• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

136 F'n Saint

About smackdaddy

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Forum Legends Hall of Fame

Recent Profile Visitors

10,309 profile views
  1. A mirror? What the hell does that even mean? Anyway...keep up the good fight lads....
  2. smackdaddy

    SailGP 2019

    You sure have a lot of t-shirts, Clew.
  3. Those are some pretty heavy accusations there NZL. Do you have any proof to back up this "extortion" claim? If not, that's leaning into defamation a bit. In any case, I've certainly seen nothing thus far to point toward Dalton being the grandmaster in all this. He did pay up after all, while he is losing yet another competitor (and sponsorship) as well. Down from 11 a year ago? So, in this respect, Dalts certainly seems to be following in Hunt's footsteps - not showing him up. Anyway, I seem to be getting a lot of KiWhinger TearsTM at the bottom of each of my posts - so I'll leave you fellas to it. You're doing your country proud.
  4. Okay, I guess I misinterpreted this... Or you weren't understanding my point. Either way, glad we cleared that up.
  5. Just did a quick search on the dude and found what I suppose is the root of TE's disdain (from last year): Then he links to an article about Hunt getting dumped by BOA for....wait for it.... ...failing to attract "sponsorship" - i.e. - money. Gee that never happens in this sport of ours! So, obviously there's a lot of vitriol surrounding this guy from the "senior-serious sailors" (whatever the hell that mans) - most of it seemingly political which is crack cocaine to you guys around here. I get it. But I don't care about any of that. Gladwell's article is still BS. Even what's shown above underscores that. In this case, Hunt was doing his duty as a CEO both in terms of pushing for higher numbers and in contacting NZ on this matter when the ETNZ-led OA refused to support the world of sailing because it didn't want to "pay too much" [eyeroll]. Again, I'm sure there's more butthurt surrounding all this. TE and others sure seem to hate the guy. But it doesn't change anything regarding this particular situation. ETNZ was in the wrong here - on many levels. As always, if you can show me proof that Hunt's departure is verifiably related to this Olympic/NZ thing in Gladwell's article, I'll change my tune. Until then here is what we know for sure... We are now very likely down to 3 challengers and 1 single ACWS event which is already months behind schedule. "Failing to attract sponsorship" much? This whole thing has turned into "the Anemic Cup brought to you by the UAE"...and it sure seems to be fading fast.
  6. Show me where his leaving is verifiably related to this Olympics issue with NZ. Based on the WS sanctioning rules shown in that article, it was his responsibility to do what he did.
  7. What does that have to do with what I posted above about Hunt doing the right thing in contacting the NZ government regarding their Olympians (and those in other countries) running the risk of non-participation because ETNZ(etal) wasn't paying for sanction for the AC like all the other events have done? It's been pretty widely reported that WS has been having serious financial issues for a while now. So a change in leadership isn't surprising. But this also points back to his fiduciary duty to both WS and NZ for that reason. Again, he did the right thing. Maybe TE will shed some light on things, but what you've linked certainly doesn't. In fact, that first sentence might even indicate a step up for him. Who knows? So, if you're basing your conclusion of me being "wrong" by this presser - you guys are not very smart. Of course, we knew that already. What if NZ hired him to run their Olympics program? That would be funny. All that said, why is he hated so much? What has he done? Does Ehman just want his job?
  8. smackdaddy

    SailGP 2019

    Do you still flick? I thought you were done with that.
  9. smackdaddy

    SailGP 2019

    Did he get flicked?
  10. As always, there's no way to know for certain what a court would conclude. My point is that the entity in the primary decision-making position here was ETNZ. And, as you (and others above) rightly point out, the sailors who intended to participate in the Olympics had no control over that decision, yet were contractually stuck in the middle of it. Further, you have every other major sailing event on the planet already with WS agreements in place, so trying to make the case that WS is somehow inherently or intentionally unreasonable and/or punitive? Good luck. The problem I have with the article, and much of the commentary around here about it, is what I've bolded above in your comments. I totally agree that it's an asshat move to hold these sailors "hostage" as I've said above. But ETNZ is the one that actually made that move by not paying for sanction and by dragging it out for so long. Again, it is ETNZ in that decision-making position, and it either knows or certainly should know the policy in place with this body regarding unsanctioned events and the impact of that on its participants. So, was ETNZ just blindly ignorant or were they intentionally sticking to an increasingly weakening hand? I think it's the latter. I don't know what "similar amount to what Oracle paid" means. And I've not seen anyone produce verifiable numbers on that - and/or on what WS asked for in the beginning or what ETNZ actually has paid in the end. Without all those numbers there is no way to determine what was "reasonable" and why. So that's a dead issue at this point. The government needs to be involved simply because of the Olympics. ETNZ's actions/inaction were clearly impinging on these sailors' ability to participate in a separate event (i.e. - The Olympics) per the WS policies that everyone else on the planet adheres to. Sure, ETNZ can put on an unsanctioned AC if they want to as you say. Whatever. But had Hunt NOT contacted the NZ PM (or whoever he talked to), he would have been negligent and derelict in his duties on this matter. It's good someone was trying to look after these sailors and their broader careers. Finally, though I don't know the dude, Gladwell certainly needs to not be quite so jingoistic and myopic if he's to be taken seriously on any level as a sailing writer outside of NZ.
  11. There is no question that everyone would be suing everyone. But that's not the point. Some things are being said here that have absolutely zero evidence/knowledge backing them up... "an unjustifiable sum of money", etc. Who here knows the exact amount that WS was asking for and how it was being justified? Anyone? I'll wait.... WS has every right to ask what it wants to ask - then negotiation starts. ALL the other events listed in that article had reached agreements. But, as we saw in another thread, the NZers were hyping 11 challengers and all kinds of ACWS events, etc. All of that has logistical costs associated which would drive a fee like this. The problem is, the AC obviously grew weaker and weaker over the last year, and ETNZ still was trying to hold the expense of the participating athletes. So, like I said, Hunt did the right thing by giving NZ a heads-up. Boyb - I think your analysis above is much closer to the truth. But it also points more at ETNZ than WS in terms of liability. This statement of yours hits the nail on the head: In this instance, it's not that WS was refusing to sanction, it's that ETNZ was refusing to pay for said sanction, while still expecting the benefits. And that's my problem with Gladwell's article. It's extremely misleading in this regard. Maybe the actual figures will come out...but whatever they are, ETNZ folded. Furthermore, if they did actually pay the same amount as Oracle - they overpaid because we're down to 3 challengers. Any way you slice it, ETNZ screwed the pooch.
  12. smackdaddy

    Team NZ

    Oof. Okay, I'm seeing the pattern now... 11 Challengers would truly be outstanding! And we're down to 3 now? I guess this whole thing didn't quite pan out... Oh well, you can't have everything right all the time. At least we have this to look forward to... Oh wait. It is October 2019. Somebody better tell S&S. And speaking of Gladwell's other article I ripped in said S&S thread - there's this little nugget... Credence is definitely needed. And then there's this... Clean, can you put another call into your pal JohnnyL. Sounds like you and he need to explain some things to some people. Gold mine sting.
  13. Are you talking about Lim Hyo-Jun? I've not seen where his ban has been set aside. And that's just freakin' pantsing! And, thanks, but I have no need to "read some cases". If you recall, I made a couple of very accurate outcome predictions in the past where you were going on about how "wrong" I was. I'm comfortable with my record.
  14. Precisely, that's THE problem. And that's why it was a good thing Hunt placed that call. It's also why Clean's depiction of the call (which I guess he must have been on) wasn't as "clean" as he's framing it. The NZ government was definitely a stakeholder in all this - by proxy. If your top national athletes are going to have to forego the Olympics, you sure better start looking for replacements very quickly. Could you imagine the stink if Hunt HADN'T placed that call to Jacinda - then Clean and Grant? As for lawyers licking chops - it doesn't matter when those sailors have already missed the games while the lawyers are just starting their toothless litigation and clock-work billing.
  15. I will post this one last item on the subject so that our dear readers understand what they're dealing with here - both with this article and with this completely disingenuous poster (Clarkey/ForOurselves/DGunt/whatever) who is trying to spin its BS even further. Look above at what For quoted from the article and then wrote about it. Consider his "hold them to ransom" conclusion regarding the Olympics and those affected sailors. Who is holding whom "to ransom"? To answer that, consider a portion that he conveniently left out: So, who was refusing to pay these event fees to World Sailing? Was it Burling, Tuke, Scott, etc.? No it was the OA (ETNZ). And who were these sailors going to represent in the Olympics - ETNZ? No, their respective countries. At the same time, there's whinging aplenty in this article about the AC not getting mentions from World Sailing over the past year plus as it announces all those other events who do have agreements in place with it. Why on earth would any event whatsoever expect mentions from World Sailing if that event is not part of World Sailing? All the while, the clock is ticking for these sailors while the number of AC participants continues to shrink over time and ETNZ keeps trying to play their hand. Are you seeing the problem here? As I said, despite the BS above AND in the article itself - it was actually Andy Hunt who saved these Olympic-bound sailors by going directly to the NZ government. And he saved them from ETNZ...who was actually holding these guys "to ransom" by refusing to pay these fees and playing their increasingly weak hand. Well-played Andy. PS - By the logic in the article, if S&S doesn't make the line, ETNZ will have overpaid.