Nigel Short wrote: Before Andrew Paulson became ECF President, it was the custom to conduct most Board meetings by skype (and prior to that by telephone). This had the very significant advantage of saving time and the ECF's money. I may add that it also allowed those who were not in country to participate (in most cases just me, but sometimes others). After AP became President, the next few meetings took place physically in his flat. In my opinion, these changes were motivated primarily by convenience to AP, to the detriment of the ECF.
Mike Gunn wrote:The original decision to take legal action was debated and agreed by the whole board (with one vote against).
Nigel Short wrote:Andrew Paulson told me by Skype, in August 2013, that Kirsan Ilyumzhinov was the majority shareholder of Agon
JustinHorton wrote:Mike Gunn wrote:The original decision to take legal action was debated and agreed by the whole board (with one vote against).
And then hidden from the membership, the outcome of this being a great deal of rancour - but not, apparently, the learning of any lessons.
JustinHorton wrote:Kirsan Ilyumzhinov does not appear to to be the majority shareholder of AGON. So why would Paulson claim that he was? I could understand him claiming Kirsan wasn't the majority shareholder if he were, but why the other way round?
Nigel Short wrote:Are Nigel & Andrew so at loggerheads that they cannot see the damage being done?
Simon Spivack wrote:Andrew Paulson wrote:Malcolm Pein wrote:REF Andrew Paulson wrote:
Note: Malcolm Pein, Sean Hewitt and Alex Holowczak, among others, were eager to be put on Commissions under this initiative.
It is also demonstrably false in my case. It's just more nonsense from AP, I have copied below relevant extracts from an email of 30th Jan. 2014 from AP to me and me to AP.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Some Business
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:57:38 +0000
From: Malcolm Pein <>
To: Andrew Paulson <>, Phil Ehr <>, Malcolm Pein <>
2) I have met with the main Chess in Schools organisations in Western Europe recently. The general consensus is that the FIDE Chess in Schools Commission is damaged beyond repair.
We are probably forming an umbrella organisation for Europe to coordinate research and fund raising. FIDE is toxic from that viewpoint. In the unlikely event of a complete clear out many people might come forward. I think the FIDE brand might remain toxic for some time to come but so I would be unlikely to put my name forward.
2. I had discussions in Lausanne about the Chess in Schools Commission, as said I would when we last met. If there were a new Chairman whom you had confidence in, it might be very valuable for all concerned for you to be a core member of this Commission, regardless of who is the President of FIDE after the elections. Do you still agree with this and should I include you in the list of potential candidates for senior commission roles?
Malcolm is forgetting a conversation we had a month or so ago in my flat (January 3rd at 12:30 p.m.) where we discussed the Anglophone Committee and he said that he would be interested in sitting on the FIDE Chess in Schools Commission.
Malcolm has provided documentary evidence to support his case, you have come up with your recollection. They are not of equal value. I, for one, do not always accurately recall conversations; furthermore, there is the added difficulty that what one party imagines he has said is not necessarily the same as what his interlocutor believes he has heard.
A perfectly plausible sequence of events is that you broached to Malcolm the possibility of occupying a FIDE post and that he replied in a non-committal manner. That is how I would usually reply should someone bounce something unexpected off me. Having investigated the matter, Malcolm's reply was negative.
In the interests of disclosure, I should mention that I have known Malcolm since we were children. I have even stayed at his parents' home when it was in Liverpool. In the world of UK chess, there are many such links.
JustinHorton wrote:Nigel Short wrote:Andrew Paulson told me by Skype, in August 2013, that Kirsan Ilyumzhinov was the majority shareholder of Agon
The problem with this claim is that Kirsan Ilyumzhinov does not appear to to be the majority shareholder of AGON. So why would Paulson claim that he was? I could understand him claiming Kirsan wasn't the majority shareholder if he were, but why the other way round?
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests