ECF loses case

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5509
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Carl Hibbard » Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:43 pm

Alex McFarlane wrote:There is nothing on the ECF website about the decision.
Let us hope this matter is not kept as secret as the actual decision was in the first place - is the action even mentioned on the ECF primary site?
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Angus French
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Angus French » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:54 pm

Colin McGourty wrote:Just had a read through it all. The verdicts (one appeal dismissed, one inadmissible) were based on disputed technicalities - who had appointed/approved the VPs and when, and whether that made appeals possible or correct. The only real clue to the "merits" of the case is when compensation is discussed. FIDE asked for CHF 469,439 (£312,000) + EUR 7,329 as a contribution to its costs, but because of FIDE's "awkward disregard for constitutional formalities" the court decided only to award CHF 75,000 (£50,000). Elsewhere, however, the ECF and Georgian Chess Federation mention their total costs were above $1,000,000...

So yes, clearly no winners except the lawyers.
Good précis.
One pedantic point: I think that FIDE were also asking for "all amounts (advance of costs) paid by the Respondent directly to CAS" and interest to be awarded (section 107, p22). In the event that the appeals were upheld, the ECF and the GCF were asking for a contribution to their costs amounting to at least $195,244.09 but also suggested that a higher amount would be warranted if their total costs exceeded $1 million (section 106, p21)... so the ECF's and the GCF's combined costs may not have exceeded $1 million.
Last edited by Angus French on Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Alex McFarlane » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:22 pm

And still the Board is silent. I think Adam Raoof's post about a pint being owed shows that the Board knew the outcome in advance so why hasn't there been a pre-agreed statement released to co-incide with the publication of the report?

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1037
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:26 pm

Colin McGourty wrote:So yes, clearly no winners except the lawyers.
Dont you think this is actually a win for Kirsan?
He was challenges on a matter of principle, and no wrongdoing has been found. If the intention was to undermine his authority, it seem to me the whole thing actually backfired; especially considering the lack of support beyond letters of complain (as in the arbiters retaliation issue).

Angus French
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Angus French » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:31 pm

I suppose one question for the ECF Board is: did they check the texts of the appeals (which we now know failed on technicalities) or did they leave that to the lawyers or another party?
Also, did the ECF have a representative present at the FIDE General Assembly meeting at which the VP appointments were made? If they did, was there any consultation with that person about the law suits?

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 4566
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: ECF loses case

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:35 pm

Alex McFarlane wrote:And still the Board is silent. I think Adam Raoof's post about a pint being owed shows that the Board knew the outcome in advance so why hasn't there been a pre-agreed statement released to co-incide with the publication of the report?
This is not the worst question ever asked. However, I understood from Nigel Short on another thread that informing ECF members is a priority, so I am sure that a statement will shortly appear on the ECF website.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Angus French
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Angus French » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:44 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote:
Colin McGourty wrote:So yes, clearly no winners except the lawyers.
Dont you think this is actually a win for Kirsan?
He was challenges on a matter of principle, and no wrongdoing has been found. If the intention was to undermine his authority, it seem to me the whole thing actually backfired; especially considering the lack of support beyond letters of complain (as in the arbiters retaliation issue).
I wouldn't say it was a win for Kirsan, given CAS's comment about FIDE's "awkward disregard for constitutional formalities" and the fact that only a fraction of FIDE's costs were awarded.

The decision text also states:

"102. The Panel has reviewed and duly considered both parties' pleadings on the merits, and notes that these at the very least raise a number of prima facie issues regarding the clarity of the FIDE Statutes and Electoral Regulations, and regarding the internal governance of FIDE. However, having decided that CAS 2011/A/2392 is inadmissible, the Panel will not address in this award the parties' pleadings on the merits, which have been outlined above in Section VIII."

"103. Nevertheless, the Panel would encourage FIDE to assess critically its past practice in light of the texts of its statutes and regulations, so as to maintain an appropriate level of transparency in its decision-making process."

[edit]Replaced jpg image of text which, on reflection, looked ugly, with the plain text above.[/edit]
Last edited by Angus French on Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Colin McGourty
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:05 am

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Colin McGourty » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:35 pm

Angus French wrote:In the event that the appeals were upheld, the ECF and the GCF were asking for a contribution to their costs amounting to at least $195,244.09 but also suggested that a higher amount would be warranted if their total costs exceeded $1 million (section 106, p21)... so the ECF's and the GCF's combined costs may not have exceeded $1 million.
I think "a higher contribution would be warranted in light of the Appellants' total costs exceeding $1 million" means that their costs already exceed $1 million, though I can see it's ambiguous (or probably it's not ambiguous at all to lawyers, but I'm not a lawyer...). I'd say my interpretation's supported by their asking for "at least" $195,244.09, so they're saying they think the court would be fully justified in awarding them more (right now).

Colin McGourty
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:05 am

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Colin McGourty » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:38 pm

Angus French wrote:I wouldn't say it was a win for Kirsan, given CAS's comment about FIDE's "awkward disregard for constitutional formalities" and the fact that only a fraction of FIDE's costs were awarded.
Agreed. It can be painted as a won court case, but it was won on technicalities (they appealed the wrong thing and made the "right" appeal too late for its merits to be considered).

William Metcalfe
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Darlington

Re: ECF loses case

Post by William Metcalfe » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:41 pm

The ECF need to get a statement out as soon as possable.It looks like Adam and the board had a srtong idea the case was lost so why was a statement not already prepared.I am sure if they had won the case we would have had a statement on the website already.
I am speaking here for myself and not the NCCU which i am now president of

Paul Dupré
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Paul Dupré » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:52 pm

William Metcalfe wrote:The ECF need to get a statement out as soon as possable.It looks like Adam and the board had a srtong idea the case was lost so why was a statement not already prepared.I am sure if they had won the case we would have had a statement on the website already.
Won the case...how could we ever prove that this guy is wrong.
President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov tells of his invitation to an alien spaceship
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 4566
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: ECF loses case

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:30 pm

Colin McGourty wrote:Agreed. It can be painted as a won court case, but it was won on technicalities (they appealed the wrong thing and made the "right" appeal too late for its merits to be considered).
Yeah, but if X takes Y to court and the court rules against X, then no matter what the technicalities, Y is in a position to say they won. And X has certainly lost.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: ECF loses case

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:24 am

Alex McFarlane wrote: Which Directors proposed taking this action?
Which Directors voted for such action?
Has the ECF been given the finances to pay the costs awarded against it?
Whilst I cannot defend the Turkish Chess Federation’s actions in ‘banning’ English arbiters, will the members of the Board who voted to take the action explain their actions and apologise to the arbiters concerned?
Are any Board members likely to resign as a result of the decision?
My own responses to these questions:

I was not one of the Directors who proposed this action, although I was one of those who voted in favour of it.
I did so on the understanding that the ECF would not be paying its own legal costs for this action (and this is a point on which we did get legal advice).
I am truly sorry that the arbiters in question have been delisted from the Olympiad team; a consequence of this sort was not something that occurred to me at the time. Maybe it should have, although I don't know if it would have affected my vote.
I am not likely to resign; I cannot speak for any other Board members.

David Gilbert
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:03 am

Re: ECF loses case

Post by David Gilbert » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:36 am

William Metcalfe wrote:The ECF need to get a statement out as soon as possable.It looks like Adam and the board had a srtong idea the case was lost so why was a statement not already prepared.I am sure if they had won the case we would have had a statement on the website already.
It looks as though FIDE has jumped the gun and leaked out their delight before the CAS report is formally published. What we appear to have here is an advanced faxed version of the report, so no wonder the ECF was caught on the hop. If we are behaving according to Marquess of Queensberry Rules, the ECF statement - and there must be a statement - should follow when the full report is published.

It now looks a sorry mess, my reading is that the appeal was lost on a precedent interpretation of Swiss law - if I've understood that properly. I'd like to be there when the cheque is handed over, let's hope the funders keep to their word. But someone from England and someone from Georgia must be sent to stand in the naughty corner for a very long time.

User avatar
Gerard Killoran
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Contact:

Re: ECF loses case

Post by Gerard Killoran » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:26 am

JustinHorton wrote:Can I congratulate Gerard on his scoop? As far as I can see this forum had the story first, and that thanks to him.
Cheers Justin - however I was merely a conduit. The downside is next time I'll have to buy my own pint - unless I run into Adam's reliable source.

Any chance of our Fide delegate making a reappearance on this site? He first surfaced here when canvassing for votes - by insulting his predecessor, arbiters and anyone who doubted his diplomatic credentials. He then went back underground until his role in hitching the ECF to Kasparov's campaign for world chess domination came into question. Perhaps the ECF will be a little more sceptical next time he comes up with another one of his cunning plans.

GOOD-MORNING; good-morning!’ the General said
When we met him last week on our way to the line.
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of ’em dead,
And we’re cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
‘He’s a cheery old card,’ grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
. . . .
But he did for them both by his plan of attack.

Siegfried Sassoon

Post Reply