Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

The very latest International round up of English news.
David Sedgwick
Posts: 3382
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by David Sedgwick » Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:03 pm

NickFaulks wrote:With friends like that Kirsan really doesn't need enemies. Ali seems to be having a good run at replacing Leong within FIDE as The Man in Charge of Everything. Since the Istanbul Olympiad shambles, he has certainly come back from the dead.
So, if Kasparov wins, Leong will be in charge of everything.

If Ilyumzhinov wins, Ali will be in charge of everything.

Isn't life wonderful?

John McKenna
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by John McKenna » Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:33 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
John McKenna wrote: Does what follows sound like a joke?
Ah Wiki. Well let's say for the sake of argument this is all true. If somebody steals a bunch of money (from poor people) then spends it on places of religious worship is that a joke?

Anyhoo, my eyebrow was raised not by this as much as by your assertion that religious faith (of whatever flavour) some how gets you points on a Are You Redeemably Hot or Not score chart.


John McKenna wrote: ... perhaps Phil will emerge as the great peacemaker?
For what it's worth, I've spent time with Phil and I greatly enjoyed his company. The closest I've come to personal contact with AP is standing behind him at the queue for the cloakroom at the Classic where I observed him interact with the member of staff with genuine warmth - as if she were a real person and not some venue employed drone put there to do his bidding. And that's more than you can say for a lot of people at chess events. For that matter I've yet to meet (face to face or online) a member of council who didn't seem to be some variety of good egg.


I'm very far from convinced that the problems with the ECF are related to the failings of individuals. It's more what happens when those individuals come together and act collectively. An analogy I've drawn in the past is with English cricket and Allen Stanford. The problem there not being what Stanford did but that the English Cricket Board let him do it.
Jonathan, thanks for your reply. It's all a bit of joke to me.

Your description of stealing money from the poor and spending it on places of religious worship can, of course, be applied to any religious institution with a collection plate to some degree. Although you might want to add "under false pretences" to stealing to be fair.

I don't actually see that I made the assertion about "religious faith (of whatever flavour) some how (sic.) gets you points..." you claim I did, however, that is not a belief I subscribe to (I am agnostic) but rather one that religious believers do.

I think your bit about you being "far from convinced that the problems of the of the ECF are related to the failings of individuals..." is a poor excuse - just as it is in your example of when Stanford got involved in English cricket. If alarm bells don't ring in the minds of individual officials when strangers appear with "loads of money" then they are wilfully, mentally deaf and their vision is impaired, too, by thought of all the cash. Collective responsibility should not diminish their failure, on the contrary, it should add to it. The existence and actions of Stanford were definitely a big part of the problem - if 'the Devil' did not exist there would be no temptation. And, if you can't stand the heat stay out of hell's kitchen, i.e. don't remain in office but do the honourable thing and resign.

Reassuring, though, to hear that Andrew is approachable - even if, sometimes, only in a queue. If I'd know that I'd have thanked him for helping bring the Candidates to London when he passed by in the cafe at the event. Also very reassuring to know that Phil really exists, moving in certain circles, and is not just a figment of collective imagination (myth).

So here we have it - 'Contractgate' - with Chris Rice and Streatham & Brixton Blog as Woodward & Bernstein, Nick Faulks as Deepthroat and Nigel Short a Nigel Farage character, or not as the case may be.

Anyway, I'm just the man on the Clapham bus and as I said, "I give up."

I'll just sit back now and watch the drama roll on. Maybe it will all end in tears for Kirsan as it did for Richard Milhous.

Oh, and, Chris Rice had better be careful out there - a Media Free Zone in the UAE can easily become more of a media-free one with a selective cull of journos.

Edit: What boots it to repeat...

Jonathan Bryant>Anyhoo, my eyebrow was raised not by this as much as by your assertion that religious faith (of whatever flavour) some how gets you points on a Are You Redeemably Hot or Not score chart.<

Ah, but now I have it -

John McKenna>I care about Kirsan, he can't be totally beyond redemption as a person, he's Buddhist for *****'s sake and seems to care about the game of chess if not all those who play it...<

Despite how it may appear from what is written above there is a world of difference between a person being "not beyond redemption" in a secular sense and a religious one. Although I've mentioned, more than once, that Kirsan is a Buddhist (among other things) surely what followed gave a hint that I did not believe his name was to be entered on an " Are You Redeemably Hot or Not score chart" (your words, Jonathan not mine). Specifically - "(Kirsan) seems to care about the game of chess if not all those who play it". If I was trying to promote a religious merit-points agenda I would not have made a joke out of being a Buddhist (for *****'s sake), and not caring about all chessplayers, since a Buddhist is supposed to care about all sentient beings.

I'm afraid you may have mistaken me for a person of a religious bent, Jonathan.
Whereas I tend to agree with those (like ***** *********, perhaps) who believe in vino veritas.

How Long , how long, in infinite Pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute?
Better be merry with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit

That could be said to be part of my philosophy, but I'd not turn it into a religion.

Adieu?!? (Don't worry - that's just me being agnostic.)

Not quite -
NickFaulks wrote:]
Jonathan Bryant wrote: Does what follows sound like a joke? It could be one.

Ilyumzhinov has spent millions of dollars on chess and supporting religion, building a Catholic church at the instigation of the Pope John Paul II. He has also built a mosque, a synagogue, 22 Orthodox churches, and 30 Buddhist temples... The 14th Dalai Lama has visited Kirsan Ilyumzhinov on many occasions and has blessed a number of the temples in Elista, as well as Kalmyk Buddhist temples overseas. (Wikipedia)

Why would anyone think this might be a joke? I can't personally confirm the exact numbers, but would expect all of the above information to be factually correct. Which part is in doubt?
Nick, I appreciate that you are fighting what amounts to an almost lone rearguard action here to try to save some of FIDE's bacon but please get it right - above is Jonathan B QUOTING ME. What HE WROTE underneath was -

"Ah Wiki. Well let's say for the sake of argument this is all true. If somebody steals a bunch of money (from poor people) then spends it on places of religious worship is that a joke?"

When I wrote what I wrote it was to see if Jonathan B would say something tantamount to - the Wiki entry is not true. Of course, he might have been angling for a personal invite from Kirsan to visit Kalmykia and see the wonders for himself. But no, he passed that up with his honest answer.

Thanks,
John McKenna
Last edited by John McKenna on Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

NickFaulks
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:24 pm

John McKenna wrote:


Nick, I appreciate that you are fighting what amounts to an almost lone rearguard action here to try to save some of FIDE's bacon
They may be a bit of that, but in this instance I was just drawing attention to the appalling level of ignorance required to ask whether the information in Kirsan's Wiki entry is a joke. I'm not giving a view on whether it makes him a good person or a bad person, but it is well established as factually correct, just like his liaisons with Gaddafi and Assad. To suggest that it may be bogus casts doubt on the many sensible posts of the writers, and that is a great shame.

John McKenna
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by John McKenna » Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:35 pm

Nick, thanks for that clarification. (I assume that 'They' should be 'There'.)

When I wrote what I wrote I assumed that the Wiki entry was probably largely factual. As I said above, I was just trying to tease out a response from Jonathan B.

His response was (I repeat) -

"Ah Wiki. Well let's say for the sake of argument this is all true. If somebody steals a bunch of money (from poor people) then spends it on places of religious worship is that a joke?"

Perhaps you could take that up with him.

PS I must say that thanks to you and all others here I have certainly learned lots about this subject and FIDE, etc. All very informative but what the upshot of it all will be is very unclear to me, so I'll keep tuned in even if I don't say anything much else for a while.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6134
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by JustinHorton » Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:19 pm

NickFaulks wrote: Which part is in doubt?
Which part is verified in the piece?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

David Robertson
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by David Robertson » Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:45 pm

Any chance of a bit of radical moderation with this thread?

It's an important topic. But I'm having trouble sifting the drivel from the dross to follow the comments of substance :(

John McKenna
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by John McKenna » Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:19 pm

Me thinks that someone doth protest a little to much.

If someone wishes not to have his name taken in vain he only has to say so.

Asking the moderators to filter and shovel **it is a bit rich, isn't it?

Why not make someone a moderator for a day/week/month?

I'd like to see what remains...

The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve;
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind...

Is it?

(I'll get back in the box now.)
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8771
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:48 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:What the Presidential Board needs is just one person who looks as their decisions as they are made and asks "are we allowed to do this?". Not holding my breath.
A simple question, because I don't know the answer. Does the ECF Board have such a person?
Yes. The Chairman of the Governance Committee. He's not on the Board, but he is invited to Board meetings. I can remember a few years ago when the Board were considering not auditing the BCF accounts and instead only go through an independent examination. The Chairman of the Governance Committee hastily jumped in to stop any attempt to do that until the necessary change in the BCF Constitution had been passed by BCF Council. [There have been other more recent examples, I give this because it immediately springs to mind.]

I was at the meeting, and this idea was simply a money-saving idea and not an attempt to break the Constitution: The Board just needed someone to say that so that it could act responsibly.

I don't know if this person necessarily answers your question, but the role exists.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:59 pm

John McKenna wrote:When I wrote what I wrote it was to see if Jonathan B would say something tantamount to - the Wiki entry is not true. Of course, he might have been angling for a personal invite from Kirsan to visit Kalmykia and see the wonders for himself. But no, he passed that up with his honest answer.

Hello again John.

Thank you for raising the error in attribution in the earlier post - I was about to.


I've no idea whether the wiki entry is true or not. Frankly I don't care very much either way. Better to just assume for the sake of argument it is true, I think, because any attempt to raise an issue over where Kirsan spends 'his' money serves only to obscure what I believe is a more important question - where and how he obtained 'his' money.

I think you're right. I think Nick Faulks should take this issue up with me. Better yet, he should take it up with Kirsan.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17934
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:54 am

Chris Rice quoting the Turkish guy wrote: Their purchased media will not be able to change the realities!
It only goes to confirm the bunker mentality of FIDE insiders to attack journalists well versed in chess. Individual players don't have votes but if they did, what sort of support do FIDE insiders imagine there would be for the Kirsan team and its apologists?

Years of adverse publicity, much of it straight factual reporting has done little to enhance the reputation of FIDE management. The Turkish guy has a track record for vindictive behaviour. There's the attempt to ban one of his country's handful of GMs from playing internationally, there was the ban on arbiters at the Olympiad from Federations he didn't approve of, there were the sanctions against female players who had the temerity to point out some drawbacks in an event organised by his Federation on behalf of FIDE.

How much condemnation of this behaviour was there from FIDE management?

NickFaulks
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:39 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:With friends like that Kirsan really doesn't need enemies. Ali seems to be having a good run at replacing Leong within FIDE as The Man in Charge of Everything. Since the Istanbul Olympiad shambles, he has certainly come back from the dead.
So, if Kasparov wins, Leong will be in charge of everything.

If Ilyumzhinov wins, Ali will be in charge of everything.

Isn't life wonderful?
I think this says it all.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6134
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:47 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:It only goes to confirm the bunker mentality of FIDE insiders to attack journalists well versed in chess. Individual players don't have votes but if they did, what sort of support do FIDE insiders imagine there would be for the Kirsan team and its apologists?

Years of adverse publicity, much of it straight factual reporting has done little to enhance the reputation of FIDE management.
Although it's also true that it is pretty unusual to see critical reporting about Kasparov or his team, or of other opponents of Kirsan. One consequence of that, in my view, is that they've got too used to an easy ride.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Chris Rice
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Chris Rice » Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:23 am

There has been a lot of allegations regarding the draft memo agreement between FIDE and Agon Ltd and whether it shows that at some stage there were other shareholders at Agon Ltd than just Andrew Paulson. If there is some shadowy secret agreement it has yet to come out but I can say with some certainly that officially Andrew Paulson is the sole shareholder of Agon Ltd and always has been from the moment the company was incorporated and I’m going to attach documentation to demonstrate that. The documents were obtained through company register searches of the Jersey Financial Services Commission; they are accessible to the public although they do charge for the service. For the record it cost me £8. Not sure why AP or FIDE didn’t avail themselves of the service but perhaps they just didn’t realise it was there.

a. Certificate of Incorporation for Agon Ltd dated 12 January 2012.

b. 2013 Annual return dated 26 February 2013 (as you are aware I didn't upload this document the first time because it had an address on it. However, I was advised by an ECF official that the last ECF Board minutes contained the address so it was in the public domain. This is true to the extent that the ECF minutes refer to the 3 Whitehall Court address but the individual flat number is not there so I have redacted the individual flat number from the document to protect Andrew Paulson's privacy, (assuming this is of course his residential address, it may not be), even though this is not necessary.

c. Registered Office notification dated 20 November 2013.

I have some other documents such as the Memorandum of Association but they don't add anything as they are just standard documents that could be applied to any firm basically. The company was clearly bought "off the shelf" so there is no history before January 2012.

This is all the information on the JFSC Company Registry site but of course there are no accounts for Agon Ltd. Any chance you could supply them Andrew? You know, just for the record.
Attachments
Agon Ltd Registered Office 20 November 2013.pdf
(429.31 KiB) Downloaded 31 times
Agon Ltd Annual Return 28 February 2013 (redacted copy).pdf
(88.63 KiB) Downloaded 39 times
Agon Ltd Certificate of Incorporation 12 January 2012.pdf
(29.51 KiB) Downloaded 26 times

Angus French
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Angus French » Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:16 pm

Thanks Chris.
I see the annual return for 1 January 2013 shows 2 ordinary shares in issue with both owned by Andrew Paulson.
Were 100 ordinary shares in issue (or a some multiple of 100) that would have allowed an ownership split of 51:49.
Also, no other class of share is listed to allow, say, the holders to receive dividends without having voting rights.

Maybe the reason AP didn't provide these documents or point to where they could be acquired is that he didn't feel he had to; that it was the responsibility of others to do that.

Angus French
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Angus French » Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:20 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:With friends like that Kirsan really doesn't need enemies. Ali seems to be having a good run at replacing Leong within FIDE as The Man in Charge of Everything. Since the Istanbul Olympiad shambles, he has certainly come back from the dead.
So, if Kasparov wins, Leong will be in charge of everything.

If Ilyumzhinov wins, Ali will be in charge of everything.

Isn't life wonderful?
I think this says it all.
So do I. I wonder how many abstentions (or votes for "none of the above", if that's possible) there will be in the election (assuming no other "tickets" are put forward).

Post Reply