An odd reason to push ourselves to the front of the queue, and to suffer the opprobrium of member states who may not have been too bothered about our general opposition to Kirsan but who are bothered about the alleged shortage of funds caused by the action. Of the other seven countries who supported the earlier action, five thought this fight was no longer worth the candle.Andrew Farthing wrote:
The earlier comments suggesting that the Board should have considered the possibility of adverse political consequences or retaliation are based on the assumption that it didn't. It did. It should be borne in mind that the ECF, in common with many other federations, was known not to be supportive of the current FIDE regime well before this case. We were already somewhat in the firing line.
If the action is about something very fundamental which affects us, then of course we have to fight, whatever the consequences. But that was not this case. It was about FIDE doing something involving Vice-Presidents which did not directy affect us and which they would have been allowed to do anyway, if only they has asked the Assembly. The action - in the CAS, not in the less costly Ethics Committee - was sponsored by a political opponent of Kirsan and the co-suitor, Georgia, was no doubt also motivated by political considerations (Zurab is no longer a friend of Kirsan). That is the background to the action, and the background against which the possibility (likelihood) of retaliation falls to be considered.Andrew Farthing wrote: I'm disappointed by the suggestion that, had we anticipated that the President of the Turkish Chess Federation would take it upon himself to discriminate against arbiters from countries whose federations had taken legal action against FIDE, it should have altered the Board's decision to pursue the case. Whether one agrees with it or not, the ECF had the right to undertake the action against FIDE. To imply that this right should be foregone because of the possibility of behaviour like Mr Yacizi's just perpetuates such bullying tactics.
(I wrote this before seeing Sean's post - we seem to agree, but I've written it, so I'll post it anyway!)