English Arbiters to suffer???

[Ernie Lazenby]

Martin wrote
I winged over a letter of complaint against FIDE's treatment of Nigel. You would not believe the number of phone calls, I then had from liggers, hangers-on and junket junkies - about how we were damaging the "interests of British Chess".

Not hard to see why Mr Short was is so keen to take FIDE to court is it. Theres a history and the Federation has been used to further that dispute, well thats how it appears.

[Roger de Coverly]

Just for the record, I can honestly say in this instance that the likely reaction of Council was never mentioned in the Board's discussion of whether to take part in the CAS action.

But that's wrong in itself. I'm not so much thinking of Council, but shouldn't the likely attitude of the broader perspective of English chess players be considered? Is it not relatively obvious that while lack of confidence in Kirsan as FIDE President is widespread, the same in unlikely to be said for getting involved in fights over procedural issues.

As regards the disclosure point, Kirsan announced it himself. I don't recall the ECF Board rushing to correct the oversight of not mentioning it at consecutive Council meetings.

[Roger de Coverly]

There was no Board discussion of any legal advice along the lines referred to in the Giddins blog, and if such legal advice existed, it is news to me.

I suspect the blog writer was careful in his choice of words. He mentions the legal advice in the context of sources close to the ECF President, not the Board as a whole. Wasn't the whole project very much a private initiative of the President and FIDE Delegate, with the ECF Board only involved to the extent of authorising the action to take place in the name of the ECF?

Given that the whole ECF Board knew about the action, it's still strange to me that no director mentioned it at the ECF AGM even in passing, that is, unless they were sworn to secrecy. The accounts were not in a state to be approved, but had they been, the existence of the CAS action needed to have been disclosed to the auditors.

[David Sedgwick]

As for the arbitors not going to the Olympiad - I always believed that those administrators who took up the invitation and regarded it as a "honour" were profoundly wrong.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. For me it was the kind of once in a lifetime opportunity now being experienced by those taking part in the Olympic Torch Relay.

Lara Barnes, who richly deserves a similar opportunity, has been deprived of it.

I feel sorry for her even if you don't.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I feel sorry for Lara too, but what I don't quite understand is how the atmosphere surrounding this degenerated so quickly, with it becoming (another) reason for factions in English chess to argue and throw brickbats at each other. It could and should have been an opportunity to unite around a common cause.

[Ernie Lazenby]

One cannot get away from the fact the everything has cause and effect. The legal action against FIDE has resulted in Lara being excluded from a lifetime opportunity. There are those who seek to separate the two issues but that cannot be so, one has led to the other and maybe more such actions will follow in the future. BTW I don't detect much antipathy, just difference of opinions amongst grown ups.

[Andrew Farthing]

(...)Wasn't the whole project very much a private initiative of the President and FIDE Delegate, with the ECF Board only involved to the extent of authorising the action to take place in the name of the ECF?

This is distinctly unflattering to the other nine members of the Board, who all had to make up their minds about the issue. This was debated off and on, in discussions and by e-mail, over a period of weeks. To say that the Board as a whole was involved only to the extent of authorising the action is, therefore, misleading. The fact that one Board member brought the issue to the Board for discussion and decision is not unusual; that's how most proposals come to the Board.

Given that the whole ECF Board knew about the action, it's still strange to me that no director mentioned it at the ECF AGM even in passing, that is, unless they were sworn to secrecy.

All I can do is repeat is that I personally was not "sworn to secrecy", so if there had been some form of conspiracy covering every other member of the Board - which I don't believe for one second - it was a pretty incompetent (or courageous) one to place reliance on the accident of my not saying anything.

What you find "strange" about the AGM may perhaps be largely explained by the long interval between the Board's authorisation of the legal action and its being put into effect - a period of over half a year - which meant that it was far less prominent in our minds than at the time of the decision. There was quite some distance between the intensity of the discussion/decision process and the AGM. Add to that the absence at the AGM of several Board members - if I recall correctly, CJ de Mooi, Peter Purland and Stewart Reuben were all absent - and the improbability is perhaps further reduced.

I do understand the attraction of looking for special significance in unusual events, but sometimes the truth is as banal as the explanation originally provided.

[Angus French]

From the ECF's memorandum and articles:

POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD
51. The business of the Company shall be managed by the Board, who may pay all expenses incurred in promoting and registering the Company, and may exercise all such powers of the Company as are not, by the Act or by these Articles, required to be exercised by the Company in General Meeting, subject nevertheless to the provisions of the Act, these Articles and to such Bye Law, being not inconsistent with the aforesaid provisions, as may be prescribed by the Company in General Meeting; but no Bye Law made by the Company in General Meeting shall invalidate any prior act of the Board which would have been valid if that Bye Law had not been made.

The mem and arts... seem to me to be quite clear in allowing the Board to make the decision [to instigate legal action against FIDE]

Two comments:
1. The Board does have the power to convene EGMs. Perhaps this was a circumstance in which it might have exercised that power or at least given consideration to the same - I'm not saying that all decisions should be refered to or approved by Council (of course they shouldn't) but, in my view, the decision to take legal action against FIDE was a serious matter and needed to be taken seriously;
2. The ECF's memerandum of association lists the objects of the ECF: "To encourage the study and practice of chess in England...", "To institute and maintain Brit ish Chess Championships..." and so on. I'm wondering: in pursuit of which object or objects was the Board's decision taken?

[Adam Ashton]

One cannot get away from the fact the everything has cause and effect. The legal action against FIDE has resulted in Lara being excluded from a lifetime opportunity. There are those who seek to separate the two issues but that cannot be so, one has led to the other and maybe more such actions will follow in the future. BTW I don't detect much antipathy, just difference of opinions amongst grown ups.

I think the two are clearly related but seperate issues. It is irritating that people continue to lump the two together as if the second was an inevitable result of the first. FIDE is a major organisation and should be professional enough to deal with action against them in an appropriate legal manner. It is not a contradiction to support the ECF in taking a firm stand against this ridiculous ban even if you don't agree with the ECF's original legal action.

[Andrew Farthing]

I feel sorry for Lara too, but what I don't quite understand is how the atmosphere surrounding this degenerated so quickly, with it becoming (another) reason for factions in English chess to argue and throw brickbats at each other. It could and should have been an opportunity to unite around a common cause.

Hear, hear. I'm doing my best to ignore the brickbats and focus on the injustice of the Turkish Federation's actions and our efforts to get FIDE to address them. I've only involved myself in the thread again today to address some of the assertions which I know to be false in a (probably doomed) attempt to bring things back into perspective. It's an uphill battle, because in the 'cock-up vs conspiracy' conflict, the latter is almost inevitably more alluring than the former.

[Roger de Coverly]

1. The Board does have the power to convene EGMs. Perhaps this was a circumstance in which it might have exercised that power or at least given consideration to the same - I'm not saying that all decisions should be refered to or approved by Council (of course they shouldn't) but, in my view, the decision to take legal action against FIDE was a serious matter and needed to be taken seriously;

The Board seem to have been totally oblivious to the likely reaction when the news became public. Did they really think the wider chess public would want the ECF to be involved in procedural battles with FIDE without at least questioning it?

Somewhere in this was a desire or need to keep the legal action a secret. I'm not sure why, unless the financial backer feared opposition within the wider ECF.

[Andrew Farthing]

The Board does have the power to convene EGMs. Perhaps this was a circumstance in which it might have exercised that power or at least given consideration to the same - I'm not saying that all decisions should be refered to or approved by Council (of course they shouldn't) but, in my view, the decision to take legal action against FIDE was a serious matter and needed to be taken seriously.

It was taken very seriously. As for the notion of an EGM, my view is that the Board is elected to manage the affairs of the federation. It should not feel constrained to call an EGM whenever there is a serious decision to be taken.

As has been observed elsewhere, the views of our FIDE Delegate and President on the shortcomings of the current FIDE administration were well known at the time of their election at the previous AGM. I don't think it will come as a shock that there are other Board members who share these views, myself among them. Although I acknowledge that many might have not have chosen the particular issue and battleground which the Board supported on which to fight, it cannot be said that the federation's stance came completely out of the blue.

Council delegates had had previous opportunities to raise concerns about the President's and FIDE Delegate's public statements about the FIDE administration and, with a couple of exceptions which I recall, did not do so. It was a reasonable conclusion to draw that Council was content with the approach adopted, albeit - I repeat - I accept that there have been more concerns raised at the specific actions taken by the Board in respect of pursuing (and omitting to report) the CAS action.

[Roger de Coverly]

It was a reasonable conclusion to draw that Council was content with the approach adopted,

It was perfectly reasonable to assume a lack of support for Kirsan as President, another thing entirely to be party to a legal action alleged by FIDE defenders to be for the purpose of making FIDE spend money on lawyers.

[Nigel Short]

It is entirely false to assume, as the FIDE propagandists would like you to, that FIDE had no choice but to defend this particular case. After the initial written protest of 14 federations was made to the FIDE Presidential Board,they had the simple option of temporarily removing the three extra Vice Presidents and then placing before the September 2012 General Assembly a motion to allow the President to appoint five VPs, rather than "two and no more" as the statute currently states. Don't be deceived, their decision to contest this court case was entirely political. As Stewart Reuben has reported earlier in this thread, David Jarrett revealingly commented to him that FIDE were not going to be "bullied" into following their statutes.

[benedgell]

On a point of fact, I believe that the proposal to take legal action was put to the board, and after discussion the board decided to take that legal action. It's not true to say that CJ & Nigel put the ECF's name to the legal action though they may (I don't know) have been the prime movers in getting the board to make that decision.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the decision to take legal action. in my opinion, it wasn't a battle sufficiently serious to fight - in contrast to the issue of the legality of the Kirsan ticket in 2010, but I respect the board's right to make the decision to take legal action. Council elects a board to make decisions on behalf of the ECF. Council should not then expect the board to continually ask Council's opinion.

However, the ommission by several officers at various general meetings to even mention the existence of the legal action is a serious concern. Had it been aware of the action, Council may have given the board instruction as to how to proceed (if it saw fit) and may have voted differently in the election of various officers. The lack of disclosure robbed Council of these opportunities.

I agree with the above. I think the ECF is right to take a stand against FIDE, I'm just not entirely convinced that this is the issue on which to do so, as even if the ECF wins this legal battle I'm not sure whether there will be a truly positive outcome.