ECF loses case

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Brendan O'Gorman
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Brendan O'Gorman » Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:33 am

Andrew,
I am gobsmacked by your forbearance. You must be the most patient man in Christendom!

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Alex McFarlane » Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:55 am

Andrew,

For clarification, are you now agreeing that though there will be no direct cost of the legal action to ECF members (which I don't necessarily agree with but it does depend on your definition) there could be indirect costs?

I am glad to see that the ECF are finally working for change in a more appropriate manner.
What a great pity that this method was not adopted in the first place.

Andrew Farthing
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:39 pm

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Andrew Farthing » Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:43 am

Alex McFarlane wrote:For clarification, are you now agreeing that though there will be no direct cost of the legal action to ECF members (which I don't necessarily agree with but it does depend on your definition) there could be indirect costs?
In my opinion, it's more likely that the introduction of the registration fees for arbiters was something that FIDE was wanting to do anyway but it was smart politics on their part to position it as forced upon them by the costs of the earlier legal action.

It's obviously conceivable that FIDE could introduce another new or increased charge and blame it on the legal action which the ECF and Georgian Chess Federation undertook. Whether the explanation would be true or just politics is an entirely different matter.

The threads of cause and effect when dealing with FIDE are impossible to unpick with any certainty. You could go back through an unending sequence of "if only X hadn't..." statements to explain anything and everything, but it wouldn't be a very useful exercise. Every time a representative of national federation says or does anything, it could have a 'cost' in the widest sense of the word. Failing to say or do anything could have a 'cost'. If you operate in the real world, all actions have consequences. You can only make the best choices you can at the time and then let history and hindsight pass judgement. No one said life was easy.

Andrew Farthing
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:39 pm

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Andrew Farthing » Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:46 am

Brendan O'Gorman wrote:Andrew,
I am gobsmacked by your forbearance. You must be the most patient man in Christendom!
Thanks, Brendan. Of course, I might be tearing my hair out in frustration behind the scenes, but those of you who've met me will know that it's a bit late for that in my case. :)

Mick Norris
Posts: 8215
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Mick Norris » Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:22 pm

Krishna Shiatis wrote: I am a qualified Chartered Accountant
Krishna

Would you be prepared to stand as ECF Finance Director in October when Gareth Caller steps down?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:41 pm

Mick Norris wrote:
Krishna Shiatis wrote: I am a qualified Chartered Accountant
Krishna

Would you be prepared to stand as ECF Finance Director in October when Gareth Caller steps down?
No, as I only have a little bit left and I would like to keep my hair. :D

Besides committee meetings drive me crazy.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Alex McFarlane » Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:09 pm

Andrew Farthing wrote: FIDE could introduce another new or increased charge and blame it on the legal action which the ECF and Georgian Chess Federation undertook.
Doesn't that mean that the Board was very naive to enter into the legal action that it did? If it was thought through (and the Board seems to be split on that point [see Jack's post]) then I would have thought you only proceed with legal action if winning is a near shoe in.

Ernie Lazenby

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Ernie Lazenby » Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:20 pm

One more visit to this thread to say this,

if the fiasco has cost Lara Barnes any money through loss of work or anything else then the ECF must repay that money and I doubt many folk, if any ,would complain if Lara gets it.
That's the very least we can do, indeed if if were up to me CJ De Mooi and Nigel Short would be asked to do the right thing and pay it.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Mike Truran » Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:31 pm

I see Mr Giddins is in fine form over on the blog that dare not speak its name.

Paul Cooksey

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Paul Cooksey » Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:14 pm

Mike Truran wrote:I see Mr Giddins is in fine form over on the blog that dare not speak its name.
I find myself agreeing with him increasingly often. It's disturbing. :?

Mike Truran
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Mike Truran » Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:30 pm

I know what you mean. Being burnt at the stake is much too good for heretics and apostates like us. :evil: :twisted:

Martin Regan

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Martin Regan » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:23 pm

I’ve followed this thread with a mixture of amusement, disbelief and finally exasperation.

It is an essay , authored by the pious and those who have taken on the mantle, without the slightest credibility, of “spokespeople” for the average chess player.

The thread (as with most others) has been hijacked by those whose main gripe is over entirely different matters than the one in this thread, or is a continuation of personal battles and hatreds by other means.

Like every other ECF thread it morphs into one of six subjects:

1. CJ De Moi has no judgement and must resign.
2. Ditto Nigel Short.
3.The ECF is incompetent.
4.Alex REALLY wants an apology from CJ (or see 1).
5 The membership scheme wont work
6 Ray Keene is up to no good, (though see 1).

None of this would matter, but when you have the ECF CEO casually called a liar, our FIDE delegate and greatest -ever Grandmaster routinely insulted and disbelieved, then we really do have a problem of self-respect.

The facts, in this thread, for those who want to see them, are quite clear.

The ECF Fide delegate is a consistent critic of the current FIDE setup (and we voted him in, knowing this) It is inconceivable that such a delegate ,spotting the FIDE VP manoeuvre, would not have been outraged - but would also have known that the impoverished ECF could do little about it.

The offer of the Kasparov financial guarantee and the chance to challenge FIDE, however it came about, would obviously have been welcomed by him, and presented vigorously to the board. The board made its decision.

Should the board have told Council? Probably. Did the board need to tell Council? No. Did it need to inform this forum , or any member of it? No.

Many of you talk about the need for transparency, but what you really mean is that you want to satisfy your curiosity. Either because you are simply nosey, or you wish to know in order to garner ammunition for your blogs or the battles ahead. (see 1-6)

The fall out for the arbiters was unfortunate, but it is entirely down to the Turkish Federation and it is at them that the spew of indignation should be directed. You do not fail to tackle a criminal, for fear that he might visit crime upon you at a later date.

You have chanced upon a good president (who has made one horrendous mistake) a FIDE delegate who actually cares rather than looks for the numerous freebies, and a board which has done its best in very, very difficult circumstances. Yet you persist in this tedious, endless point scoring.

If you care as much about English chess as you profess. Stand for office. You will have less time to post vitriol but it will make more difference to chess.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4009
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: ECF loses case

Post by David Sedgwick » Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:00 pm

Andrew Farthing wrote:
Alex McFarlane wrote:However, it is clear that often Andrew is unaware of the bigger picture. Did the FIDE delegate inform him of these proposed charges for arbiters and the potential knock on effect? I very much doubt it but am willing to be advised otherwise.

David Sedgwick has pointed out another piece of non-information which it was, presumably the Marketing Directors job to pass on.

Without the support needed Andrew cannot do a fantastic job because he has not been given the full facts or has to assume responsibility for the (non)actions of his officials. Whilst there is collective responsibility, as with any organisation, the bucks stops with the CEO who either has to take it or get rid of weak links.
It's dangerous to conclude that someone is unaware of the bigger picture simply because their judgement of what it means is different from your own.

As for publishing the news about the memorandum, it would be unfair to point fingers at the FIDE delegate or the Marketing Director. The decision about timing was mine. Nigel Short delivered the documents to FIDE on June 6th and asked me in an e-mail about putting them on the website. My view was that it was not urgent - it related to matters to be discussed at the General Assembly months away and was a normal part of the work of the ECF and its FIDE Delegate, with no financial risk attached, and therefore not the type of matter which would be routinely published on the website as a matter of urgency. The CAS ruling was reportedly imminent (as we now know, this "imminence" was to continue for some time, but I did not know that then) and I felt that there might be an opporunity for a more coherent message in the light of the CAS ruling, whatever it said.

As I hope I have made clear by now, I believe that the constructive challenge set out in the memorandum is a wholly good and worthwhile endeavour and entirely appropriate for the ECF to be engaged in. I am pleased that we are doing it and have no reason to hide the fact. My reasoning was based on trying to achieve a clear and coherent message, a wish made complicated by the uncertainty over the timing of the CAS ruling and what it would say.

It was, therefore, my decision to await the CAS ruling. If my judgement was mistaken, the blame is mine, no one else's.
Andrew, thank you very much for the explanation.

From the way the information somewhat slipped out, it did rather look as though the ECF Board planned to leave members to find out about the Memorandum when FIDE published the agenda for the Congress in Istanbul. I'm pleased and relieved to learn that that wasn't the case.

Speaking personally, I'd now like to move on to another subject ......

My names is misspelt in the post by Alex McFarlane which you quoted. :shock: I've taken the liberty of correcting the error in the further quote above.

Reverting to the matter of the Memorandum, I may well comment in the other thread once I've studied it.

I'd like to associate myself with the sentiments of those who have commended you in this thread. I'm sorry that you won't be seeking re-election in October, although I fully understand your reasons for not doing so.

Ernie Lazenby

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Ernie Lazenby » Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:03 pm

Martin with the greatest respect you were in the ideal position to move things forward and change a culture which you were highly vocal about if I remember correctly. You got out very soon after being elected because you could not get your way. I don't think you are someone who can attack those who want to comment about issues they think are important even if you don't.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4009
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: ECF loses case

Post by David Sedgwick » Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:04 pm

Alex McFarlane wrote:If the FIDE costs are not repaid in total then that money has to be raised from somewhere (or services cut). So it is likely that ECF members will pay extra. An example of this is the FIDE registration scheme for arbiters with fees ranging from €20 for a national arbiter at the British to €300 or so at the top end. This is being charged to cover the money lost in the previous case.
Andrew Farthing wrote:In my opinion, it's more likely that the introduction of the registration fees for arbiters was something that FIDE was wanting to do anyway but it was smart politics on their part to position it as forced upon them by the costs of the earlier legal action.
Andrew, thank you for sticking your head above the parapet yet again.

However, speaking as a former member of the FIDE Arbiters’ Commission, I believe Alex to be correct here.

The idea of a License for Arbiters was first put forward in 2009, but as a yet further regulatory idea rather than as a financial one. At the time it appeared to have been kicked into touch:
FIDE Arbiters Commission Minutes 2009 wrote: License for Arbiters

After FIDE PB’s proposal, the AC may investigate the implementation of a License for the Arbiters.

D. Sedgwick pointed out that FIDE already created the arbiters classification, which work is not finished. We should not create immediately another kind of classification. The commission agreed to his argument.
That same year, 2009, was the one in which FIDE first gave a budget to the Commissions. The Arbiters’ Commission used its budget mainly to support FIDE Arbiters’ Seminars in chess developing countries and to cover the expenses of certain Commission members attending the FIDE Congress. (I was one of the beneficiaries.)

However, faced with the bill for legal fees after the first case at the CAS in 2010, FIDE Treasurer Nigel Freeman drastically reduced the Commissions’ budgets.

Seeking to replace the lost income, the Arbiters’ Commission revived the License scheme in 2011.

Post Reply