CAS case clarification required

[JustinHorton]

This is early 2011 when the President did more or less what he wanted in the name of the ECF.

Of course it was summer 2010 when he started using his presidential title, the ECF email address and the ECF website to promote what he claimed to be a private event organised by himself. It might have been useful if the separation between his private business and ECF business, and the necessity of respecting same, had been explained to him at the time.

[Roger de Coverly]

Ah, I see I have missed this.

Which if you follow it has a quote which appears economical given the apparent sequence of events.

Was the decision the responsibility of one or two individuals? (No. The Board discussed it vigorously and at length. Each Board member reached his own conclusion.)

The decision may well have been collective by the Board. But it appears to have been a decision to continue an action already started.

[Alex McFarlane]

Of course it was summer 2010 when he started using his presidential title, the ECF email address and the ECF website to promote what he claimed to be a private event organised by himself. It might have been useful if the separation between his private business and ECF business, and the necessity of respecting same, had been explained to him at the time.

I have an email from CJ De Mooi in which he states that I should be able to differentiate between De Mooi the individual and De Mooi the President. I have another email in which Andrew Farthing was unable to tell me in which capacity the contents of the email which I forwarded to him for clarification referred!!!

One would have hoped that Andrew would have taken that opportunity to clarify things with CJ.

[Jonathan Bryant]

The decision may well have been collective by the Board. But it appears to have been a decision to continue an action already started.

Well, is it not possible - at least in theory - that the board did not know that the action had already been instigated?

I agree that clarification from the board is required as a matter of urgency. It is a shame that it has not been received as yet.

[Alex McFarlane]

I fear the delay could be because a certain person has verbaly promised to underwrite the £6000 costs of the venue at Torquay - and as Adam has already signed a contract there is an £80,000 'damages' clause payable if the event does not take place there.

We all know that "a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on" as Samual Goldwyn once famously said.

Coupled with the fact that a November discussion with a potential £20,000 sponsor to stage the event in Scotland in 2013 was a non-starter due to this penalty clause the ECF Board could definitely be left with egg on its face.

[Sean Hewitt]

Well, is it now possible - at least in theory - that the board did not know that the action had already been instigated?

I agree that clarification from the board is required as a matter of urgency. It is a shame that it has not been received as yet.

It's certainly possible - we'll find out in due course I guess.

Board members are aware of the CAS documents and what they say in terms of the date of filing. I have no doubt that what has previously been reported by Andrew as the date for the board vote is also correct.

I know that apparent discrepancy is currently being investigated but, as you may imagine, this involves amongst other things trans atlantic communications etc which takes time. My guess (and it's only that) is that the board is not able to comment until it knows what the answer is.

Bear in mind that Andrew is a part time volunteer who also has a life outside of the ECF. I don't doubt that an answer will be forthcoming from him when it is known, but let's not lose sight of that fact.

[Jonathan Bryant]

My guess (and it's only that) is that the board is not able to comment until it knows what the answer is.

Bear in mind that Andrew is a part time volunteer who also has a life outside of the ECF. I don't doubt that an answer will be forthcoming from him when it is known, but let's not lose sight of that fact.

I think this is entirely reasonable ... but if that is the case I would expect, at the very least, a 'holding' response along the lines of "Hmm yes, on the face of it this does look rather odd and we are addressing the matter as a matter of urgency".

I would expect that in any circumstances, but especially so given the history of (a) this issue and (b) ECF's dealings with its President's activities.


btw: I meant "not" and not "now" in my post above so i've just ammended it.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think this is entirely reasonable ... but if that is the case I would expect, at the very least, a 'holding' response along the lines of "Hmm yes, on the face of it this does look rather odd and we are addressing the matter as a matter of urgency".

I agree. It's the nature of an organisation run by part time volunteers though I think.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Why the wait for AF? Adam is on the forum now; Alex H was a moment ago; no doubt Jack and Loz will be later today.

Any of them can answer for themselves: "when you considered the legal action, did you do so on the basis that you were authorising it after it had been commenced or did you think that nothing had been done yet?"

No need to wait for transatlantic communications, or for AF to give the official version, this can be answered now - unless for some reason to do so may cause embarrassment?!

[Alex Holowczak]

Why the wait for AF? Adam is on the forum now; Alex H was a moment ago; no doubt Jack and Loz will be later today.

Hi Jonathan!

Any of them can answer for themselves: "when you considered the legal action, did you do so on the basis that you were authorising it after it had been commenced or did you think that nothing had been done yet?"

I didn't consider it at all. As an Alternate, I don't get a vote, so this sort of thing is entirely Adam's responsibility.

[Jonathan Rogers]

ah, OK. Life as an alternate has its blessings, I guess ....

[Ernie Lazenby]

Noticed how the CJ apologists who were so vocal not so long ago seem to have gone awol with him?

[Michele Clack]

Andrew Farthing is hard at work organising the Worcester Chess Congress this weekend so I don't suppose he will have time to come on here at the moment.

[Martin Regan]

Alex

I have considerable sympathy for you after “T-shirtgate” and thought (and still think) the President handled the whole thing appallingly.

However, this ceaseless attempt on your part to bring him down, regardless of the damage you might do to the image of English Chess is, respectfully, becoming obsessive.

Having a legitimate query is one thing, but sending an email on the Tuesday and announcing the failure of communication on this forum on the Thursday is a tad eager to my eyes. Why not just pick up the phone?

As for the matter in hand - how can anyone possibly guess what the board was or was not told beforehand? There could be an adequate explanation, there could not.

My problem is that you, for all your declarations to the contrary, want it to be the latter, as that would further your particular feud.

I have to say that your being a director of Chess Scotland and swinging such a wrecking ball at the ECF board in general and the ECF President, sits uneasy with me.

[John McKenna]

"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown", but does that apply in this case, or will things remain unchanged at the top - as they did when Edward I outlived William Wallace?