ECF loses case

[David Sedgwick]

Its very good news to know there is no financial cost for the ECF in these uncertain times.

I wouldn't be so sure.

From Nigel Short's statement:

"But as explained in the memorandum commissioned by the ECF (along with the Bulgarian and US Chess Federations), this is most definitely not the case."

This appears to relate to the FIDE Statutes.

However, whatever the subject of the memorandum, it's unlikely to have come cheap.

Is this something else about which the ECF Board have forgotten to inform members? If so, would the Board like to come clean now.

[Andrew Farthing]

From Nigel Short's statement:

"But as explained in the memorandum commissioned by the ECF (along with the Bulgarian and US Chess Federations), this is most definitely not the case."

This appears to relate to the FIDE Statutes.

However, whatever the subject of the memorandum, it's unlikely to have come cheap.

Is this something else about which the ECF Board have forgotten to inform members? If so, would the Board like to come clean now.

This is nothing to do with any legal action and there is no expense to the ECF.

FIDE has produced a proposed revision of its Statutes, which we (and the USCF and Bulgarian Chess Federation) consider to be deficient in a number of ways. Proposed changes to the FIDE revision have been prepared, for consideration at the General Assembly. Speaking for myself, I carefully reviewed the final version of the memorandum and was fully satisfied that the points raised and amendments proposed were soundly based and reasonable.

I stress: no legal action, no cost to the ECF. This is all within the framework of FIDE processes and entirely within the normal scope of what the Board is there to do. We have a duty as a member of FIDE to apply constructive challenge to any proposed amendments to its Statutes, and this is what we are doing. For those who have argued earlier in this thread that we should be working to reform FIDE from within, this is an example of our trying to do precisely that.

For anyone interested, I'll see if I can arrange for a copy of the memorandum to be published on the ECF website.

[Matthew Turner]

If the ECF as a member of FIDE can legitimately take action against FIDE to right a wrong. Could a similar argument be applied to Lara Barnes as a member of the ECF. What if in a bizarre twist of fate she found someone to fund her legal action? Ilyumzhinov for example.

[Lara Barnes]

Matthew,
I assume that you meant this as a joke but (and as I have said to Alex) I could really do without being brought into this in something that could be quoted out of context by the sort that are out to discredit me.

[David Sedgwick]

From Nigel Short's statement:

"But as explained in the memorandum commissioned by the ECF (along with the Bulgarian and US Chess Federations), this is most definitely not the case."

This appears to relate to the FIDE Statutes.

However, whatever the subject of the memorandum, it's unlikely to have come cheap.

Is this something else about which the ECF Board have forgotten to inform members? If so, would the Board like to come clean now.

This is nothing to do with any legal action and there is no expense to the ECF.

FIDE has produced a proposed revision of its Statutes, which we (and the USCF and Bulgarian Chess Federation) consider to be deficient in a number of ways. Proposed changes to the FIDE revision have been prepared, for consideration at the General Assembly. Speaking for myself, I carefully reviewed the final version of the memorandum and was fully satisfied that the points raised and amendments proposed were soundly based and reasonable.

I stress: no legal action, no cost to the ECF. This is all within the framework of FIDE processes and entirely within the normal scope of what the Board is there to do. We have a duty as a member of FIDE to apply constructive challenge to any proposed amendments to its Statutes, and this is what we are doing. For those who have argued earlier in this thread that we should be working to reform FIDE from within, this is an example of our trying to do precisely that.

For anyone interested, I'll see if I can arrange for a copy of the memorandum to be published on the ECF website.

Thank you for acting so promptly to give effect to your last sentence.

However, but for the reference in Nigel Short's statement, ECF members would presumably have been left to find out about this from FIDE, when the agenda for the FIDE Congress is published in a couple of weeks' time.

In the light of the assurances which you gave up thread about the ECF Board having learned the lessons of the FIDE Vice-Presidents episode, I would suggestl that a more pro-active approach would have been preferable.

Moreover, if the ECF is in a position to commission a lengthy memorandum from White & Case without having to pay for it, would you like to say who is paying? Kasparov International Management again?

When I and others have digested the contents of the memorandum, I imagine that it will be appropriate for someone to start a separate thread.

[Matthew Turner]

Lara,
I didn't mean it as a joke. I was trying to demonstrate that once you start getting involved in legal action then you tend to keep getting involved in legal action. The ECF being party to the CAS action could well have knock on consequences. Since everybody knows some of the facts around your situation then I felt this was a good example to illustrate the point. I apologise if using your name causes you some embarrassment; I can modify my post if you wish?

[Krishna Shiatis]

However, whatever the subject of the memorandum, it's unlikely to have come cheap.

Is this something else about which the ECF Board have forgotten to inform members? If so, would the Board like to come clean now?.....

However, but for the reference in Nigel Short's statement, ECF members would presumably have been left to find out about this from FIDE, when the agenda for the FIDE Congress is published in a couple of weeks' time.

Moreover, if the ECF is in a position to commission a lengthy memorandum from White & Case without having to pay for it, would you like to say who is paying? Kasparov International Management again?

Thank you David for pointing this out. I have to say, the more that we find out about the behaviour of FIDE and then compare it to what the ECF is doing to us, the more I think that it is case of the pot and the kettle.

Whilst Nigel (quite rightly) is bemoaning the lack of clarity etc etc within FIDE, he is keeping us all in the dark continually about what is happening on our side. We are finding out in dribs and drabs about what is going on and then about expenses AFTER they are incurred - which again we would have liked the opportunity to question beforehand.

Nigel says:

"Everyone who cares deeply about the game of chess and future of the governing body should take a firm interest in revision of the rules at the FIDE General Assembly, in September, in Istambul"

We agree, but why must it always be us making the lone stand and incurring all the costs (even if it is through Mr Kasparov) and then facing the wrath of FIDE? Yes, there are one or two nations supporting us, but on the whole, we seem to be doing it all.

FIDE is made up of many nations. Maybe we should ask and canvass all the nations and find out who actually agrees with us before keeping on pushing. If we can garner enough support, we are more likely to be taken seriously without having to resort to legal action.

If we are isolated, then maybe we should take a step back and consider options and opt for a less expensive way forward.

[David Sedgwick]

When I and others have digested the contents of the memorandum, I imagine that it will be appropriate for someone to start a separate thread.

Mick Norris has now taken up that suggestion.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4479

[Andrew Farthing]

I have to say, the more that we find out about the behaviour of FIDE and then compare it to what the ECF is doing to us, the more I think that it is case of the pot and the kettle.

Whilst Nigel (quite rightly) is bemoaning the lack of clarity etc etc within FIDE, he is keeping us all in the dark continually about what is happening on our side. We are finding out in dribs and drabs about what is going on and then about expenses AFTER they are incurred - which again we would have liked the opportunity to question beforehand.

Nigel says:

"Everyone who cares deeply about the game of chess and future of the governing body should take a firm interest in revision of the rules at the FIDE General Assembly, in September, in Istambul"

We agree, but why must it always be us making the lone stand and incurring all the costs (even if it is through Mr Kasparov) and then facing the wrath of FIDE? Yes, there are one or two nations supporting us, but on the whole, we seem to be doing it all.

FIDE is made up of many nations. Maybe we should ask and canvass all the nations and find out who actually agrees with us before keeping on pushing. If we can garner enough support, we are more likely to be taken seriously without having to resort to legal action.

If we are isolated, then maybe we should take a step back and consider options and opt for a less expensive way forward.

I don't see how we can find a less expensive way forward than NIL cost.

We are not alone in being unhappy with some aspects of FIDE. As was pointed out in another thread, the seven national federations involved in legal action against FIDE accounted for about a third of all players on the FIDE rating list. Anyone who follows the international chess press will recognise that the concerns are widespread.

I understand the feelings behind comments like Krishna's, but in this instance I think that the fears are misplaced. We are not taking legal action here. FIDE has put forward a revised text of its statutes. We believe that it is unsatisfactory and have put forward proposed amendments, along with the rationale for each suggested change. This is not a declaration of war; it is a case of constructive challenge within the FIDE constitutional framework. It hasn't cost the ECF any money and there is no reason why it should cost FIDE anything (if there are concerns that this might divert resources from other areas).

Morally, this is the right thing to do. Politically, it is as low-impact an approach as practicable, short of deciding to stay silent and 'let someone else do it'.

We are trying to change FIDE for the better, something which is long overdue. Change will not happen if everyone stays silent for fear of putting their heads above the parapet.

[Roger de Coverly]

It hasn't cost the ECF any money and there is no reason why it should cost FIDE anything (if there are concerns that this might divert resources from other areas).

Someone is paying for White and Case presumably.

I cannot help thinking that using these lawyers is not going to improve the ECF's reputation with other Federations, paradoxically leading to the FIDE proposals being accepted.

At the most general level, the problem with FIDE is that there are far too many small federations representing a relative handful of players and the representatives of such federations have shown themselves, shall we say, subject to influence and inducements. Perhaps it wouldn't matter if the FIDE President wasn't in the habit of proposing rules to destroy chess and bringing the chess world into disrepute by consorting with dictators and, so he claims, aliens.

[David Sedgwick]

We are trying to change FIDE for the better, something which is long overdue. Change will not happen if everyone stays silent for fear of putting their heads above the parapet.

That is a reasonable enough sentiment.

I fail to see how the ECF Board has advanced its objectives by keeping its actions in the matter secret for several weeks. Even now, news of them has rather slipped out by accident.

Why was a press release not issued at the time the Board submitted its proposals to FIDE?

[Krishna Shiatis]

I fail to see how the ECF Board has advanced its objectives by keeping its actions in the matter secret for several weeks. Even now, news of them has rather slipped out by accident.

Why was a press release not issued at the time the Board submitted its proposals to FIDE?

I agree. How much clarity has there been for the members of the ECF about the actions of the ECF these last few months?

This is not a declaration of war; it is a case of constructive challenge within the FIDE constitutional framework. It hasn't cost the ECF any money and there is no reason why it should cost FIDE anything (if there are concerns that this might divert resources from other areas).

Morally, this is the right thing to do. Politically, it is as low-impact an approach as practicable, short of deciding to stay silent and 'let someone else do it'.

We are trying to change FIDE for the better, something which is long overdue. Change will not happen if everyone stays silent for fear of putting their heads above the parapet.

How will the other member nations perceive our actions? Will they see it as an aggressive move made as a reaction to losing the case - a declaration of war? Will they punish us in the long term as being the 'primary trouble-causers'?

Is it really at no cost to us? Roger DC has also questioned the cost of the latest document from our solicitors. You keep telling us Andrew, that it has cost us no money at all; but nobody is quite believing this. I know that you have said that it falls 'within our normal parameters' of operation and therefore does not count as an 'extra' but no matter how you spin it, nobody believes that it is free.

Morally, I do agree that it is the right thing to do. However it is not being approached correctly. The answer is not the other extreme of 'staying silent and letting someone else deal with it', the answer is to talk to as many other FIDE delegates as possible, guage support and if needed then go to the media.

Change will not happen if you pursue doomed legal battles. Change will only happen if enough people agree with you. You just have to keep the communication channels open and keep talking to as many people as possible. In the end, change will happen, you will most likely not get the credit either for the change, but everyone will know that you started the debate.

There are also other ways if you have money to burn (as Kasparov does) which is to fund chess at grassroots of any political allies and to advertise your cause by helping chess directly ie doing free simuls with youngsters and talking to as many people as possible.

There are lots of ways of dealing with the situation without annoying FIDE directly - they will not now bow down gracefully and will possibly/probably punish us when given the opportunity.

[Steve Rooney]

You keep telling us Andrew, that it has cost us no money at all; but nobody is quite believing this. I know that you have said that it falls 'within our normal parameters' of operation and therefore does not count as an 'extra' but no matter how you spin it, nobody believes that it is free.

Why won't you accept Andrew's word? I don't think there is any case for disbelieving what the chief executive has written in very plain English. Unless you have any real evidence to the contrary, it is grossly unfair to question his veracity. Andrew is probably far too polite to demand an apology; but he deserves one.

[Krishna Shiatis]

You keep telling us Andrew, that it has cost us no money at all; but nobody is quite believing this. I know that you have said that it falls 'within our normal parameters' of operation and therefore does not count as an 'extra' but no matter how you spin it, nobody believes that it is free.

Why won't you accept Andrew's word? I don't think there is any case for disbelieving what the chief executive has written in very plain English. Unless you have any real evidence to the contrary, it is grossly unfair to question his veracity. Andrew is probably far too polite to demand an apology; but he deserves one.

I do apologise completely and utterly if the legal document from White and Case is free. If not, then perhaps Steve, you should apologise and read carefully exactly what Andrew writes.

Please do read his response to the question Steve, that he actually wrote about this document - it is carefully worded. I quote below his exact words:

"I stress: no legal action, no cost to the ECF. This is all within the framework of FIDE processes and entirely within the normal scope of what the Board is there to do. We have a duty as a member of FIDE to apply constructive challenge to any proposed amendments to its Statutes, and this is what we are doing. For those who have argued earlier in this thread that we should be working to reform FIDE from within, this is an example of our trying to do precisely that."

Unless I am wrong, he is actually saying it is 'at no extra cost' to the ECF as what they are doing in commissioning this report is within their normal duties.

It is not just me who is able to see through this, David Sedgwick and Roger DC have also asked the same question.

Again, if the lawyers (White and Case) have produced this report for free, then I apologise to Andrew.
Edit: If somebody else is paying for it - then once again, he should be clear on this and tell us who?

I do not think we should have to apologise each time we ask questions about how monies are being spent - there should be clarity and things done in a timely and open fashion - which incidently is also what David Sedgwick said earlier (the bit about being told clearly, in a timely fashion that is)

[Ian Thompson]

Please do read his response to the question Steve, that he actually wrote about this document - it is carefully worded. I quote below his exact words:

"I stress: no legal action, no cost to the ECF. This is all within the framework of FIDE processes and entirely within the normal scope of what the Board is there to do. We have a duty as a member of FIDE to apply constructive challenge to any proposed amendments to its Statutes, and this is what we are doing. For those who have argued earlier in this thread that we should be working to reform FIDE from within, this is an example of our trying to do precisely that."

Unless I am wrong, he is actually saying it is 'at no extra cost' to the ECF as what they are doing in commissioning this report is within their normal duties.

And so it should be within the ECF's normal duties. It would be remiss of the ECF not to review and comment on proposals issued by FIDE. I see no need to know exactly how much money has been spent doing this before the accounts are issued. At that point any abnormal expenditure can be challenged.