Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[Roger de Coverly]

I am extremely concerned that there has been a confidence issue against him and hope that is not to become a trend such that a President simply has to become a puppet otherwise we can change the role so as not to confuse the chess public.

The row is basically over who the ECF should support or vote for in the forthcoming FIDE and ECU elections. Had there not been a total falling out between AP and Nigel over this, it's unlikely in my view that any disquiet with AP amongst his fellow directors about style and domestic issues would have left the confines of ECF Board discussions.

Long established ECF policy has been anti-Kirsan and a majority amongst the ECF voting membership have accepted this. For that matter except for the recent emergence of Kasparov-haters, it hasn't been challenged by the chess playing or forum writing public either. Those who followed the election of AP will have been aware that it was raised as an issue, the extent to which he was a FIDE-insider aka a Kirsan supporter. During the ECF election, he tried to distance himself from this, but didn't disclose to the voters that during negotiations with FIDE, it had been proposed that a dual structure of Agon be set up, sharing ownership with Kirsan, with distribution of fees and retainers to various FIDE people.

[John Philpott]

Justin Horton wrote

What I meant by this is two things:

(a) Legally and constitutionally, do all the officials involved still retain their powers? They can make payments, decisions and so on?

(b) If so, is this also so practically? Are officials likely to find that other parties are aware that their status may change on April 12 and this affects working relationships?

There have been a number of subsequent posts, but I would make the general observation that from a day to day perspective it is largely a case of business as usual. As a company limited by guarantee the ECF has its own legal personality and carries on regardless of the current identity of the Board of Directors. The Office in Battle is largely insulated from what may be going on at the top, and I can reassure everybody that payments do continue to be made as usual.

Individual directors have a degree of autonomy to run their directorates within the budget approved by Council and do not need to get matters of detail rubber stamped by the Board. If anybody's status may be subject to change, is the situation really that different to the run up to an AGM where an incumbent director is known to be facing a contested election?

What is going on does, of course, distract the Board as a whole from the strategic initiatives that might otherwise be pursued.

As is in the public domain, because Board meeting dates are indicated on the "dates for your diary" calendar on the ECF website, there is a face to face Board meeting scheduled for Friday 7 March, one of the important functions of which is to approve the 2014/15 budget to be presented to the April Finance Council meeting. I have no reason at this stage to think that this meeting will not go ahead, with all directors having the right to attend.

[Simon Spivack]

Simon,

Happy to answer your questions. But, try to be more concrete and less allusive if you expect answers to be concrete and substantive.

Andrew,

In the land of Roman Malinovskii, Zubatov trade unions and the Potemkin Village it goes with the territory. You know that.

"... for instance, there is the unpaid $500,000 due to FIDE for Agon's rights." This has been dealt with innumerable times both by me in this forum and by the Presidential Board and the General Assembly of FIDE. It was waived by FIDE because I was unexpectedly obliged to pay $1m for the Chelyabinsk Grand Prix.

You make it very difficult for someone who was not an insider to follow. I presume this has to do with the venue change from Chelyabinsk to London. I see that you discuss here a loss of $600,000, plus there was forgone sponsorship in relation to Chelyabinsk:

FIDE has been trying to resolve this situation for months. I am not involved, but from what I understand Levitov and Dvorkovich informed local Chelyabinsk officials that they were not to work with us, and sponsors that they were not to pay the €300k promised ...

Given this was discussed for months, how could it have been unexpected? Or are you suggesting you had no notion of what was happening in something of intimate importance to you! Furthermore, as I understand the RCF demand, it was within Agon's powers to grant it, for there is:

The Chairman of the RCF Board Ilya Levitov explained the situation about the cancellation of the Grand Prix stage in Chelyabinsk to our site,

"When there was an announcement that a stage of the Grand Prix would happen in Chelyabinsk, the chess federation of that city didn't know about it. We wrote a letter to the company AGON stating that, according to a certain Russian Federation law, international sporting events, held on the country's territory, must be agreed with a sporting organisation accredited at the Ministry of Sport; in other words, at the Russian Chess Federation. In return, we got a polite reply with apologies and a request to allow them to hold a stage in Chelyabinsk. We said, 'Yes, you are welcome; you can hold all stages in Russia if you want and we would help you, but we have one condition'. The company AGON was given the right to select six participants for the Grand Prix. So we voiced our condition that three out of six participants should be Russians".

"AGON was suddenly given the right to decide six participants of the cycle for the World Champion's title. Why six? Why not ten? With all due respect, why should Andrew Paulson do it? We think that if you hold the competition on the Russian territory, and since there is sponsor's money intended for the internal development of chess that instead goes to the external development of chess (let's call it that), then include our chess players".

This is all very murky, but it certainly looks as if you are asking us to accept that FIDE had to compensate you to the tune of $500,000 for something it held no direct responsibility for. Need I remind you that some ECF directors have trouble accepting your versions of history? Sure, you might have been able to cite force majeure and scrapped the thing had FIDE not given way. But that doesn't seem particularly honourable, now does it? And yes, I know you were playing piggy in the middle of a Kremlin bun fight. Incidentally, I expect you are not unhappy to see the departure of Ilya Levitov from the RCF, but less than enthused at his replacement by Mark Glukhovsky.

"... the mysterious hiring, sacking and rehiring of Malcolm Pein at the London Grand Prix event." You might recall that it was the Candidates and not the Grand Prix ...

Thank you for the correction.

... where Malcolm and Nigel and Lawrence Trent provided excellent commentary. Aside from organisational incompetence and budgetary fluctuations, what could this "mystery" possibly have implied? I don't see how it logically follows that "... Kirsan believ[ed] he had Andrew in his debt." Do you really think that the President of FIDE is going to get involved in negotiating contracts for commentators or that he has a particularly strong opinion of Malcolm Pein.

Actually, I don't believe for one moment that Ilyumzhinov was concerned about the intricacies of that contest. Rather, the example given supports the view that there was a void in the budget. Was it not filled by Ilyumzhinov?

As far as I know, Ilyumzhinov has not (yet?) responded to my letter regarding his boast in Nezavissimaya Gazeta. But, if you make a close study of his 'complete works' you might note that he has before made claims that were somewhat exaggerated or deluded.

"Deluded"? Well there is support from Switzerland.

[Paolo Casaschi]

As far as I know, Ilyumzhinov has not (yet?) responded to my letter regarding his boast in Nezavissimaya Gazeta. But, if you make a close study of his 'complete works' you might note that he has before made claims that were somewhat exaggerated or deluded.

"Deluded"? Well there is support from Switzerland.

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.

[Roger de Coverly]

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".

Without knowing very much about the voting and governance process of the Swiss Federation, does signing up the President to your ticket automatically guarantee support of that Federation? As AP has perhaps found out with the Zurab slate for the ECU elections, that is by no means certain if, like many European Federations, there are a lot of viewpoints and collective decision making processes to follow.

[John McKenna]

As Simon well knows, Switzerland sits on a mountain of loot.

Gold? Yellow, glittering, precious...
This yellow slave
Will knit and break religions, bless th' accursed,
Make the hoar leprosy adored, place thieves,
And give them title, knee and approbation
With senators on the bench.

[Paolo Casaschi]

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".

Without knowing very much about the voting and governance process of the Swiss Federation, does signing up the President to your ticket automatically guarantee support of that Federation? As AP has perhaps found out with the Zurab slate for the ECU elections, that is by no means certain if, like many European Federations, there are a lot of viewpoints and collective decision making processes to follow.

Even more to the point of "exaggerated and deluded".

[Colm Daly]

Without knowing very much about the voting and governance process of the Swiss Federation, does signing up the President to your ticket automatically guarantee support of that Federation?

I would guess not. Technically they could change their mind! A week is a long time in politics etc etc.

[Andrew Paulson]

Simon,

Happy to answer your questions. But, try to be more concrete and less allusive if you expect answers to be concrete and substantive.

Andrew,

In the land of Roman Malinovskii, Zubatov trade unions and the Potemkin Village it goes with the territory. You know that.

"... for instance, there is the unpaid $500,000 due to FIDE for Agon's rights." This has been dealt with innumerable times both by me in this forum and by the Presidential Board and the General Assembly of FIDE. It was waived by FIDE because I was unexpectedly obliged to pay $1m for the Chelyabinsk Grand Prix.

You make it very difficult for someone who was not an insider to follow. I presume this has to do with the venue change from Chelyabinsk to London. I see that you discuss here a loss of $600,000, plus there was forgone sponsorship in relation to Chelyabinsk:

FIDE has been trying to resolve this situation for months. I am not involved, but from what I understand Levitov and Dvorkovich informed local Chelyabinsk officials that they were not to work with us, and sponsors that they were not to pay the €300k promised ...

Given this was discussed for months, how could it have been unexpected? Or are you suggesting you had no notion of what was happening in something of intimate importance to you! Furthermore, as I understand the RCF demand, it was within Agon's powers to grant it, for there is:

The Chairman of the RCF Board Ilya Levitov explained the situation about the cancellation of the Grand Prix stage in Chelyabinsk to our site,

"When there was an announcement that a stage of the Grand Prix would happen in Chelyabinsk, the chess federation of that city didn't know about it. We wrote a letter to the company AGON stating that, according to a certain Russian Federation law, international sporting events, held on the country's territory, must be agreed with a sporting organisation accredited at the Ministry of Sport; in other words, at the Russian Chess Federation. In return, we got a polite reply with apologies and a request to allow them to hold a stage in Chelyabinsk. We said, 'Yes, you are welcome; you can hold all stages in Russia if you want and we would help you, but we have one condition'. The company AGON was given the right to select six participants for the Grand Prix. So we voiced our condition that three out of six participants should be Russians".

"AGON was suddenly given the right to decide six participants of the cycle for the World Champion's title. Why six? Why not ten? With all due respect, why should Andrew Paulson do it? We think that if you hold the competition on the Russian territory, and since there is sponsor's money intended for the internal development of chess that instead goes to the external development of chess (let's call it that), then include our chess players".

This is all very murky, but it certainly looks as if you are asking us to accept that FIDE had to compensate you to the tune of $500,000 for something it held no direct responsibility for. Need I remind you that some ECF directors have trouble accepting your versions of history? Sure, you might have been able to cite force majeure and scrapped the thing had FIDE not given way. But that doesn't seem particularly honourable, now does it? And yes, I know you were playing piggy in the middle of a Kremlin bun fight. Incidentally, I expect you are not unhappy to see the departure of Ilya Levitov from the RCF, but less than enthused at his replacement by Mark Glukhovsky.

"... the mysterious hiring, sacking and rehiring of Malcolm Pein at the London Grand Prix event." You might recall that it was the Candidates and not the Grand Prix ...

Thank you for the correction.

... where Malcolm and Nigel and Lawrence Trent provided excellent commentary. Aside from organisational incompetence and budgetary fluctuations, what could this "mystery" possibly have implied? I don't see how it logically follows that "... Kirsan believ[ed] he had Andrew in his debt." Do you really think that the President of FIDE is going to get involved in negotiating contracts for commentators or that he has a particularly strong opinion of Malcolm Pein.

Actually, I don't believe for one moment that Ilyumzhinov was concerned about the intricacies of that contest. Rather, the example given supports the view that there was a void in the budget. Was it not filled by Ilyumzhinov?

As far as I know, Ilyumzhinov has not (yet?) responded to my letter regarding his boast in Nezavissimaya Gazeta. But, if you make a close study of his 'complete works' you might note that he has before made claims that were somewhat exaggerated or deluded.

"Deluded"? Well there is support from Switzerland.

Simon,

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):

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. There were already two Grand Prix scheduled for September and November 2012 in Chelyabinsk and Tashkent, with government sponsors already lined up to pay all the expenses, prize money, FIDE commission, etc. I inherited this situation and was promised that these first two events would cost me nothing.

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.

At the same time, with great fanfare, we had addressed one of the great problems of the World Championship Cycle to date, which was the lack of a reliable schedule -- which made life very difficult not just for the players, but also for other organisers -- by announcing in advance a four-year schedule. And now, through no fault of our own, right out of the starting gate, we were not going to be able to hold the Chelyabinsk Grand Prix when and where we had promised. I decided to bring it to Simpson's-in-the-Strand in London, and make it a showcase for many of the ideas we were trying to introduce to the Cycle, a dry-run for the Candidates in 2013. This decision cost me around $1m which had not been budgeted. Obviously, we couldn't get a sponsor as we had only a few weeks to prepare for the change of venue.

Why hadn't we paid the $500k deposit until then? The AGON/FIDE Agreement didn't really come into effect until the FIDE General Assembly ratified it during the Olympiad in September, 2012 (a week before the Chelyabinsk Grand Prix was to have begun). I was afraid that if I paid FIDE $500k in advance and the General Assembly did not ratify the Agreement, I would never see that money again; this was explained to the General Assembly. There was a reasonable chance of it not being ratified: Nigel Short and Garry Kasparov sat in the front row of the auditorium and pommelled me with questions about Ilyumzhinov's relationship with the Agreement. I answered then as now that I own/ed 100% of the company, but they persisted (as they have to this day) to insist that there is some sneaky secret deal between us. Fortunately, the contract was ratified, but at that point I asked FIDE to forego the $500k in recognition of my $1m loss which was entirely due to their internecine battles.

By the by in response to your other remarks: Mark Glukhovsky and I are now perfectly good friends; we've gotten to know each other a bit over the last two years. Ilya Levitov and I had no personal issues, we always enjoyed each other's company; he simply felt that as I had a contract with FIDE, I was his natural enemy or at least target.

The void in the budget was filled by me (in the case of the Grand Prix) and by SOCAR (in the case of the Candidates). The scramble at the end which led to revisiting the commentators at the Candidates (Pein, Trent, Short) had to do with the uncertainty as to the level of sponsorship from SOCAR at the time we booked them. There's never as much money as you'd like, or hope for; I was too optimistic!

Andrew

[Colm Daly]

The row is basically over who the ECF should support or vote for in the forthcoming FIDE and ECU elections. Had there not been a total falling out between AP and Nigel over this, it's unlikely in my view that any disquiet with AP amongst his fellow directors about style and domestic issues would have left the confines of ECF Board discussions.

Long established ECF policy has been anti-Kirsan and a majority amongst the ECF voting membership have accepted this. For that matter except for the recent emergence of Kasparov-haters, it hasn't been challenged by the chess playing or forum writing public either. Those who followed the election of AP will have been aware that it was raised as an issue, the extent to which he was a FIDE-insider aka a Kirsan supporter. During the ECF election, he tried to distance himself from this, but didn't disclose to the voters that during negotiations with FIDE, it had been proposed that a dual structure of Agon be set up, sharing ownership with Kirsan, with distribution of fees and retainers to various FIDE people.

Game set and match surely? This was all quite predictable?

http://youtu.be/u6UtU78pAgc

Leaving aside the fact that the interviewer seems so clueless and there is a surreal feel to how she conducted this interview, one could hardly fault Nigel Short on any points he made here? Seems to me to be very reasonable and he expressed many astute observations very soundly. So whether people like or dislike him personally or and have issues with Nigel Short, the personality, surely the particular points of view he is putting forward have to be respected and even applauded?

Why would he bother his ass to be so active and vocal unless he had a genuine concern and interest in the improvement of chess? Surely some credit has to be given when it is due?

[JustinHorton]

I notice that Andrew Paulson is able to answer Simon Spivack's questions at great length but my straightforward questions, not at all. May I draw conclusions from this, Andrew?

[JustinHorton]

The row is basically over who the ECF should support or vote for in the forthcoming FIDE and ECU elections. Had there not been a total falling out between AP and Nigel over this, it's unlikely in my view that any disquiet with AP amongst his fellow directors about style and domestic issues would have left the confines of ECF Board discussions.

I think this is true, but it has to be said that there are other people who would dispute the first sentence.

(Thanks, by the way, to John Philpott and others for answering my question about day-to-day govenance.)

[Roger de Coverly]

I think this is true, but it has to be said that there are other people who would dispute the first sentence.

There's only the draft minutes to go on regarding domestic issues, although Charles Storey has identified himself as being one of the parties mentioned.

[John McKenna]

Without knowing very much about the voting and governance process of the Swiss Federation, does signing up the President to your ticket automatically guarantee support of that Federation?

I would guess not. Technically they could change their mind! A week is a long time in politics etc etc.

So, Colm (welcome to the bearpit...)
Would you then expect that if the President of the Swiss Chess Federation has acted unilaterally or precipitately in the matter of announcing support for a certain candidate he should be impeach before long - within a week, say?
And, would you expect the same to happen in the Irish Chess Federation?

[David Sedgwick]

The row is basically over who the ECF should support or vote for in the forthcoming FIDE and ECU elections. Had there not been a total falling out between AP and Nigel over this, it's unlikely in my view that any disquiet with AP amongst his fellow directors about style and domestic issues would have left the confines of ECF Board discussions.

I think this is true, but it has to be said that there are other people who would dispute the first sentence.

We're talking about a hypothetical situation where the ECF President was a Kasparov supporter but otherwise a Paulson clone.

However, for what it's worth, I would dispute both of the sentences of Roger's which Justin quotes.

... I would make the general observation that from a day to day perspective it is largely a case of business as usual. As a company limited by guarantee the ECF has its own legal personality and carries on regardless of the current identity of the Board of Directors. The Office in Battle is largely insulated from what may be going on at the top, and I can reassure everybody that payments do continue to be made as usual.

Individual directors have a degree of autonomy to run their directorates within the budget approved by Council and do not need to get matters of detail rubber stamped by the Board. If anybody's status may be subject to change, is the situation really that different to the run up to an AGM where an incumbent director is known to be facing a contested election?

Speaking personally as someone who is not a Director but holds the office of Manager of Arbiters (International), I'm actually finding things easier than I was in the period immediately preceding the Board vote. I no longer feel under any obligation to have regard to what the President might or might not wish me to do.