Tornado-Cat

Difficult to know how this artwork reflects reality but the boat does not look fast, mainly with the big gennaker.

Nice but I don't one line on this boat, probably a nice art work

1) Our mate sclarke has the quick fix for anything relating to AC, politics, life... 2) Agreed 3) Agreed, however we speak here of already accepted challenger who fulfilled their financial duties 4) Agreed.

I agree that this eventuality won't happen.

KJ, it's always good to know that we have open minded kiwis on this forum, not stuck on one position. So if we want to heat up the debate, some can try to answer the following questions. Again, it won't t happen, so it's purely theoretical. Is it deed compliant to : - consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference ? - ask challengers to vote a new challenger ? - have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one ?

Well KJ, you may be right about the reasons, but let's not forget it was Mutual Consent !

I get yours too, and I know a (small) bit about your constition. But RNZYS is not the Queen, neither Trump, we will agree on that ! I'll come back on the NoR and conditions of the match, which will be prensented by the defender and CoR to the competitors after the construction of their yachts.

I am not afraid because the scenario won't happen. I am more concerned about competitors being able to design the right boat without knowing the race track and the NoR. I am just pointing at the hypocrisy of the protocol. It is as if Trump was telling that the democrats could elect their leader but could veto the result until the best suited candidate but....... that it's democracy because he may not exerce his veto right. Trump could not, and would not even do that.

Difficult to design a boat when NoR and match conditions are published after the boat is finished, while the defender and the CoR probably already know them.

I am not based in UK but will be pretty close soon ! My conception of democracy does not include an executive that vetoes the result of an election if they lose it. Leave it to sclarke who, I am sure, hates Trump

Ah ah, I love sclarke, and perhaps yours (?), definition of democracy (not Theresa May) "The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest". I have to say it sums up pretty well our discussion.

No, a CoR cannot be hostile as any challenger has to sign this entry form, not sure if it's a point lost in reading or translation (1) The Challenger by this Notice hereby challenges for the 36th America's Cup (including its constituent events) in accordance with the Protocol Governing the 36th America's Cup (the "Protocol"). The Challenger hereby agrees to be bound by and undertakes to comply with, and hereby agrees to procure that all of its Team Members (as such term is defined in the Protocol) shall comply with, the terms of the Protocol and all other rules referred to therein. Facts are: - challengers have no right unless CoR - the only time they can vote the defender can veto the result - there is no defined competitor forum - in last ACs the new CoR were established by date of entry, this time chosen by the defender So the only point I agree with you is that RNZYS want to chose a "friend" and control the succession process.

If so, why the vote ? But I agree the discussion is purely theoretical, it won't happen, the present CoR will stay the CoR.

You really don't get it. Your version of democracy is no democracy because the may vote against you