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