Not only did Nigel Short's written report to last October's AGM not mention the FIDE law suit but nor did Nigel when he spoke at the AGM and was quizzed about the ECF's working relationship with FIDE. This was a discussion which lasted, if I recall, quite a few minutes and something about which Peter Wilson (who initiated the discussion) seemed to be exercised. Couple this with CEO's statement (from his report for the Finance meeting) - "The Board should have advised Council of its decision at the Finance Council meeting in April 2011 or, having failed to do so, at the AGM six months later. That this did not happen was due to an oversight, for which I apologise. There was no intention to hide this matter from Council â€“ it was genuinely overlooked" and I'm rather incredulous. That said, the ECF couldn't possibly hope to keep the matter quiet, could it?Jonathan Rogers wrote:Nigel Short's report now disusses the legal action against FIDE. He had rather remarkably omitted to mention it in his report last October, despite lambasting Kirsan over other matters, but with the cat out of the bag he assures us that no ECF money is at stake:
"....The ECF Board considers the upholding of the rule of law in FIDE to be of the greatest importance, which is why (along with the Georgian Federation) we brought the case.
Our primary responsibility is to our members and, to ensure that no legal costs will be borne by the Federation, we have been indemnified by a third party. All legal fees have thus far been paid.
The CAS judgment is expected before the end of March. I hope to have more to say then."
I raised my eyebrows at "Our primary responsibility is to our members". It is nice to know that the action was taken because the rank and file of the ECF are concerned about rule of law issues in FIDE and not because Kirsan's Presidency is a private hobby horse of CJ and Short, following up from their part of the failed campaign in Russia; but if they were primarly responsible to us (!), wouldn't they have told us what they were doing?
When Nigel does return to the topic, it would be nice to know why only two members of FIDE are involved. Surely when the ECF Board agreed on this, it envisaged being part of a much wider coalition? And since there seems to be little chance of Kirsan being stripped of his Presidency, isn't the main effect of this to drain the FIDE coffers, meaning - at least, so Kirsan will say with some credibility - that money earmarked for chess will be spent on lawyers?
Mike Truran is critical of the situation in his report. He's obviously concerned that the ECF may have taken on some legal liability - if the underwriting third party defaults? - and feels that this should have been declared in the accounts.
Are there any financial costs which the ECF is taking on - for example, will it cover the cost of Nigel Short's attendance at the CAS hearing in Lausanne?
What amount of effort from board members has been expended on this matter?