Author: Ted Summers
Date: 06:28:05 11/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
The newly founded German event agency Universal Event Promotion (UEP) submitted
a written offer to FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov as well as to the
Classical World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik.
This offer guaranteed a fee of US $500,000 (net) for each of the two players –
together US $1,000,000 (net). In addition, both players were to participate in
specified sponsoring revenue. The match was to be organised from 25 November to
17 December 2006 under the title “World Chess Match of the Champions“. There
were to be 14 classical games.
With regard to a possible reunion of both titles the draft contract contained a
clause that would have made the unification under the umbrella of the FIDE after
conclusion of the contract possible.
The offer, which was accepted by Mr Kramnik, has now been rejected by Mr
Topalov, via his management. Intensive negotiations, which involved the
management of both players as well as the main investor of the UEP, originally
brought agreement on all issues. A golden bridge was built in order to avoid any
conflict with FIDE. On this basis the written UEP offer was submitted to the
players, with an acceptance deadline (14 November 2005, 18.00h CEST). The
Topalov side has allowed this period to expire and finally rejected the offer.
Data From
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2738
Question #1
How could "A golden bridge was built in order to avoid any conflict with FIDE."
when FIDE was not there?
So I am not surprised when I read the following from Georgios Makropoulos:
"I read with surprise the announcement of Universal Events Promotion, together
with the statement of GM Vladimir Kramnik, which were trying to hold FIDE
culpable for the collapse of the negotiations for a match Topalov-Kramnik.
I would therefore like to clarify the following:
1.
FIDE hasn't received yet any official proposal concerning such a match.
2.
When we were informed by Mr Danailov, the manager of World Champion V.
Topalov, that negotiations were starting I immediately expressed the view that
such a match should be for the World Championship Title and it should be
organized under FIDE's auspices and in accordance with regulations which
everyone should agree.
3.
To this direction I suggested a meeting with all parties concerned.
4.
To the question of Mr Danailov about FIDE's financial demands, I referred
to the relative FIDE regulations which state that FIDE receives a 20% share of
or above the prize fund.
Two days ago I was informed by Mr Danailov that the Kramnik side rejected the
idea of holding the match within FIDE's authority and the proposal for a meeting
of all sides was rejected as well.
After all these developments, it's strange how FIDE can be accused for the
collapse of negotiations between UEP, Topalov and Kramnik.
Before today I believed that Kramnik was willing to play a match for the World
Championship under FIDE's auspices. Unfortunately, recent developments show that
he might not want to return to the official World Chess Championship cycle and
is, at the same time, trying to hold FIDE responsible for his decision."
Data From
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2743
Lastly Carsten Hensel states:
"During these negotiations UEP expressed its interest in making the “World Chess
Match of the Champions”, which both sides had agreed on, a reunification match,
with the participation of FIDE. Vladimir Kramnik accepted this plan."
Data From
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2744
Now remember the statment at the top of this Post:
"The match was to be organised from 25 November to 17 December 2006 under the
title “World Chess Match of the Champions“. There were to be 14 classical games.
With regard to a possible reunion of both titles the draft contract contained a
clause that would have made the unification under the umbrella of the FIDE after
conclusion of the contract possible."
Point 1: This was not a Reunification Match, It was only to be a Match.
Point 2: A clause that would have made a reunification possible is not the same
thing as a reunification.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.