Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

The very latest International round up of English news.
John McKenna
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by John McKenna » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:30 pm

At first sight the news about the change of leadership at the RCF does not sound good for the Kasparov camp.
Kirsan must be hoping this means reinforcements are about to arrive.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

John McKenna
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by John McKenna » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:37 pm

Mick Norris wrote:Changes at the Russian Chess Federation
http://chess-news.ru/en/node/14573
My post above refers to this news kindly supplied by eagle-eyed Mick.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16081
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:14 am

Some correspondence appearing on the FIDE website
http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... leong.html

As if the idea that delegates to FIDE could be swayed by financial or other inducements. Who'd have thought it until the evil Kasparov came up with the idea?

Chris Rice
Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Chris Rice » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:00 am

JustinHorton wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Carl Hibbard quoting Andrew Paulson wrote: I am currently in the process of selling the company, as I am running for Deputy President of the European Chess Union and owning AGON would constitute a conflict of interest.
How is it that being owner of Agon and Deputy President of ECU is a conflict of interest whilst being President of the ECF and owner of Agon isn't?
I'd speculate that the ECU is in a position to offer contracts in which AGON would be interested, whereas the ECF isn't. But who knows eh?
I think this is right. On the ECU web site there is a slide show entitled "Brief presentation and sponsorship opportunities". If you click on it then it soon becomes obvious that this is the sort of thing that Agon Ltd/Andrew Paulson would have been interested in but if he was to gain the post of ECU Deputy President then there would be a clear conflict.

http://www.ecuonline.net/com/resources/single/9.html

His running for this post wasn't anything new. Zurab Azmaiparashvili announced he was going to run for President in December 2013 and Andrew Paulson was asked in an interview with Chessdom about a rumour that he would run with Azmai where he confirmed interest.

http://www.chessdom.com/interview-with- ... ederation/

Chris Rice
Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Chris Rice » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:45 am

This is an interesting rebuttal on the FIDE site from the Executive Director. He’s not named but I assume its Nigel Freeman:

During his Press Conference, FIDE Presidential Candidate, Garry Kasparov asked who paid for the trips of Geoffrey Borg and Ali Yazici. FIDE only pays Mr. Borg's expenses when they specifically relate to FIDE business, such as SportAccord. FIDE pays Mr. Yazici's expenses relating to his work as Chairman of the Chess in Schools Commission and his work for the FIDE Playzone. FIDE also reserves the right to respond when its staff are falsely accused.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... ector.html

Now clearly FIDE are quite annoyed with Kasparov for raising this matter but it seems to me Kasparov had every right to ask for clarification given these two gentleman’s association with Global Chess MFZE. If they are, as stated, paid separately for the work they do for Chess in Schools and the FIDE Playzone then that would seem to be acceptable. However and once again I return to the FIDE accounts and minutes, where is the declared conflict of interest and the amounts they are paid for their FIDE-related work recorded? It shouldn’t be an onerous task to do this and having done it then FIDE officials can just point to the publicly available information rather than having to continually issue clarification statements.

Nigel Short
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:14 am

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Nigel Short » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:57 am

@Nick Faulkes. When the FIDE President appoints 5 VPs, while the statutes allow him to appoint "two and no more" (hardly an ambiguous phrase) he can expect trouble. FIDE could easily have avoided litigation if Kirsan would temporily removed the 3 extra VPs until the next FIDE Congress, whereupon he could have asked the Assembly to approve changes to the constitution. That he did not do so showed he was prepared to waste hundreds of thousands of euros of FIDE money (i.e. our money) fighting a completely unnecessary political fight.
Last edited by Nigel Short on Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16081
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:36 pm

The Russian original of the draft but signed Agon-Kirsan agreement has now been published at chessvibes
http://www.chessvibes.com/leaked-agreem ... f-interest

Like the Sunday Times, they don't appear to have checked the semi public disclosures available in Jersey as to Agon's ownership. To recap, as investigated by Chris Rice, these show Andrew Paulson as sole owner.

It's a story of sorts that they even considered the idea. Isn't the most likely scenario that someone at FIDE got wind of the agreement, noticed the very obvious conflict of interest and got the concept spiked? Surprising though that all copies of the agreement, particularly signed ones weren't shredded.

NickFaulks
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:15 pm

Nigel Short wrote:@Nick Faulkes. When the FIDE President appoints 5 VPs, while the statutes allow him to appoint "two and no more" (hardly an unambiguous phrase) he can expect trouble. FIDE could easily have avoided litigation if Kirsan would temporily removed the 3 extra VPs until the next FIDE Congress, whereupon he could have asked the Assembly to approve changes to the constitution. That he did not do so showed he was prepared to waste hundreds of thousands of euros of FIDE money (i.e. our money) fighting a completely unnecessary political fight.

You are completely right, and this is precisely what I and others said quite loudly at the time. While your lawsuit was vexatious and designed to result in damage to small federations that had done nothing to deserve it ( and achieved that aim ), the FIDE leadership unquestionably brought the problem on their own head.

It would have taken a matter of minutes in Khanty to alter the Statutes to increase the number of VPs to any given number. The delegates were all there and would have voted for it. They didn't bother because Kirsan and some of his immediate coterie simply don't get the concept that the Statutes apply to them, and seem to regard it as a matter of honour to trample on them. Even after all the fuss in Istanbul, nothing has changed. I tried to make a fuss about this in Tallinn, but got no support from anyone. You weren't there of course, and the man with your proxy had no interest. I don't get the impression that many people on this forum think it really matters whether FIDE observes its own Statutes, except as a bone to fight over.

As I have written before, I expect that, as President, GK would take exactly the same view as Kirsan on the Statutes, particularly in view of his choice of second in command.

David Robertson
Posts: 1636
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by David Robertson » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:26 pm

The evidence of a signed alleged 'draft' document changes the game. This 'draft' can no longer be passed off, as Paulson has claimed, merely as a first punt at an arrangement. It may have been superseded by other arrangements, or by none. But the evidence is clear: at one point, Ilyumzhinov regarded the arrangement with sufficient satisfaction to lend his signature to it. It's also clear that both Ilyumzhinov and Makropoulos were aware of, and content with the financial arrangements being offered to them. If, as appears to be the case, this document led to no subsequent action or transfers of cash, then presumably wiser counsels somewhere caused an outbreak of cold feet.

Steve Rooney
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:36 pm
Location: Church Stretton

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Steve Rooney » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:09 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:It's a story of sorts that they even considered the idea.
David Robertson wrote:The evidence of a signed alleged 'draft' document changes the game.
Indeed. In addition, the statements on Chess Vibes attributed to Malcolm Pein also directly conflict with the account given by Andrew Paulson.

Since the story broke I have thought that the fact that someone considered such a model for doing business with FIDE was highly significant, regardless of the fact that it may not have been the same as the final model agreed. Signing a memorandum such as this is not something that is done lightly, and indicates agreement with the processes described. It may be impossible to do business with a governing body such as FIDE (or many other sporting bodies you care to mention) without venturing onto the dark side, but that doesn't make it right. An ethical business can just walk away. And a business located in North America or the EU would also be subject to significant restrictions due to the latest anti-corruption legislation.

NickFaulks
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:26 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
As if the idea that delegates to FIDE could be swayed by financial or other inducements. Who'd have thought it until the evil Kasparov came up with the idea?
Has anyone suggested that? I have always assumed that both sides in recent elections have used inducements, though not to the point of affecting the result. Wasn't a BCF vote swayed a few years ago by the promise of some Kasparov simuls?

There was the amusing case of the African delegate sent home by his delegation when he was discovered to have accepted inducements from both sides. I never did understand why the chess press universally presented this as reflecting badly on the Kirsan campaign, but not on their opponents.

The difference this time is that

1. Kasparov has made anti-corruption a big issue, and

2. He has been caught red-handed.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16081
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:37 pm

NickFaulks wrote: Has anyone suggested that? I have always assumed that both sides in recent elections have used inducements,
So have many, ever since Campo, one presumes, introduced the idea of using the backing of the smaller and newer Federations as an election winning device.
NickFaulks wrote: though not to the point of affecting the result.
The very similar outcomes to the 2006 and 2010 elections suggest otherwise.

The FIDE President on the other hand is outraged at the very suggestion.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... leong.html
The opinions of National Federations should not be for sale in the hands of some politicians

John McKenna
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by John McKenna » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:47 pm

Steve Rooney>... It may be impossible to do business with a governing body such as FIDE (or many other sporting bodies you care to mention) without venturing onto the dark side, but that doesn't make it right. An ethical business can just walk away. And a business located in North America or the EU would also be subject to significant restrictions due to the latest anti-corruption legislation.<

Though this kind of thing can always happen -

"Calls were made for a full public inquiry today (10 Apr. 2008) after the High Court ruled the Government and Serious Fraud Office "unlawfully submitted" to threats that there could be "another 7/7" unless they dropped bribery investigations involving BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia.
In a passionate and powerful judgment, two senior judges condemned the Government's "abject surrender" to the "blatant threats" that Saudi co-operation in the fight against terror would end unless the probe into corruption was halted..."

The business didn't walk away its government did, but in the completely the wrong direction!

The whole article is at -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 07201.html
Last edited by John McKenna on Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

NickFaulks
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:16 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
The opinions of National Federations should not be for sale in the hands of some politicians

Roger, what's he supposed to say? It's not just chess, it's not just sport. In all public life, people in high positions constantly do things that are not entirely correct ( to say the least ). You know that perfectly well. You might not be happy with this, and neither might I, which could help to explain why neither of us has ever risen to a high public position.

The problem here is that a document has emerged setting out precise details of a nefarious plan, and subject to some minor spinning it has proved impossible to disown. Once that happens it is generally time for someone to resign.

In any case, I can only assume that Kasparov has told Leong that he should hang around at FIDE in order to cause disruption to its everyday business and generally make the organisation look poor until Tromso. Whatever the legalities, I don't like that.

Andrew Martin
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:37 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Andrew Martin » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:21 pm

Can somebody give Roger Edwards a call?

Post Reply