Settlement of CAS costs

[Andrew Farthing]

I promised to confirm when payment of the awarded costs under the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) ruling in the ECF's and Georgian Chess Federation's appeal against FIDE's appointment of vice presidents had been made.

I have received documentary evidence that White & Case initiated a wire transfer payment for the amount of CHF 75,000 on 6 August, and the funds have been paid to FIDE's account (value date 8 August).

White & Case are still awaiting the figure from CAS for their Court Office costs. I have received documentary evidence (a letter from CAS dated 24 July) that the calculation of the figure will not be confirmed until after the relevant senior CAS official has returned to Lausanne from the London Olympics. White & Case have reaffirmed that payment will be made once CAS has advised them of the amount to be paid.

The position insofar as the ECF is concerned is unchanged, namely that it will incur no financial costs in respect of the legal action.

[Gerard Killoran]

Having read the CAS judgement

http://www.fide.com/images/stories/ches ... ly2012.pdf

I wonder if Andrew now considers the actions of the ECF were justifiable given:

1. The appointment of additional vice-presidents was confirmed by the General Assembly
2. That the additional vice-presidents didn't alter the balance of power on the Presidential board and were unpaid.
3. That additional vice-presidents had been appointed in the past.
4. That the additional vice-presidents were appointed to assist the President in tasks such as the Chess in Schools project.
5. That one of the additional vice-presidents was the organiser of the coming Olympiad.
6. That CHF 75,000 doesn't cover the FIDE costs of CHF 470,000 so there is a huge financial loss to the chess family, including the ECF.

To say that the this has cost ECF nothing makes the matter worse in my opinion. If the ECF thought the case was of such importance to its membership, then it should have paid its share. Not to have done so leaves it open to the accusation that is has allowed itself to be used by Kasparov and his financial backers as a cats' paw in their campaign of lawfare against FIDE.

[Roger de Coverly]

Not to have done so leaves it open to the accusation that is has allowed itself to be used by Kasparov and his financial backers as a cats' paw in their campaign of lawfare against FIDE.

I wouldn't say it's a campaign against FIDE as such rather it's against the FIDE President and his approach of using patronage, influence and inducements to retain the position for life. But you're right that the ECF has been used as a proxy. This would be because only chess federations can take action in CAS on issues of FIDE procedure.

[John Townsend]

If the action has cost FIDE a packet, then that speaks for itself. FIDE should have spent that money on promoting chess, not on legal costs. Accepting that it was the ECF's right to take legal action, surely, there was some other approach to the issue that would not bring with it damage to the general interests of the chess community? Personally, I would not want to join an organisation which takes legal action against another chess organisation.

[Krishna Shiatis]

If the action has cost FIDE a packet, then that speaks for itself. FIDE should have spent that money on promoting chess, not on legal costs. Accepting that it was the ECF's right to take legal action, surely, there was some other approach to the issue that would not bring with it damage to the general interests of the chess community?

I agree. Whilst I understand what Mr Kasparov etc are trying to achieve and agree with their sentiments, IMO their methods were not appropriate.

The amount of money wasted is indecent.

The ECF needs to introduce controls in place immediately to stop any of its Directors from taking out legal action in its name without FIRST

a) A formal discussion about the likely consequences, financial or otherwise from the afore-mentioned legal case.
b) A formal discussion about other ways to proceed before legal action is commenced.
c) Consulting the board and obtaining unanimous approval.
d) Consulting the council and obtaining majority approval at least.
e) All monies to be paid if the case is lost to be put into an ESCROW account in the first instance.

The whole thing was very risky IMO, as a lot was done on trust. Whilst Mr Kasparov has paid up, he has now left us holding the baby as we will have to face possible ejection from FIDE come September/the wrath of the other delegates who would rather see the money spent on chess. Quite frankly, who could blame them?

[David Gilbert]

This suggests that FIDE has no legal expenses insurance and are having to meet the full cost themselves? It would seem to be a bit remiss for a World body to have no insurance to cover?
Even my car and house insurance seems to include a huge amount for legal expenses!

[John Townsend]

Whether or not FIDE has insurance, the fact remains that the ECF has taken
legal action against another chess organisation - a hostile move at best.
Quite apart from any dissipation of vital funds in legal costs, it seems likely to detract from the goodwill which English players have traditionally enjoyed with foreign players. I am surprised that the action has had support among ECF members, but I suppose opinions differ. Some people, including myself, take the view that it is not what chess organisations should be doing to each other: I prefer Bobby Fischer to Perry Mason ...

[Mick Norris]

This suggests that FIDE has no legal expenses insurance and are having to meet the full cost themselves? It would seem to be a bit remiss for a World body to have no insurance to cover?
Even my car and house insurance seems to include a huge amount for legal expenses!

David

For your sake, I hope you haven't got a track record like FIDE, which may make them impossible to insure

[Neil Graham]

Whether or not FIDE has insurance, the fact remains that the ECF has taken
legal action against another chess organisation - a hostile move at best.
Quite apart from any dissipation of vital funds in legal costs, it seems likely to detract from the goodwill which English players have traditionally enjoyed with foreign players. I am surprised that the action has had support among ECF members, but I suppose opinions differ. Some people, including myself, take the view that it is not what chess organisations should be doing to each other: I prefer Bobby Fischer to Perry Mason ...

Perry Mason had a better signature tune. Had Perry Mason been appearing just as the judge was about to give a ruling, Paul Drake would have walked in handed Perry a piece of paper and he would have turned to the judge and said "I'd like to recall ******** to the stand..."

I leave you to fill in the ********* name - it was always the person who'd committed the murder. Did the D.A. ever win a case??

[John Townsend]

I don't recall his winning any. Perhaps he has a bright future as the head of a litigation department at the ECF.