Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Jonathan Bryant]

Perhaps, but there must have been some reason for the election of both AP and Nigel when they had such different views. Maybe it just didn't occur to people at all.

Given the electorate's past form, I'm not sure I'd automatically make the jump to assuming that 'reason' or logic were contributory factors in this election.

[Steve Rooney]

For me this was all a bit of a red herring ....

For me too - but perhaps for the opposite reason.

For me, the existence of a signed memorandum is not a red herring, it's a smoking gun. It may not have been fired, but the signature of both parties shows that they were prepared to act in this way. Good sense, and more likely the risk of it getting into the public domain - as it now has - may have made them think again; but the intent was there.

[Angus French]

For me this was all a bit of a red herring ....

For me too - but perhaps for the opposite reason.


I'd be surprised if AP doesn't in a legal sense own 100% of AGON. It would be spectacularly thick to repeatedly go out of your way to make a point of saying something - as AP has - if it wasn't true.

But to me that the question of ownership really isn't that important. People (including me) were raising the issue not because they had any specific interest in who does or doesn't own a company, but because there was (and still is) an interest/concern in the wider and bigger question: what relationship was/is there between AP and Kirsan.

What the document has established is there was indeed a relationship. It might not have led to them both owning AGON, but there were clearly suggestions of the two of them forming a business relationship.

If you are wanting to be President of a national chess federation - especially if one plank of your campaign is establishing closer ties with FIDE - you really have to declare this stuff.

So when AP was asked, "who owns AGON?" he could have replied, "Me, 100%. We did consider a company jointly owned by myself and Kirsan, but in the end we decided against that" but he didn't.

I have to ask myself, why leave that second sentence out when you know very well that people are asking about your relationship and ties with Kirsan?

I also have to ask myself, can I rely on AP telling the full story about anything if he didn't tell the full story here?

And if relations between Andrew Paulson and Kirsan Ilyumzhinov broke down following the proposed Agon ownership deal not taking effect, do you still think that Andrew Paulson should have declared the existence of said deal?

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps, but there must have been some reason for the election of both AP and Nigel when they had such different views. Maybe it just didn't occur to people at all.

Various attempts were made to get AP to declare support for Kirsan. I thought the general understanding had been that whilst he wasn't as pro-Kasparov as we presume Nigel is, he was content to discuss and resolve the issues of ECF support and involvement in the FIDE elections at a later date.

In the absence of leaks and for that matter minutes of meetings, rifts within the ECF Board are just speculation with the recent pronouncements by AP just the first public sightings.

The other unknown is the identity of the leaker of the Kasparov document to the New York Times and other chess journalists.

[PeterFarr]

Perhaps, but there must have been some reason for the election of both AP and Nigel when they had such different views. Maybe it just didn't occur to people at all.

Various attempts were made to get AP to declare support for Kirsan. I thought the general understanding had been that whilst he wasn't as pro-Kasparov as we presume Nigel is, he was content to discuss and resolve the issues of ECF support and involvement in the FIDE elections at a later date.

In the absence of leaks and for that matter minutes of meetings, rifts within the ECF Board are just speculation with the recent pronouncements by AP just the first public sightings.

The other unknown is the identity of the leaker of the Kasparov document to the New York Times and other chess journalists.

Yeah, I guess I was talking with benefit of hindsight. I'd say AP's pronouncement is now fairly strong evidence of a rift.

[NickFaulks]

it's a smoking gun. It may not have been fired,

Don't smoking guns smoke because they've just been fired? I'd call it a loaded gun, perhaps with the safety catch off.

[John McKenna]

Steve & Nick, pardon me, but my little grey cells are now working overtime - "... it's a smoking gun. It may not have been fired, but..." How is the gun smoking if it may not have been fired? Is it perhaps not a real gun but merely a cigarette holder?

[Carl Hibbard]

It has made news on ChessBase now as well:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/contractga ... memorandum

[Paolo Casaschi]

Nigel Short points to Andrew’s business relationship with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. I’ve no proof of this, but it seems likely to be the case.

So: how come Malcolm said in his statement "I've no proof of this" (this being a business relationship between Andrew Paulson and Kirsan Ilyumzhinov) but is then reported as saying something markedly different in the recent Chess Vibes article (http://www.chessvibes.com/leaked-agreem ... f-interest)?

“Andrew told me on at least on two occasions that Kirsan is the majority shareholder.” The last time was “shortly before the ECF elections”, said Mr Pein. This was in October 2013.

Also, in the statement about the election, Malcom refers to a generic "business relationship" that could mean almost anything. Knowing that KI is the majority shareholder of the company run full time by AP means that, at least for the matter of that company, AP is on the payroll of KI. That is more than a vague "business relationship".

[Nigel Short]

To set the record straight: I am all in favour of the ECF having a closer relationship with FIDE - just not with the present incumbents. Kirsan is NOT FIDE - much as he would like us to believe.

[Angus French]

To set the record straight: I am all in favour of the ECF having a closer relationship with FIDE - just not with the present incumbents. Kirsan is NOT FIDE - much as he would like us to believe.

Is that why you supported the legal action taken by the ECF against FIDE?

[Roger de Coverly]

Also, in the statement about the election, Malcom refers to a generic "business relationship" that could mean almost anything. Knowing that KI is the majority shareholder of the company run full time by AP means that, at least for the matter of that company, AP is on the payroll of KI. That is more than a vague "business relationship".

Agon is known to have had employees and ran two events, the London Grand Prix and the Candidates. It must also have had marketing and development costs with ChessCasting and branding. The only known source of income is the sponsorship of the Candidates.

Presuming expenditure was put through the books of Agon, the question arises as to where the income to pay for this came from. It wasn't the spending of share capital, so it must have been loans. The question comes as to from where. FIDE is one source, in the sense that they waived the fee Agon was supposed to pay.

It may have been 100% AP, there again it may not. Kirsan is apt to boast from time to time of how much money he puts into chess, perhaps if he was financing or part-financing it, he may reveal all one day.

Rereading that thread about Malcolm's statement of support for the 2012 elections, you do see a theme that support for AP is conditional on him being as arms length from Kirsan as he implies.

[Jonathan Bryant]

@roger - I felt that was clear at the time.

@Angus - Yes.

[Simon Brown]

Agon is known to have had employees and ran two events, the London Grand Prix and the Candidates. It must also have had marketing and development costs with ChessCasting and branding. The only known source of income is the sponsorship of the Candidates.

Presuming expenditure was put through the books of Agon, the question arises as to where the income to pay for this came from. It wasn't the spending of share capital, so it must have been loans. The question comes as to from where. FIDE is one source, in the sense that they waived the fee Agon was supposed to pay.

Roger, there is no reason to put the trading activities of Agon through the £2 Jersey company, which can happily own the rights and nothing else. I can think of a number of perfectly legitimate reasons, mainly tax and VAT-related, to put this type of expense through a traditional UK company. Presumably anyone who was actually paid by "Agon" must know who paid them, unless it was all cash, which I think is highly unlikely.

[Steve Rooney]

it's a smoking gun. It may not have been fired,

Don't smoking guns smoke because they've just been fired? I'd call it a loaded gun, perhaps with the safety catch off.

Fair enough. Perhaps the shots were only on the practice range.

The real question for ECF members however is whether they are content to have a figurehead who is prepared to do business with Kirsan in this way. The warnings from many of us on here during the hustings did not win the day, albeit that part of that might be down to a rather casual approach by the other contender. But the result would surely have been different if the signed memorandum had been in the public domain at that point, or as Jonathan Bryant asserted, if there had been more candour regarding the relationship with the FIDE president.