CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

[Jean Hébert]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

Hi Jean,
You confused me with Kerry. I was applauding the fact that the French chesstalk seemed to be having a better discussion of the agreement. The language in the draft agreement looks like it still needs some fine-tuning. It appears to me that a lawyer probably wasn't used in its drafting.

Sorry for the mix up, Karl :). I think you are right. There was probably no lawyer involved, and not enough time given to the whole process. These things cannot be rushed (even if an olympiad is coming up ;)) and must be considered very carefully with all its possible consequences. The scary part is that to my understanding it is not a "draft agreement", it is a final agreement that must be rejected by the governors or approved as is. Otherwise new negociations would be needed.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

That would be nice Kerry, but actually there is no need to copy and translate anything to point out new stuff that appears to be near fatal oversights in that deal. Looking at it is pretty much like looking at a chess position. At first things might appear simple and straightforward. But with time the truth of the position slowly comes up to reveal deep and sometimes disturbing content (or beautiful content, depending on the point of view :)).

For example, look at this two line article that is in the crux of the matter.

"Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."
At first sight nothing wrong with it. How can things be more fair than fifty-fifty ? But after a while one realise the true meaning of it : both sides (but more importantly the FQE) will have a right of veto on how to spend the FQE money put in that thrust, meant for international expenses ! If for some reason the FQE side does not agree on how or how much or anything else, it can say "no" and paralyse everything. Potentially this could prevent, for example, the national teams to attend an olympiad. I already hear you saying that "the FQE would never do such a thing". Well, you would probably be right but who knows for sure when the other side will decide to play hardball, especially if given a perfect weapon to do so ? A chess federation leadership is a pretty volatile thing...
The bottom line is : can such a deal be expected to work out when both sides have an absolute veto on decisions ?

Now as if this was not enough, there is another worrysome question for both sides that has apparently not been considered. What happens with the money in that thrust once the agreement is over (after three years), if no new deal has been agreed upon between the CFC and the FQE ? What happens when the "trustees" no longer have legal existence ? Would the money be returned to where it comes from (the FQE) or find itself in a legal void certain to create everlasting legal problems likely to outlive most of us ?

It is not just on the french side that this deal must be examined and analysed thoroughly. Its potential to create lasting problems for everybody is not only real, it is most probable.

All you've managed to point out is that if either of the two parties sours on the deal or reverses the goodwill with which they enter the agreement by playing 'hardball' that they can effectively nullify the deal. The same thing happens in a marriage. There is no guarantee of anything if the parties decide they don't like each other any more.

You are very good at predicting disaster. You don't seem to be anywhere near as good at making things work. You are like the bystander telling the builder that the cathedral will never stand up without any better ideas of your own. Or like the guest at the wedding who keeps telling every one it will never last because you don't see what she sees in him.

[Larry Bevand]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

That would be nice Kerry, but actually there is no need to copy and translate anything to point out new stuff that appears to be near fatal oversights in that deal. Looking at it is pretty much like looking at a chess position. At first things might appear simple and straightforward. But with time the truth of the position slowly comes up to reveal deep and sometimes disturbing content (or beautiful content, depending on the point of view :)).

For example, look at this two line article that is in the crux of the matter.

"Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."
At first sight nothing wrong with it. How can things be more fair than fifty-fifty ? But after a while one realise the true meaning of it : both sides (but more importantly the FQE) will have a right of veto on how to spend the FQE money put in that thrust, meant for international expenses ! If for some reason the FQE side does not agree on how or how much or anything else, it can say "no" and paralyse everything. Potentially this could prevent, for example, the national teams to attend an olympiad. I already hear you saying that "the FQE would never do such a thing". Well, you would probably be right but who knows for sure when the other side will decide to play hardball, especially if given a perfect weapon to do so ? A chess federation leadership is a pretty volatile thing...
The bottom line is : can such a deal be expected to work out when both sides have an absolute veto on decisions ?

Now as if this was not enough, there is another worrysome question for both sides that has apparently not been considered. What happens with the money in that thrust once the agreement is over (after three years), if no new deal has been agreed upon between the CFC and the FQE ? What happens when the "trustees" no longer have legal existence ? Would the money be returned to where it comes from (the FQE) or find itself in a legal void certain to create everlasting legal problems likely to outlive most of us ?

It is not just on the french side that this deal must be examined and analysed thoroughly. Its potential to create lasting problems for everybody is not only real, it is most probable.

Hi Jean,

You are bringing out some interesting questions which deserve clarification.

The document I believe was a framework for future relations between the two organizations.

As a lawyer once explained to me....the best contract in the World means nothing if both parties are not "de bonne foi".

Larry

[Ken Craft]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

Hi Jean,
You confused me with Kerry. I was applauding the fact that the French chesstalk seemed to be having a better discussion of the agreement. The language in the draft agreement looks like it still needs some fine-tuning. It appears to me that a lawyer probably wasn't used in its drafting.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

More and livelier discussion on the French board. I'll leave those with better French skills than I to provide a summary.

That would be nice Kerry, but actually there is no need to copy and translate anything to point out new stuff that appears to be near fatal oversights in that deal. Looking at it is pretty much like looking at a chess position. At first things might appear simple and straightforward. But with time the truth of the position slowly comes up to reveal deep and sometimes disturbing content (or beautiful content, depending on the point of view :)).

For example, look at this two line article that is in the crux of the matter.

"Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."
At first sight nothing wrong with it. How can things be more fair than fifty-fifty ? But after a while one realise the true meaning of it : both sides (but more importantly the FQE) will have a right of veto on how to spend the FQE money put in that thrust, meant for international expenses ! If for some reason the FQE side does not agree on how or how much or anything else, it can say "no" and paralyse everything. Potentially this could prevent, for example, the national teams to attend an olympiad. I already hear you saying that "the FQE would never do such a thing". Well, you would probably be right but who knows for sure when the other side will decide to play hardball, especially if given a perfect weapon to do so ? A chess federation leadership is a pretty volatile thing...
The bottom line is : can such a deal be expected to work out when both sides have an absolute veto on decisions ?

Now as if this was not enough, there is another worrysome question for both sides that has apparently not been considered. What happens with the money in that thrust once the agreement is over (after three years), if no new deal has been agreed upon between the CFC and the FQE ? What happens when the "trustees" no longer have legal existence ? Would the money be returned to where it comes from (the FQE) or find itself in a legal void certain to create everlasting legal problems likely to outlive most of us ?

It is not just on the french side that this deal must be examined and analysed thoroughly. Its potential to create lasting problems for everybody is not only real, it is most probable.

[Ken Craft]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

More and livelier discussion on the French board. I'll leave those with better French skills than I to provide a summary.

[Marc Poulin]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

This agreement will allow for anyone to submit a tournament to be rated FQE or CFC or both as long as all participants are either member of the CFC or the FQE and as long as the respective rating fees are paid. These tournaments can also be submitted to FIDE as long as they are submited through the CFC and rules for such ratings are followed.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

The FQE rating system is already open to non-members of the FQE. Anyone can submit a blitz tournament to be FQE-rated - one does not need to be a member.
This feature is rarely used (maybe 5-10 times since it was instituted a couple of years ago), but it is there.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

French discussion group(s).

I don't look at them so often as before I was asked not to post because my French was "incomprehensible". About the same as my English, when so inspired. LOL.

One idea on Parlons Echecs was to close down the FQE rating system. I'd suggest the opposite: expand it. Open it to FQE non-members. Non-members imply no sacrifice of $9 / $4.

A chess federation without a rating system is like a girlfriend without a place of her own. This agreement is not a marriage contract.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

I've been to two live AGMs and four online meetings and the latter are far superior in just about every way I can think of - attendence, orderly process, time management, record keeping. The CFC/FQE deal can be debated just as well on line as face to face.

I like to look at a person when they are giving reports, election speeches and making commitments and debating points. It tells me more than I can get from online message boards used for online meetings.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

As a Quebec governor, I will attempt to make a summary of concerns/complaints/suggestions coming from the French discussion group(s) in time for the annual meeting.

[Paul Leblanc]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

Nice to see we are leading the way with our on line meetings. I've been to two live AGMs and four online meetings and the latter are far superior in just about every way I can think of - attendence, orderly process, time management, record keeping. The CFC/FQE deal can be debated just as well on line as face to face. This year especially, a poll indicated that only a dozen governors were planning to attend the AGM in Victoria whereas two or three times that many will be at the virtual meeting.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : A Canadian grandmaster's opinion

It is not true that the FQE will for ever be willing to serve 9$ per adult member and 4$ per junior member every year to the CFC on a silver platter, while the CFC does next to nothing in return that it is not already doing!

The FQE gave monies to the CFC through Olympiad supports.
(2010 - 2,000 http://web.archive.org/web/201008311...orie=1&id=2914)

IMHO, per agreement the "payment" will be for similar reasons - to support players in FIDE events (which are even listed).

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Re : A Canadian grandmaster's opinion

I don't think GM Spraggett really understood the deal...

On that we can agree completely. Kevin has got it all wrong. I wonder if he has read it. Still Spraggett happens to be right (for the opposite reasons!) on one thing : "all Canadian chess players will be losing if this deal gets ratified". This WIN-LOSE deal if ratified as is will soon turn sour into a LOSE-LOSE deal, as soon as a new FQE leadership with a backbone comes around, turning what was the current state of "live and let live" into an open conflict. This one sided deal needs fixing to save the good parts of it before it is too late. It is not true that the FQE will for ever be willing to serve 9$ per adult member and 4$ per junior member every year to the CFC on a silver platter, while the CFC does next to nothing in return that it is not already doing! Thinking differently is called wishful thinking.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: A Canadian grandmaster's opinion

From Kevin Spraggett's blog:

The adults in the room have much to discuss. It would be best if we confined the discussion to the things that are actually contained in the agreement rather than the imaginative flights of fancy put forward by individuals clearly dominated by a compulsion to pay homage in their every action to the archetype of the trickster.