FIDE Delegate Election, Short v Jones

[Mick Norris]

Back on topic, and having communicated with both Nigel and Rupert so they know, the MCF votes will be cast for Nigel

[Andrew Bak]

Rupert Jones responds to Nigel's election address in his interesting interview with Yorkshire Chess:

Interview with Rupert Jones

[Roger de Coverly]

Rupert Jones responds to Nigel's election address in his interesting interview with Yorkshire Chess:

from which

How many of our young IM’s and GM’s are aware that if they become FIDE Qualified Trainers they can earn over E1500 for coaching a developing team at an Olympiad and this is on top of getting free accommodation etc.

Is it his contention that were he to be elected, the ECF, or perhaps just an exclusive group of English players could look forward to FIDE's largesse? Would it not be more in the ECF's financial interest if organisers acting on FIDE's behalf were restrained from profiteering at the ECF's expense?

[John Cox]

Rupert Jones responds to Nigel's election address in his interesting interview with Yorkshire Chess:

from which

How many of our young IM’s and GM’s are aware that if they become FIDE Qualified Trainers they can earn over E1500 for coaching a developing team at an Olympiad and this is on top of getting free accommodation etc.

Is it his contention that were he to be elected, the ECF, or perhaps just an exclusive group of English players could look forward to FIDE's largesse? Would it not be more in the ECF's financial interest if organisers acting on FIDE's behalf were restrained from profiteering at the ECF's expense?

What on earth does this mean? How are the organisers 'profiteering' by paying people to do things?

And some other questions. I can't help feeling you must have quoted the wrong observation of RJ's to reply to?

[Roger de Coverly]

What on earth does this mean? How are the organisers 'profiteering' by paying people to do things?

Let me explain the context. It has become common practice for FIDE to insist that players stay in "official" hotels. Some organisers, particularly in Eastern Europe and Turkey have treated this as a licence to print money. Whilst in a 4NCL or e2e4 event, you can be fairly confident that the price you pay for accommodation is lower than you would get by booking directly, the same is not true of these organisers and you have to pay premium prices. FIDE has done nothing to outlaw this practice, or refuse to award events where this practice is likely. In addition it does not support players who have spoken out against this, preferring to reject their complaints and supporting local bans of complaining players.

Being a FIDE insider, Rupert Jones presumably supports these practices, or at least didn't take the opportunity to distance himself from them.

[Alex McFarlane]

Roger,

FIDE has decided that future Olympiad bids should contain info on these charges. I can't say it will stop them but it should at least make it obvious when voting on future venues (from 2018?)

There was obvious disquiet at the charges this year, though it was claimed that these reflected actual hotel charges and not profiteering.

[Roger de Coverly]

FIDE has decided that future Olympiad bids should contain info on these charges. I can't say it will stop them but it should at least make it obvious when voting on future venues (from 2018?)

It's not just the Olympiad though, it's nearly every FIDE event outside of Western Europe. Perhaps the more general question to ask bidders is how much external funding is available. If not enough is available, the event is likely to try to balance its books by what are, in effect, disguised entry fees.

[Alex McFarlane]

I agree. Istanbul was felt by many to be a total rip-off if you wanted to upgrade. At least it is now realised that this is a problem.

Hopefully FIDE will apply it to other events and the ECU will take this on board too.

[John Cox]

Well, I'm aware of the problem you mention, Roger, but what on earth does that have to do with the passage you quoted about young English IMs being made aware that they can get paid by someone or other for a particular job should they acquire some absurd FIDE title or other.

It seems a difficult point to contest - he's saying maybe the ECF should do more to inform young English professionals of one small way in which they might give themselves a better chance to make a living. I've no idea if the ECF does already do that or not, but in principle what could be the problem with that?

[John Cox]

Nigel's report as FIDE Delegate has now appeared at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... report.pdf

This is a curious passage:

That said, the issue of funding was germane to the Lausanne court case and to have shed public light on the matter in Council could well have damaged our legal position. It was initially very unclear how the judges would view third-party finance

Is the suggestion here that the source of the funding was kept hidden so that the court itself was not aware of it? That doesn't strike me as an entirely proper procedure. Moreover it doesn't strike me as a particularly wise procedure either, since in order to proceed, a lot of people had to be told that the ECF was not funding the action, and a secret you want kept is best not shared with too many other people.

Hah! Finally a subject on which I have the first idea what I'm talking about.

In litigation there is no such thing as a procedure which is "not entirely proper". Litigation is a game conducted according to the rules of the tribunal one happens to be in. Actions either comply with that or they don't, and that's all.

So here, the only question is whether the procedural rules of the CAS require disclosure of third-party funding. I've no idea if they do or not, though my guess is not. No other questions of propriety arise.

However, when you go on to talk about wisdom, I am with you. The ECF, being a well-run and democratic organisation, needs to account properly to its members, and that means it can't be doing with secret funds. (insert bitter laughter symbols here to taste)

[Roger de Coverly]

It seems a difficult point to contest - he's saying maybe the ECF should do more to inform young English professionals of one small way in which they might give themselves a better chance to make a living. I've no idea if the ECF does already do that or not, but in principle what could be the problem with that?

With the standard FIDE approach for seeking election support being to put inducements on the table, I rather wondered what was on offer to the ECF in exchange for ditching Nigel. Paid-for-trips to Olympiads and other events seemed to be the answer.

I don't know why UK coaches and trainers haven't taken up the FIDE titles scheme. Perhaps they just see it as FIDE periodically charging for what currently appears a certificate of limited practical value.

But as you suggest, the scheme should be independent of the identity of ECF's FIDE Delegate. Given that, why was it mentioned as one of the advantages of electing the candidate?

[Roger de Coverly]

So here, the only question is whether the procedural rules of the CAS require disclosure of third-party funding. I've no idea if they do or not, though my guess is not.

The explanation now given is that the requirement for disclosure of financing was unknown one way or the other. Hence the secrecy as soon as the action escalated from writing open letters and having them published on the chessbase site, to making submissions to CAS. The missing link seemed to be the making public of the letter to FIDE saying that the ECF and Georgia would go to CAS unless FIDE responded in a certain manner. Something along those lines was needed, I believe, as part of the CAS process, so that CAS could accept that resolution internal to FIDE wasn't possible.

I believe the statutes agreed in Istanbul now require a reference to FIDE's Ethics Commission as a dispute resolution protest. The Bulgarians are now trying to protest this at CAS as part of their bid to postpone the projected March Candidates tournament.

[John Cox]

>Given that, why was it mentioned as one of the advantages of electing the candidate?

I don't see that it was, or not in terms. He was saying that he thought we should inform people better about the fact, and see if we couldn't get more FIDE trainers who in turn could train other FIDE trainers (or something).

But presumably it's true that FIDE would be more likely to choose our young players for this task than other countries' young players were we not to indulge in litigation against them funded by Kasparov, and that RJ presented his election as a chance to move in that direction. That seems fair enough to me.

[John Cox]

So here, the only question is whether the procedural rules of the CAS require disclosure of third-party funding. I've no idea if they do or not, though my guess is not.

The explanation now given is that the requirement for disclosure of financing was unknown one way or the other. .

Well, at one time, certainly. I'd imagine White and Case told them whether it was required or not fairly shortly thereafter. And presumably the answer was no since otherwise it would have been done?

[Roger de Coverly]

Well, at one time, certainly. I'd imagine White and Case told them whether it was required or not fairly shortly thereafter. And presumably the answer was no since otherwise it would have been done?

One of Nigel's later reports refers to uncertainty as to the attitude of CAS. This was as a justification for the ECF in general and his report in particular not mentioning the funding at or before the October 2011 Council.

I don't think it's the official line, but having got the necessary financial assurances and had the meeting to give the go-ahead, were not the ECF Directors expected in return not to publicise the ECF's part in the legal action? Unofficial but prepared by the ECF summaries of Board meetings become rare in this period. That might be a coincidence.