CAS case clarification required

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1523
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:35 pm

Two points. I did not claim that I doubted the word of Andrew Farthing in this case. My questioning was actually based on the assumption that all statements given were actually true.
Secondly, I am a member of the ECF and I spend a considerable amount of time in England. This gives me the right to raise the questions that I do.

I am not the only one to have had questions from the release. Indeed a member of the Board told me that Andrew was preparing a statement and agreed that it could be described as 'damage limitation'. I think that the time for 'damage limitation' is long past and that members are entitled to the full truth.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:51 pm

Krishna Shiatis wrote:Whilst I accept that you have never sought to purposefully mislead anyone, I do believe that you have not always told us 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
You've made this accusation before. It was out of order then, and it's out of order now. I would go so far as to say it is disgraceful and cowardly to make such nonsensical claims. It is people like you that have hounded an excellent CEO out of office. Well done. I hope you feel proud of yourself. I have no doubt that you will not be first in the queue to pick up the reins.

I asked someone yesterday if they read the forum. They said that they never do because it's full of muppets. Hard to argue with that really.
Alex McFarlane wrote:Indeed a member of the Board told me that Andrew was preparing a statement and agreed that it could be described as 'damage limitation'.
That claim is very unfair.

Andrew has put together a clear and transparent timeline of events. You may not agree with the actions that the ECF took (I certainly don't) but the board had the right to do what they did. If anyone thinks that members of the board acted improperly - a perfectly reasonable conclusion - the way to deal with this is via the elections at October's AGM.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1523
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:06 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:the way to deal with this is via the elections at October's AGM
At this late date I agree with that statement. I would point out that because of the structure of Council it is necessary to let people know well in advance of every nuance. There were several people at the April Council meeting who voted as instructed and for the status quo (effectively) when it came to the vote and points made at the meeting were ignored. I'm not saying this is wrong but it does mean that things that would be better debated in a limited forum have to be expressed in the widest possible arena.

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

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:08 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Krishna Shiatis wrote:Whilst I accept that you have never sought to purposefully mislead anyone, I do believe that you have not always told us 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
You've made this accusation before. It was out of order then, and it's out of order now. I would go so far as to say it is disgraceful and cowardly to make such nonsensical claims.
I disagree completely. I find your comments very aggressive and personal. I gave my example. If you feel that it is wrong, please feel free to take it up with the moderator.
Sean Hewitt wrote:It is people like you that have hounded an excellent CEO out of office. Well done. I hope you feel proud of yourself. I have no doubt that you will not be first in the queue to pick up the reins.
Again, your comments are very aggressive and personal. Andrew had already made his decision to leave long before I asked him any questions. If you are saying it is people 'like' me, then I would respond that if people like me have questions, then please feel free to address them all and not personalise the discussion.

As always, it is people like you who do not wish for the questions to be asked who are continually trying to gag everyone else on the forum. It is you who are cowardly and nonsensical if you think that being mean to people will stop the questions. It will not. If people were told the truth in the first place then we would not have to ask.
Sean Hewitt wrote:You may not agree with the actions that the ECF took (I certainly don't) but the board had the right to do what they did. If anyone thinks that members of the board acted improperly - a perfectly reasonable conclusion - the way to deal with this is via the elections at October's AGM.
I think that the questions being asked here will impact on how people vote no doubt about it Sean. However, there are other things which do need to happen in the future. Constructive solutions for all. You have said that you do not agree with the actions of the ECF. Then what needs to happen is that proper controls need to be put in place to prevent it happening again. Hopefully the discussions on this forum will help to drive these forward and put them in place.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7723
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by JustinHorton » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:23 pm

David Gilbert wrote:There’s not going to be an end to this is there. Every answer is greeted by more questions.
Sure. It's often in the nature of things that this happens: answers raise more questions. It's not necessarily a process with a clean end. But there's nothing much can be done about that.

Part of the problem here is that I think a lot of things got done very badly in the period, roughly speaking, between summer 2010 and the Sheffield events. Some very serious and very avoidable mistakes got made, and as result, a lot of conflict arose. I think that as a result of the problems that then arose, things have been done better since. Transparency has been better - I think this is the second time I've said so on this thread - and so has acknowledgement of mistakes.

But even so, some of the events in the previous period remain opaque, and there are unresolved issues arising from them. I wish there were not, and we could draw a line under them, but I don't think we're at that point yet. So for that reason, people, including me, still do have questions to ask. There's not always a huge hurry to answer them. There can't be, because the people to whom the question are put often have other things to do. But there questions themselves are reasonable and legitimate, and it's not harmful, nor disrespectful, nor unappreciative to ask them.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Simon Brown
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent, if not in Costa Calida, Spain

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Simon Brown » Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:30 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Krishna Shiatis wrote:Whilst I accept that you have never sought to purposefully mislead anyone, I do believe that you have not always told us 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
You've made this accusation before. It was out of order then, and it's out of order now. I would go so far as to say it is disgraceful and cowardly to make such nonsensical claims. It is people like you that have hounded an excellent CEO out of office. Well done. I hope you feel proud of yourself. I have no doubt that you will not be first in the queue to pick up the reins.

I asked someone yesterday if they read the forum. They said that they never do because it's full of muppets. Hard to argue with that really.
Alex McFarlane wrote:Indeed a member of the Board told me that Andrew was preparing a statement and agreed that it could be described as 'damage limitation'.
That claim is very unfair.

Andrew has put together a clear and transparent timeline of events. You may not agree with the actions that the ECF took (I certainly don't) but the board had the right to do what they did. If anyone thinks that members of the board acted improperly - a perfectly reasonable conclusion - the way to deal with this is via the elections at October's AGM.

Hi Sean.

Wrong about Krishna. As things are being slowly revealed, I think she makes a very fair point.

Right about Alex. Right about muppets, though Krishna isn't one of them. She cares, like you do. Like I do. Like Roger does, even if we don't agree with him all the time.

The muppets are the ones who use the forum as a personal soap box. The ones who give Steve ample material for his blog (which I enjoy). I ignore them, suggest you do too.

Simon

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

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:01 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
I asked someone yesterday if they read the forum. They said that they never do because it's full of muppets. Hard to argue with that really.
Sean, that is a rotten thing to say here. You are on this forum. You have made 474 posts on this forum. You were even a moderator here.

There are a lot of very nice people on this forum - some of which I know in real life and some who I only engage with on the forum. They may not all agree all of the time, but they all have something useful to add. In my opinion, everybody's comments are valuable.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18878
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:28 am

JustinHorton wrote: But even so, some of the events in the previous period remain opaque, and there are unresolved issues arising from them.
I doubt there's the evidence, but it's a proposition that elements within the ECF Board and Officials conspired with a New York firm of lawyers, a previous World Champion and unknown backers to provoke a case against the FIDE President in CAS as a follow up to the 2010 attempt to disqualify his ticket from the election. The rest of the ECF Board were persuaded to support the action. By keeping it secret, the ECF Council and the wider chess public were not given the chance to buy in to the proposition and then demonstrated their disfavour once disclosure was forced by external events. Whilst there is little or no support for the FIDE President in England or the UK, wasting FIDE's money can be perceived as an attack on chess itself, rather than the FIDE President.

PaulJackson
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 8:27 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by PaulJackson » Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:29 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:You've made this accusation before. It was out of order then, and it's out of order now. I would go so far as to say it is disgraceful and cowardly to make such nonsensical claims.
Sean Hewitt wrote:It is people like you that have hounded an excellent CEO out of office. Well done. I hope you feel proud of yourself. I have no doubt that you will not be first in the queue to pick up the reins.
Not very nice things to say :( I wonder why I bother reading this forum :(

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

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Andrew Farthing » Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:58 am

David Gilbert wrote:There’s not going to be an end to this is there.
In one sense, there is.

Increasingly over the last few weeks, I have been contacted by people concerned over the impact of the endless discussions on this forum. Each has advocated that ECF officials should disengage from this informal dialogue.

This is not a view that I feel comfortable with emotionally, but intellectually I cannot deny the negative impact at the heart of their concerns. For this reason, I intend to include the topic of how the ECF should engage with the English chess community on the agenda of the AGM in October. Until then, I have decided that I shall best serve English chess and the ECF by focusing on working through as much of my 'To do' list as I feasibly can between now and 13 October and not engaging with the Forum. Council members may, if they wish, use the coming two months during which I shall not post here as a point of comparison with the period when I have been willing to comment.

My farewell to the Forum, which I had planned for 13 October, is therefore happening two months ahead of schedule. I do not regret making the effort over the last couple of years, because trying was the right thing to do, but in the end it has worn me down personally and, on balance, the wider benefits have been questionable.

Goodbye.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 2955
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Matthew Turner » Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:35 am

Lets not forget that Andrew was the only Director to vote against taking the legal action. Now he has produced the timeline and it raises questions, but it was always going to. However, I read the timeline as being very critical of CJ, so I don't think anybody could say it was a whitewash or an attempt at a cover-up.
The problem for Andrew is that out of a sense of duty he is trying to defend the indefensible. It is great that Andrew supports greater transparency, but when the facts are such

1. The ECF gave anyway power of attorney to an american legal firm and then don't know what they did with it over the next five months.

2. The ECF undertook a $1m court case with the primary purpose of restricting funds for chess in developing nations.

perhaps the ECF needs greater opacity.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5841
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Carl Hibbard » Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:48 am

Andrew Farthing wrote:For this reason, I intend to include the topic of how the ECF should engage with the English chess community on the agenda of the AGM in October.
So I guess we go back to something with a little less discussion then :(
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3243
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:20 am

Andrew Farthing wrote:I intend to include the topic of how the ECF should engage with the English chess community on the agenda of the AGM in October.
Well that's a very good idea and would have been in any circumstances.


Sorry to see you go from here Andrew.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18878
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:42 am

Andrew Farthing wrote: For this reason, I intend to include the topic of how the ECF should engage with the English chess community on the agenda of the AGM in October.
The actions or inactions of the ECF will be continue to be a cause of discussion amongst the English chess community. It's entirely up to the ECF how it chooses to present its own case, if at all. Don't forget that the ECF as a policy decision wanted greater engagement with membership. If you get greater engagement, greater scrutiny comes with it.

Adam Ashton
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Adam Ashton » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:22 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: Andrew has put together a clear and transparent timeline of events. You may not agree with the actions that the ECF took (I certainly don't) but the board had the right to do what they did. If anyone thinks that members of the board acted improperly - a perfectly reasonable conclusion - the way to deal with this is via the elections at October's AGM.
Indeed.

I find this whole 'inquiry' to be embarrassing(indeed Giddens is having a field day on his blog). We are dealing with unpaid and largely well meaning volunteers, this isn't Watergate. The board acted within their power and as Sean said if you don't like it deal with it in elections. I don't know Andrew Farthing personally but his patient and diplomatic efforts to answer every question, despite various groundless personal attacks speak volumes for his character. I'm sorry he feels the need to leave the forum and I wish him the best.

Post Reply