted by Alex McF suggests that the paperwork was already under way before the ECF Board voted. So the March vote wasn't to start a process against FIDE as suggested by some postings, but to escalate a process already started by the October decision to sign the original letter.

I doubt if it will be possible to answer this, but once the ECF Board had agreed to the escalation to CAS, would it have been possible to back out at no financial cost? So had Council found out about the action at either the April or October meetings and demanded the ECF abandon it, would the CAS and White & Case legal costs still have been covered?

[Roger de Coverly]

The first mention of CAS that I came across was in Jan 2011 (as alluded to earlier in the thread). I say that it was the first mention I saw because there is an e-mail from me asking what the acronym "CAS" stood for.

It is part of the story speculated by some bloggers that the VP protest and CAS action was a private venture by the ECF President and FIDE Delegate, without the knowledge of the rest of the Board. Other than the initial public statements on the ChessBase site, it was certainly outside the knowledge of the ECF Council and the wider chess public.

CAS had been high profile because of the attempt to disqualify the Kirsan ticket from the elections in Siberia.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6706