Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[Colm Daly]

No forum over there so you would never find out what was going on anyway

Also ballynafeighchess news-gossip/

Both are blogs with comments.

The Ballynafeckingstupid would be a better name for that site. It has ill informed nonsense much of the time. I mean out and out rubbish. In one absurd piece by some crank. he could not even get my name right, has never met me, and never spoke with me, knows next to nothing about the issues he writes about and draws all the wrong conclusions about a host of issues. It is a peripheral local club and website with even more parochial insight on offer by it's contributors.

But aside from that, just read the nasty and pretentious infantile report on Bunratty in which fun is made of the ICU women's development officer in an unkind and insulting way.

But I think already we are getting side tracked here.

[Sean Hewitt]

...But I think already we are getting side tracked here.

Sidetracked? On the ECForum? Heaven forbid!

[Jonathan Bryant]

The Ballynafeckingstupid would be a better name for that site. It has ill informed nonsense much of the time. I mean out and out rubbish. In one absurd piece by some crank. he could not even get my name right, has never met me, and never spoke with me, knows next to nothing about the issues he writes about and draws all the wrong conclusions about a host of issues. It is a peripheral local club and website with even more parochial insight on offer by it's contributors.

Sounds like a blog to me.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

...But I think already we are getting side tracked here.

Sidetracked? On the ECForum? Heaven forbid!

I'm waiting for the post from the Scottish chess champion inviting applications for the post of President of the Scottish Chess Union (I may have the name and title wrong...).

Talking of getting sidetracked, the posts between Simon Spivack and Andrew Paulson giving various insights into Russian culture are fascinating. At the risk of side-tracking things still further, the Russian (Russian-born?) owner of the London newspaper the Evening Standard (I forget his name right now) writes occasionally about Russia in editorials and opinion pieces and I get the same impressions of lots of politics and cultural aspects that are difficult to get a handle on. Ditto for some of the pieces by Sarah Hurst and recent books and programmes about Russia. Feels like scratching the surface of a very large topic and immense and complicated history.

[John McKenna]

My thanks to Colm Daly for answering my two questions earlier this afternoon. (It was my niece's birthday so I had to go out.) I'll read not only what Colm had to say in reply to me but everything he and others contributed today. There is quite a lot so it may take me a while. I also think it was great to see another surprise visitor Charlie Storey.

Two fine champions visiting in one day is a real treat. Not forgetting one of the finest champions of all, Nigel, who is though something of a regular.

By the way, to Chris Kreuzer - who cannot recall the names of the London Russian media moguls - Lebedev. The father originally purchased the two newspapers.
The son Evgeny now owns both and sometimes writes pieces for the Evening Standard.
I am looking at one now - A winter Games to bring Russia in from the cold.
Not sure if Sochi will do that for more than a few months.
It may do more for the Russians' self-esteem as, for the first time in about 50 years, they topped the medal table.

[Simon Spivack]

Simon, do you really think that while still secretly plotting with AP in order to steer the ENG vote from GK to himself, then KI openly tells a newspaper about it as a done deal?
If the article quotes KI claiming support from Switzerland, England, France and Spain while KI only has official support from Switzerland, that seems to me to fall within the scope of "exaggerated or deluded". Unless I missed some news about the French or Spanish chess federations.

Paolo,

You are overestimating Il'Loon.

A more subtle and supple an operator than Ilyumzhinov would never have ordered the murder of Larissa Yudina, who posed little threat to his position. There are many instances of strange behaviour from Ilyumzhinov, I shall take that as a given. Therefore, if one assumes that Ilyumzhinov is not the sharpest tool in the box, it is not difficult to imagine that not too much thought from him would go into an interview granted to a journalist from a sympathetic newspaper.

What I was demonstrating was that this loose talk from Ilyumzhinov is not totally without foundation. The point at dispute is how much of it is true.

[Roger de Coverly]

What I was demonstrating was that this loose talk from Ilyumzhinov is not totally without foundation. The point at dispute is how much of it is true.

You mean he's thinking he can turn up in London, have a selfie with AP for the FIDE site, offer a few Russian Sports Scholarships and depart with the ECF's vote promised.

[David Shepherd]

From the initial posting of the minutes: In my presidential election platform, I advocated the general principal that the ECF should welcome back under its wings all elements of English chess that had been alienated from it over the years. I identified UKCA and UKSCC, representing 55,000 chess-playing children, as a priority and asked the Chief Executive to produce a Term Sheet which would be acceptable both to the ECF Council and to Michael Basman and his team; subsequently, other groups (such as EPSCA) were to be encouraged to work with us under the same terms. The Chief Executive is compiling a chronology....

Why was the Chief Executive tasked with this job rather the Junior Director, or at least why was the Junior Director not involved at this stage?

To partly answer my own question further up the thread, I see that this was discussed by the board on 1/11 and 22/11 as well 16/12 and there was much more involvement of the whole board including the new junior director than I had previously realised http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about-2/minutes/, and more than was clear from AP's reply in the minutes, so to answer my own question it seems that the junior director was involved, but at some point communication seems to have broken down, which should be easily solved. I imagine it is reasonably common as new boards of directors gel together and areas of responsibility overlap.

On the positive side it does seem good that the board are working to get things done, even if problems are arising.

[John McKenna]

To: Simon - my intuition tells me that Kirsan quite possibly uttered - will no one rid me of this troublesome journalist?
If so he may even have deeply regretted the events that followed. However, such powerful men are unlikely to confess their sins until perhaps their own day of reckoning.

Edit -
To: David S, Well done for investigating and being able then to partly answer your own question.
The devil is in the details - because details are needful things that the devil does not sell cheaply.

[Simon Spivack]

Andrew,

I shall post twice today, this first, concerning the shift in venue from Chelyabinsk to London, is to satisfy my curiosity. It's possible you have nothing you wish to add.

I know you were playing piggy in the middle of a Kremlin bun fight.

Out of the blue, for some reason having to do with then-President Medvedev, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and Arkady Dvorkovich (then-Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Russian Chess Federation) got into a fight. To punish FIDE, Ilya Levitov (then-Director of the Russian Chess Federation) announced that he would withhold permission for AGON to hold the Grand Prix on Russian territory (I realise that this punished me, rather than FIDE! Seems I'm an easier target than FIDE.). For months I was given assurances by FIDE that Ilyumzhinov would resolve this situation, but conversations let nowhere. In the end, Levitov made an absurd demand (giving Russia four wild card places in the Grand Prix Series) which was rejected, the Mayor of Chelyabinsk cancelled the invitation and the sponsorship money, Levitov threatened that I would be put in jail if I tried to hold the event in Chelyabinsk, and we (AGON) found ourselves in a mess before we even got started.

As I understand it, Medvedev pushed for Ilyumzhinov to be relieved of his position as President of Kalmykia from before 2010. In this endeavour the then Russian President was supported by members of his circle, which included Dvorkovich, then an economic advisor. The outcome was that Ilyumzhinov was forced out, but, as compensation, was allowed to keep his FIDE office. The part I'm not sure of is who with Kremlin links was backing Ilyumzhinov, evidently enemies of Medvedev.

Karpov, unlike Kasparov today, was to Moscow an acceptable replacement for Ilyumzhinov, which was why the RCF initially supported the former world champion. However, once the Kremlin battle had been resolved, Dvorkovich had to send in the goon squad to kick Bakh out of the RCF's offices and switch Russia's allegiance. This did not mean that Medvedev and Dvorkovich were truly in Ilyumzhinov's camp in the chess world. Your difficulties were related to this Kremlin feuding.

[Simon Spivack]

Andrew,

To cut to the chase, as you Americans put it, I have pruned some of your post in this follow-up.

I know it goes with the territory, but here I am being held to an Anglo-Saxon level of scrutiny; you can't apply a 'sovok' level of insinuation and innuendo.

Murky is one of those words that is far too easy to lob. It is an ungentlemanly, blunt instrument from behind that can do damage. So, let me try to cut through the murk with clarity, precision and detail (for those who are interested):

'Sovok', as opposed to 'clarity, precision and detail'? Up to a point, Lord Copper. A Beaverbrook relation once wielded the 'simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play'. It didn't go well for him.

As the $500k issue hadn't seemed relevant to ECF politics, you're right I somewhat telescoped the events. Note, the $500k was a refundable deposit, not a payment (read the Agreement which has been on the FIDE web site for 2 years). The AGON/FIDE Agreement was signed in February 2012 and was to start immediately.

This can be downloaded from here. I have read dozens and dozens of files at the FIDE website. It has not been good for my eyes. I wish I had just looked at the obvious ones.

From page 8, I see 'This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Switzerland.' I am not certain whether any forumite can lay claim to expertise in Swiss law, even if some have undergone legal training. That complicates matters somewhat. It's probably worth noting that the Agreement is therefore written in a foreign language. I, for one, don't know if any of the English words employed carry a specific technical meaning in Swiss law.

Andrew, you have written 'refundable deposit'. I can't see the adjective 'refundable' in the Agreement. Whilst it is generally understood that a deposit is refundable, it is typically only applicable if the other side of the transaction has not met its obligations or force majeure supervenes. The impression I have garnered is that it was Agon that had not followed through. On page 6, part 5, I see: 'Agon will pay a cash deposit to FIDE of $500,000 ... within 60 days of the signing of this Agreement. Such deposited will be forfeited should Agon not be able to provide sufficient guarantees or Letters of Credit ... or a Material Cause occurs ...'

Whilst it is tricky terrain, best left to lawyers, a layman would likely assume that non-payment of a deposit meant that Agon was not 'able to provide sufficient guarantees ...'

Also 3.2.b, page 3, has: 'Each Budget Event shall include the following "Required Budget Amounts" payable to FIDE ... in advance' Was this done? If not, is this not a breach of contract leading to a forfeiture of the deposit?

I can see provision made for payment offsets, from which I deduce, possibly incorrectly, that Agon could have effectively recovered its deposit that way, had the enterprise proven successful.

What this demonstrates is that it is far from obvious that FIDE did not have a claim to the deposit. In such circumstances most parties would talk to one another. Why on Earth would Ilyumzhinov give up on such a demand out of the goodness of his heart? Surely he would want something in return? The mere fact that the money was not paid suggests that you feared its forfeiture. You adduced that as your explanation for not paying the money prior to the meeting of the General Assembly.

Turning now to another document, the Minutes of the 2012 General Assembly, in which FIDE's dealings with Agon are discussed under 4.3. Let us look at page 19: 'Mr. Sieicki said there is a provision in the contract that Agon pays a deposit of 500,000 USD to the FIDE account and whether this was done.
Mr. Paulson said it would be done immediately after the contract is ratified by the General Assembly.'

We all know that, contrary to your assurance to the Assembly, this was not done. And the contract was ratified by that body (page 21).

[Andrew Paulson]

Andrew,

I shall post twice today, this first, concerning the shift in venue from Chelyabinsk to London, is to satisfy my curiosity. It's possible you have nothing you wish to add.

I know you were playing piggy in the middle of a Kremlin bun fight.

Out of the blue, for some reason having to do with then-President Medvedev, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and Arkady Dvorkovich (then-Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Russian Chess Federation) got into a fight. To punish FIDE, Ilya Levitov (then-Director of the Russian Chess Federation) announced that he would withhold permission for AGON to hold the Grand Prix on Russian territory (I realise that this punished me, rather than FIDE! Seems I'm an easier target than FIDE.). For months I was given assurances by FIDE that Ilyumzhinov would resolve this situation, but conversations let nowhere. In the end, Levitov made an absurd demand (giving Russia four wild card places in the Grand Prix Series) which was rejected, the Mayor of Chelyabinsk cancelled the invitation and the sponsorship money, Levitov threatened that I would be put in jail if I tried to hold the event in Chelyabinsk, and we (AGON) found ourselves in a mess before we even got started.

As I understand it, Medvedev pushed for Ilyumzhinov to be relieved of his position as President of Kalmykia from before 2010. In this endeavour the then Russian President was supported by members of his circle, which included Dvorkovich, then an economic advisor. The outcome was that Ilyumzhinov was forced out, but, as compensation, was allowed to keep his FIDE office. The part I'm not sure of is who with Kremlin links was backing Ilyumzhinov, evidently enemies of Medvedev.

Karpov, unlike Kasparov today, was to Moscow an acceptable replacement for Ilyumzhinov, which was why the RCF initially supported the former world champion. However, once the Kremlin battle had been resolved, Dvorkovich had to send in the goon squad to kick Bakh out of the RCF's offices and switch Russia's allegiance. This did not mean that Medvedev and Dvorkovich were truly in Ilyumzhinov's camp in the chess world. Your difficulties were related to this Kremlin feuding.

Simon,

I don't really know the details. But, I've heard lots of speculation. In my experience, the explanations are never simple and often impenetrable, as Churchill famously described. Your account is more or less aligned with the speculation I've heard, though. The only detail I would add is that I heard that Ilyumzhinov assumed that Medvedev, thus Dvorkovich, would be out of power after the 2012 elections that brought Putin back to the Presidency. He must have somehow conveyed this assumption to Dvorkovich and when it didn't come to pass, Dvorkovich sought to rub his nose in it.

Andrew

[Andrew Paulson]

Andrew,

To cut to the chase, as you Americans put it, I have pruned some of your post in this follow-up.

I know it goes with the territory, but here I am being held to an Anglo-Saxon level of scrutiny; you can't apply a 'sovok' level of insinuation and innuendo.

Murky is one of those words that is far too easy to lob. It is an ungentlemanly, blunt instrument from behind that can do damage. So, let me try to cut through the murk with clarity, precision and detail (for those who are interested):

'Sovok', as opposed to 'clarity, precision and detail'? Up to a point, Lord Copper. A Beaverbrook relation once wielded the 'simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play'. It didn't go well for him.

As the $500k issue hadn't seemed relevant to ECF politics, you're right I somewhat telescoped the events. Note, the $500k was a refundable deposit, not a payment (read the Agreement which has been on the FIDE web site for 2 years). The AGON/FIDE Agreement was signed in February 2012 and was to start immediately.

This can be downloaded from here. I have read dozens and dozens of files at the FIDE website. It has not been good for my eyes. I wish I had just looked at the obvious ones.

From page 8, I see 'This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Switzerland.' I am not certain whether any forumite can lay claim to expertise in Swiss law, even if some have undergone legal training. That complicates matters somewhat. It's probably worth noting that the Agreement is therefore written in a foreign language. I, for one, don't know if any of the English words employed carry a specific technical meaning in Swiss law.

Andrew, you have written 'refundable deposit'. I can't see the adjective 'refundable' in the Agreement. Whilst it is generally understood that a deposit is refundable, it is typically only applicable if the other side of the transaction has not met its obligations or force majeure supervenes. The impression I have garnered is that it was Agon that had not followed through. On page 6, part 5, I see: 'Agon will pay a cash deposit to FIDE of $500,000 ... within 60 days of the signing of this Agreement. Such deposited will be forfeited should Agon not be able to provide sufficient guarantees or Letters of Credit ... or a Material Cause occurs ...'

Whilst it is tricky terrain, best left to lawyers, a layman would likely assume that non-payment of a deposit meant that Agon was not 'able to provide sufficient guarantees ...'

Also 3.2.b, page 3, has: 'Each Budget Event shall include the following "Required Budget Amounts" payable to FIDE ... in advance' Was this done? If not, is this not a breach of contract leading to a forfeiture of the deposit?

I can see provision made for payment offsets, from which I deduce, possibly incorrectly, that Agon could have effectively recovered its deposit that way, had the enterprise proven successful.

What this demonstrates is that it is far from obvious that FIDE did not have a claim to the deposit. In such circumstances most parties would talk to one another. Why on Earth would Ilyumzhinov give up on such a demand out of the goodness of his heart? Surely he would want something in return? The mere fact that the money was not paid suggests that you feared its forfeiture. You adduced that as your explanation for not paying the money prior to the meeting of the General Assembly.

Turning now to another document, the Minutes of the 2012 General Assembly, in which FIDE's dealings with Agon are discussed under 4.3. Let us look at page 19: 'Mr. Sieicki said there is a provision in the contract that Agon pays a deposit of 500,000 USD to the FIDE account and whether this was done.
Mr. Paulson said it would be done immediately after the contract is ratified by the General Assembly.'

We all know that, contrary to your assurance to the Assembly, this was not done. And the contract was ratified by that body (page 21).

Simon,

"Sovok" is an adjective describing the behaviour of homo sovieticus.

You're right about 'deposit'. Both that it is often refundable, and that in the Agreement it is not stated how or why it would be refunded. This is because the 'deposit' was added after the Presidential Board approved the Agreement as a sop to Ilya Levitov, Executive Director of the Russian Chess Federation, who thought that AGON should put some 'skin on the table.' I didn't/couldn't object to this unilateral demand at the last minute. But it was also slipped in without consulting lawyers, who might have addressed such issues. I was reassured verbally that it would be reimbursed as soon as AGON had proven its track record of payment; I'm not sure if I believed that, but I had little choice.

My requests and arguments falling on deaf ears, the AGON Agreement was construed under the laws of Switzerland. FIDE has asked the advice of their lawyers who had insisted that it was necessary. (The lawyers were Swiss.)

You say: "Why on Earth would Ilyumzhinov give up on such a demand[?]" This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way FIDE works. Ilyumzhinov makes no such decisions. Your question should be "Why on Earth would FIDE give up on such a demand?" The answer is that in many ways we were undertaking a partnership where we were bound at the hip. No sane person would have accepted the terms they were offering me. And, probably no normal organisation would have offered them.

You have been doing your homework on the AGON Agreement; let me help you out. Nigel Short has alleged that Kirsan Ilyumzhinov or some other FIDE official(s) representing a conflict of interest are behind AGON. If, as he claims, they stand to reap huge profits or that they seek to control the World Championship Cycle for some other nefarious reason, you’d assume that you’d see some evidence of this. None has been offered and there’s only one place to look: cherchez l'argent.

Under the AGON/FIDE Contract (unanimously approved by the Presidential Board; ratified by the General Assembly; publicly available since February 2012), the first four years (two World Championship Cycles, not including the World Cup — 2012-2015) cost AGON over €20m, of which FIDE receives €1.75m (prize fund commissions, the rest being overhead, product development, event costs and prize funds). The ambitious assumption that sponsorship revenue will grow from zero to €5m/year by year four, this implies a loss of about €10m before break-even.

Starting in 2016, AGON starts paying to FIDE 30% royalties on any sponsorship revenues (over agreed-upon base costs) up to $5m, with percentages growing on a sliding scale to 55%. Therefore, in addition to €436k/year in prize fund commissions, assuming AGON was by then breaking even (now requiring about €7m/year), AGON would be paying FIDE an additional €2m/year. As soon as AGON makes a profit, even more goes to FIDE.

The owner(s) of AGON would therefore receive no dividends unless AGON grew sponsorship revenue from zero to €5m/year by year four and continued to grow it to over €10m/year by year eight to pay back the €10m start-up deficit; at which moment, AGON would have only 3 years left to earn money on what would generally be considered a crazy high-risk, capital-intensive investment … before the Agreement was up for renewal with FIDE in year eleven. By which time, AGON would have paid to FIDE €35m. (To put this in perspective, currently FIDE’s budget is about €3m/year.)

FIDE removed from the Agreement any intellectual property, digital rights or broadcast rights — the World Championship Cycle’s principle source of revenue. A sponsor willing to pay millions of dollars for sponsorship of a chess event probably would be interested in communicating the fact of their sponsorship beyond the audience in the playing hall.

Several members of the FIDE Presidential Board commented that the contract was heavily weighted in favour of FIDE! Clearly an understatement.

Having conclusively established that I own and have always owned 100% of AGON (see documents posted by ChessVibes), I hope that this analysis now shows that even were there a side agreement (impossible to disprove), it would reap so little benefit compared to the enormous benefit to FIDE and the chess world that it is immaterial.

[This is an unaudited rough summary with no caveats for innumerable contingent details. It is a ‘best efforts’ attempt to summarise a complicated contract as it is realised in a complicated business model.]

[Andy McCulloch]

You're right about 'deposit'. Both that it is often refundable, and that in the Agreement it is not stated how or why it would be refunded. This is because the 'deposit' was added after the Presidential Board approved the Agreement as a sop to Ilya Levitov, Executive Director of the Russian Chess Federation, who thought that AGON should put some 'skin on the table.' I didn't/couldn't object to this unilateral demand at the last minute. But it was also slipped in without consulting lawyers, who might have addressed such issues. I was reassured verbally that it would be reimbursed as soon as AGON had proven its track record of payment; I'm not sure if I believed that, but I had little choice.

My requests and arguments falling on deaf ears, the AGON Agreement was construed under the laws of Switzerland. FIDE has asked the advice of their lawyers who had insisted that it was necessary. (The lawyers were Swiss.)

You say: "Why on Earth would Ilyumzhinov give up on such a demand[?]" This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way FIDE works. Ilyumzhinov makes no such decisions. Your question should be "Why on Earth would FIDE give up on such a demand?" The answer is that in many ways we were undertaking a partnership where we were bound at the hip. No sane person would have accepted the terms they were offering me. And, probably no normal organisation would have offered them.

You have been doing your homework on the AGON Agreement; let me help you out. Nigel Short has alleged that Kirsan Ilyumzhinov or some other FIDE official(s) representing a conflict of interest are behind AGON. If, as he claims, they stand to reap huge profits or that they seek to control the World Championship Cycle for some other nefarious reason, you’d assume that you’d see some evidence of this. None has been offered and there’s only one place to look: cherchez l'argent.

Under the AGON/FIDE Contract (unanimously approved by the Presidential Board; ratified by the General Assembly; publicly available since February 2012), the first four years (two World Championship Cycles, not including the World Cup — 2012-2015) cost AGON over €20m, of which FIDE receives €1.75m (prize fund commissions, the rest being overhead, product development, event costs and prize funds). The ambitious assumption that sponsorship revenue will grow from zero to €5m/year by year four, this implies a loss of about €10m before break-even.

Starting in 2016, AGON starts paying to FIDE 30% royalties on any sponsorship revenues (over agreed-upon base costs) up to $5m, with percentages growing on a sliding scale to 55%. Therefore, in addition to €436k/year in prize fund commissions, assuming AGON was by then breaking even (now requiring about €7m/year), AGON would be paying FIDE an additional €2m/year. As soon as AGON makes a profit, even more goes to FIDE.

The owner(s) of AGON would therefore receive no dividends unless AGON grew sponsorship revenue from zero to €5m/year by year four and continued to grow it to over €10m/year by year eight to pay back the €10m start-up deficit; at which moment, AGON would have only 3 years left to earn money on what would generally be considered a crazy high-risk, capital-intensive investment … before the Agreement was up for renewal with FIDE in year eleven. By which time, AGON would have paid to FIDE €35m. (To put this in perspective, currently FIDE’s budget is about €3m/year.)

FIDE removed from the Agreement any intellectual property, digital rights or broadcast rights — the World Championship Cycle’s principle source of revenue. A sponsor willing to pay millions of dollars for sponsorship of a chess event probably would be interested in communicating the fact of their sponsorship beyond the audience in the playing hall.

Several members of the FIDE Presidential Board commented that the contract was heavily weighted in favour of FIDE! Clearly an understatement.

Having conclusively established that I own and have always owned 100% of AGON (see documents posted by ChessVibes), I hope that this analysis now shows that even were there a side agreement (impossible to disprove), it would reap so little benefit compared to the enormous benefit to FIDE and the chess world that it is immaterial.

[This is an unaudited rough summary with no caveats for innumerable contingent details. It is a ‘best efforts’ attempt to summarise a complicated contract as it is realised in a complicated business model.]

Various pieces of this statement are, to say the least, difficult to believe.

" I didn't/couldn't object to this unilateral demand at the last minute. But it was also slipped in without consulting lawyers, who might have addressed such issues. I was reassured verbally that it would be reimbursed as soon as AGON had proven its track record of payment; I'm not sure if I believed that, but I had little choice."

You could have said no and walked away. What you had invested up until then would have been small beer compared to the losses you predict.

" No sane person would have accepted the terms they were offering me."

You accepted the terms. Why? What are you implying?

"The owner(s) of AGON would therefore receive no dividends unless AGON grew sponsorship revenue from zero to €5m/year by year four and continued to grow it to over €10m/year by year eight to pay back the €10m start-up deficit; at which moment, AGON would have only 3 years left to earn money on what would generally be considered a crazy high-risk, capital-intensive investment … before the Agreement was up for renewal with FIDE in year eleven. By which time, AGON would have paid to FIDE €35m. (To put this in perspective, currently FIDE’s budget is about €3m/year.)"

Again, you accepted this risk. Why? it would certainly seem that you are gambling on the long term prospects, rather uncertain though, and long odds against.

"Having conclusively established that I own and have always owned 100% of AGON (see documents posted by ChessVibes), I hope that this analysis now shows that even were there a side agreement (impossible to disprove), it would reap so little benefit compared to the enormous benefit to FIDE and the chess world that it is immaterial."

[JustinHorton]

Various pieces of this statement are, to say the least, difficult to believe.

I have never seen a statement by Andrew Paulson which did not fit this description.