Should the ECF have accepted sponsorship from the Scheinbergs for the World Team Championships 2019?

[NickFaulks]

At the risk of repeating myself, as far as I'm concerned "would" doesn't come into it.

So if he admitted he was guilty as charged, you would be happy to accept his sponsorship? It's only because he won't talk to you at all that you won't touch it?

[JustinHorton]

I'm not doing hypotheticals here. This is a real thing.

[Mick Norris]

I knew it! When the case is made strongly enough that ordinary ECF members, many of them low earners, should not indefinitely be wholly or largely subsiding Michael Adams and Luke McShane, then a sponsor would be found - and of course it wouldn't be a reputable one, because respectable commercial outfits these days don't see any payoff in sponsoring chess.

Gambling ruins people's lives. The advertising draws them in with pictures of cash and lovely women, but that is for the very few. The companies make their money from the many more who succumb to addiction and lose their families and/or homes etc.

Personally I would have nothing to do with them, on that score alone, and I don't care that this activity might be "perfectly legal". I could live if that meant our not sending a team; though to be clear my number one preference would be to send a team with a reputable sponsor.

I know I will be in a minority but am pleased that it is a substantial minority.

Happy to be in that minority

Pretty simple, if you have to ask "should we be taking sponsorship from x?", the answer is almost certain to be no

[JustinHorton]

Well put

[Mick Norris]

ECF ought to agree sponsorship with anyone

I trust you are nowhere near membership of the Governance Committee.

Your position is not merely "morally dubious", as if it were solely a matter of differing ethical judgements. It would in certain circumstances invite ECF to enter unlawful transactions. I have in mind breaches of Anti-Money-Laundering legislation and similar regulations which require organisations to secure the provenance and legal integrity of monies they receive.

I'd have thought the Scheinberg sponsorship would merit at least some pause for thought, including a view from the Governance Committee

Personally, I'd have to check the HM Treasury Sanctions List for both the individual and any of his companies, before I could even speak to him; that's a requirement laid down by the dedicated public servants at the FCA; Nick is, I believe, himself a dedicated public servant, so I am surprised he's apparently encouraging the ECF to break the law (albeit not in this case, as checking the list a few minutes ago, just like with Kirsan, being on the US list doesn't mean he's on the UK list)

[Roger Lancaster]

Moving to the specific case of the United States

I wasn't aware that so far we had considered any other.

UK governments have baulked at individuals being extradited in cases where the US version of "justice" includes the death penalty.

I wasn't aware that was the case here.

I don't consider that someone else's lack of awareness in any way nullifies my argument.

[NickFaulks]

Pretty simple, if you have to ask "should we be taking sponsorship from x?"

The trouble is that there will always be people who feel they "have to ask" that question about almost any potential sponsor.