English Chess Forum

Geoff Chandler wrote: Now do we get to see who has signed the dreaded 'White Form' before it is attacked
with an eraser?

The ECF membership list, most recent copy at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... r-2011.xls
used to tell you.

They aren't downloading that column any more.

At one time they tried to insist that you sign the White Form as a condition of playing in a FIDE rated event. Prior to that, they tried to insist on everyone signing. It created an internal row with the NCCU.

The membership page still says you need to sign the form
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=2
It's behind the times as they voted abolition at the October AGM.

Send a copy of the White Form to FIDE.

They will back down when they see just who they are tangling with.

I bet they don't have a White Form they can threaten us with.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:

Matthew Turner wrote:Is that because all the costs are being borne by the Georgian Chess Federation or there is a backer to cover the ECF's costs?
Either way, I am not sure that it is a good idea to get involved in a court case with the big boys. Whose decision was it? Do council ever have a vote on it?

There's a backer to cover the ECF's costs. It was a decision passed by a majority Board vote.

When was the decision taken please? And, if you know, when did the possibility of taking legal action first come before the Board?

Thank you

PB

It is absolutely astonishing that this was not mentioned at the AGM, I have to say. To have to find out about it from other sources just brings the Board into disrepute.

Of course, by now, the fact that the costs are backed by an anonymous donor barely attracts any comment at all. Anonymous? Of course he is! Anonymous Donor is now every much a pervasive figure in British chess as D Fault and No Suitable Candidate.

Jonathan Rogers wrote:It is absolutely astonishing that this was not mentioned at the AGM, I have to say. To have to find out about it from other sources just brings the Board into disrepute.

How can this one not have been mentioned before, we need to get some input from Andrew Farthing on this one to be honest?

Thanks to Roger for alerting us to this.

ECF/BCF has always been shy about revealing legal action, although it has normally been on the receiving end of said action. I would have thought it predictable that the membership might have been interested in hearing about this from ECF, rather than from outside sources. After all, it is surely a good idea to reassure the membership about the financial situation in advance, whereas now many members are probably assuming the worst.

What effect will this legal action have on ECF finances?

Whilst the ananymous person funding this action may indeed have given the ECF cast iron guarantees (the nature of which should by right be made known to the members), what will the knock-on situation be?

Will the John Robinson Trust be happy about this or will it withdraw its support?

Will potential sponsors look favourably on such action?

I just hope for the ECF's sake that the assurances it has received of backing prove to be more substantial than that received by a recent event where the financial promises of an ECF official were not fulfilled.

Alex McFarlane wrote:I just hope for the ECF's sake that the assurances it has received of backing prove to be more substantial than that received by a recent event where the financial promises of an ECF official were not fulfilled.

I hope the guarantees are better than those provided during the Chess for Schools fiasco.

A thought.

Hypothetically speaking, in best Ian Hislop mode, supposing the backer of this legal action is associated with a particular Board member. That Board member comes under a lot of criticism and has to be blindly defended by one or more of the other Board members. However the pressure becomes too much and Board Member 1 is either removed from office or resigns and takes the backer with him. Hypothetically, does the ECF have a manually operated propulsion unit to propel its small waterbased craft through a stream of effluent?

I find it amazing that given the financial difficulties the ECF currently faces that it would choose to bring legal action of this nature, irrespective of the backing/indemnification/guarantees that have been provided by this unknown individual.

To echo the sentiments of other posters on this thread I hope that a concrete, legally binding and all encompassing agreement has been entered into with the person financing this action.

I understand the role that the ECF has to play in the global arena, but surely our attention should be closer to home given the current difficulties, rather than time and effort being expended on this legal action? I hope that the rationale for bringing the claim is sufficient to justify the time and money involved.

I agree.

From what little we know, it doesn't appear to be ECF 'core business'. I can't imagine what has come to pass that requires our volunteer, over-pressed, and not very sure-footed Board to enter litigation with FIDE. What justifies this distraction of time and focus? A couple of extra VPs? Are our interests so compromised by this?

Alex McFarlane wrote:A thought.
Hypothetically speaking, in best Ian Hislop mode, supposing the backer of this legal action is associated with a particular Board member.

One might presume a wealthy individual or individuals with a grudge against FIDE in general or its president in particular. CAS (Court of Arbitration in Sport) ruled in the 2010 Karpov case that only members of FIDE could take legal action on matters that were FIDE internal procedures such as eligibility for elections and presumably appointment of vice-presidents. As only chess federations can become members of FIDE, it follows that such individuals would have to find a chess federation willing to act as their proxy. You can see that the payment of lawyers to prepare and present the case could easily be done without involving the chess federation. The more worrying development would be if FIDE then attempted directly or indirectly to recover its own costs from said federation. This could apply whether the case was won or lost.

Alex McFarlane wrote:Will the John Robinson Trust be happy about this or will it withdraw its support?

The ECF's famed legal-eagle is also a JRT trustee. If there were a problem, he would have said so.

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.

Alex Holowczak wrote: The ECF's famed legal-eagle is also a JRT trustee. If there were a problem, he would have said so.

Alex,

I have surveyed the list of ECF Officials and cannot find anyone named as being an ECF Legal Advisor or similar.

Are you authorised to name the person providing such advice?

If they act on behalf of the ECF is there an excellent reason that he or she are not named as such?