FIDE Law Suit

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:18 pm

John Upham wrote:Are you authorised to name the person providing such advice?
No, but if you put your thinking cap on, I'm sure you'll work out who it is. :wink:

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7162
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by John Upham » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:22 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
John Upham wrote:Are you authorised to name the person providing such advice?
No, but if you put your thinking cap on, I'm sure you'll work out who it is. :wink:
I should not need to do this. Is it a condition of providing legal advice that he or she remains anonymous?

A curious state of affairs indeed.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVNU5jkOwzU

I'm assuming my query will remain unanswered Alex?
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:38 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: The ECF's famed legal-eagle is also a JRT trustee. If there were a problem, he would have said so.
Assuming the JRT Trustees haven't changed recently, one of the other Trustees is someone who some would suspect ( perhaps including Alex McF) of being rather more supportive of the FIDE President than many others in the British chess community.
Well, if you say so. I can't envisage any of the Trustees being at all supportive of the FIDE President.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:33 pm

I've been trying to tell people in England about this for ages, I don't think anyone believed me. Anyway, nothing to worry about, you have Gary's personal word, and we know he's never taken back a move.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3338
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Richard Bates » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Maybe he secured the backing of the British Government...?

Or maybe not.

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

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:42 pm

I've unearthed a non-FIDE reference to the case.

from the webpage of White & Case, New York lawyers
http://www.whitecase.com/asantens/

There's a client testimony
clients say:

"Garry Kasparov … [t]he former chess world champion said the [team led by Ms. Santens] displayed 'a combination of big-picture understanding and management of the smallest details despite heavy time pressure.' 'I would never consider going to any other firm. Anyone considering arbitration in sports should not hesitate to engage them.'" (GAR 100, 2011)
and under a case list
Court of Arbitration for Sport cases:

Represented the ticket of 12th World Champion Anatoly Karpov and several national chess federations in a CAS arbitration against the World Chess Federation (FIDE) in relation to FIDE's 2010 internal elections.
Represented two national chess federations in a CAS arbitration against FIDE in relation to the improper appointment of five Vice Presidents in FIDE's 2010 internal elections.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3338
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Richard Bates » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:45 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Represented two national chess federations in a CAS arbitration against FIDE in relation to the improper appointment of five Vice Presidents in FIDE's 2010 internal elections.
Does that mean the case has finished? Or they've been sacked? :o

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

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:52 pm

Richard Bates wrote: Does that mean the case has finished? Or they've been sacked? :o
Nigel Short's published report to the ECF AGM mentions the case as taking place early next year, but omits to note the ECF's direct involvement. Perhaps they were sacked, they don't mention the results of their cases, whether their side won or lost.

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

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:49 am

NickFaulks wrote:I've been trying to tell people in England about this for ages, I don't think anyone believed me.
It would have been logical to post on this forum which has an insatiable appetite for gossip and scandal. Whilst the forum would, I expect, be critical of an ECF decision to take legal action against FIDE, it might equally ask why smaller federations with a minority of the world's chess players persist in supporting Kirsan. There are those who say that the ECF's voting methods, which only give votes to chess organisations, are less than desirable. They do however attempt to weight voting power by number of events and number of players.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:12 am

Roger, if you are referring to the Bermuda federation, we do not necessarily support Kirsan. I was personally highly critical of him long before it was fashionable to be so. We are, however, waiting for an even vaguely constructive alternative.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Matthew Turner » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:34 am

Nick,
I hope that you will post here, particularly on FIDE matters. I think you will tend to bring a different perspective which is always helpful to debate. It is probably also a good idea that people are aware that you are the Bemudan Delegate to FIDE, so may have a vested interest.

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

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:48 am

NickFaulks wrote: We are, however, waiting for an even vaguely constructive alternative.
ECF elections have the concept of a candidate who is "None of the above". I think that sums up the attitude of many English players to Kirsan and we lack understanding as to why FIDE delegates persist in re-electing him.

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

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:48 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
ECF elections have the concept of a candidate who is "None of the above". I think that sums up the attitude of many English players to Kirsan and we lack understanding as to why FIDE delegates persist in re-electing him.
I am sure that most people think they know very well why small countries with little financial muscle think it in their interests to vote for Kirsan.

I agree that it would be useful to hear more from Nick.

I am astonished (though also relieved) that this thread hasn't mushroomed to ten pages already. I actually think that, had the matter been made public, I could have been persuaded to support it, in my helpless forumite manner. If the costs really are covered (obviously a big "if", and why is Gary allegedly covering the costs and not Anatoly?) then is is not for the better that we get rid of Kirsan; and if we think so, shouldn't we be prepared to play a role ourselves?

But that's all hypothetical. We were not told of it. To declare war on the FIDE presidency has to be the decision of the ECF as a whole, in some meaningful way: we should need Council to vote on it, at the least, I should think. It is the sort of thing that is liable to have consequences down the line, and indeed it may have had internal consequences already. Alex F must be wondering whether the Board has been refusing to support him in public because they cannot afford to lose CJ while this case is in progress (which would make sense if there is no legal document from the sponsor). Thinking back a couple of months, when David Roberston thought that CJ was going to resign - now one wonders whether there may have been some temporary crisis due to this affair.

As it is, it looks like a pet project of Nigel and CJ, cooked up at Simpsons last year or in Russia. They are not acting on behalf of the ECF as a whole. They do not even have unanimous support from their own Board. I am surprised that an EGM has not been called already - perhaps everyone is waiting for someone else to do it?

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

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:08 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote: To declare war on the FIDE presidency has to be the decision of the ECF as a whole, in some meaningful way: we should need Council to vote on it, at the least, I should think.
Even without a vote, what did the ECF Directors hope to achieve by keeping silent? Taking legal action against FIDE is something that is bound to become public and not telling your AGM about it is getting very close to a no-confidence issue.

Jonathan Rogers wrote: I am surprised that an EGM has not been called already - perhaps everyone is waiting for someone else to do it?
Any organisation or individual requesting such a motion might be branded as a FIDE puppet. Indeed there's very little or no English support for Kirsan. Equally there's little support, I would hope, for taking money out of chess and giving it to lawyers.

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

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:12 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Jonathan Rogers wrote: I am surprised that an EGM has not been called already - perhaps everyone is waiting for someone else to do it?
Any organisation or individual requesting such a motion might be branded as a FIDE puppet....
Perhaps that is it, though they could rightly retort "well, Kirsan isn't actually asking or paying us to do this, whereas the ECF. on the other hand ..."

Post Reply