Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

seis

Teams entitled to voting Protocol amendments

Recommended Posts

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN025.pdf

 

DECISION

 

33. Only those Competitors which have complied with the requirements to

compete in the Regatta are entitled to vote on matters concerning the

Regatta, whether or not those matters also concern the ACWS and AC45

Yachts.

34. Where a proposed Protocol Amendment affects both the ACWS and AC45

Yachts and the Regatta, only those Competitors which have paid the

performance bond or met the entry requirements of Article 9.1(e) are entitled

to vote.

35. Where a proposed Protocol amendment affects both ACWS and AC45

Yachts, and the Regatta, a separate vote could be taken with those

Competitors who have met the requirements of Article 9.1(c ) only entitled to

vote concerning the ACWS and AC45 Yachts, and those Competitors who

have paid the performance bond or met the entry requirements of Article

9.1(e) entitled to vote in any ballot concerning both the ACWS and AC45

Yachts and the Regatta.

 

PROTOCOL AMENDMENT NO.11 – ARTICLE 60 ('PROTECTING THE

REPUTATION OF THE AMERICA'S CUP')

36. The Application did not seek to review or set aside the votes taken by a

majority of all Competitors at the Competitor Forum meetings held on 20th

October and 20th November 2011. Had the Application sought to do so, the Page 6

provisions of Article 15.10 would have applied. The Jury considers that

ETNZ, being present at the meetings, 'were aware of the circumstances'

concerning the entitlement to vote on those respective dates, as were the

other Competitors. Accordingly, Competitors are now precluded from

questioning the result of the Protocol amendments to date.

 

http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/Americas-Cup:-Emirates-Team-NZ-has-a-partial-victory-on-Voting-Rights/92704

 

History and comments by RG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guts of the matter:

 

"This is the America’s Cup. This is a serious game. This is going to cost a lot. We’re working towards San Francisco in boats that we are building now and they are expensive. We have these little teams who in most cases are sailing AC45s, and that is great. But why should they be able to influence things when they no longer even exist, when they have gone? Why should they be influencing things? Unless it is convenient?", said GD.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PROTOCOL AMENDMENT NO.11 – ARTICLE 60 ('PROTECTING THE <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, arial, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">REPUTATION OF THE AMERICA'S CUP')<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, arial, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">36. The Application did not seek to review or set aside the votes taken by a majority of all Competitors at the Competitor Forum meetings held on 20th October and 20th November 2011. Had the Application sought to do so, the Page 6 provisions of Article 15.10 would have applied. The Jury considers that ETNZ, being present at the meetings, 'were aware of the circumstances' concerning the entitlement to vote on those respective dates, as were the other Competitors. Accordingly, Competitors are now precluded from questioning the result of the Protocol amendments to date.

 

This is a cop-out by the IJ. ETNZ might have been "aware of the circumstances" of the entitlement to vote, but they have had to wait for the IJ to rule on the respective teams' LEGAL entitlement to do so (vote). Now the IJ is effectively using the 14-day time-limit for filing a protest seeking redress to allow an illegally achieved voting result to stand!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside . . . if BARF were to post the AC72 entry bond (even if OR provided the money), then the current 2 (OR/AR) - 2 (TNZ/LR) 'deadlocked' would go in OR's favor 3 (OR/AR/BARF) - 2 (TNZ/LR)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside . . . if BARF were to post the AC72 entry bond (even if OR provided the money), then the current 2 (OR/AR) - 2 (TNZ/LR) 'deadlocked' would go in OR's favor 3 (OR/AR/BARF) - 2 (TNZ/LR)

 

Cheap price for Poodle #2 to ensure OR gets the changes they need rammed through. We could end up with the OR-AR Cabal with their Pack of Poodles against the ETNZ-LR Crusaders for Honesty & Integrity in the AC cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside . . . if BARF were to post the AC72 entry bond (even if OR provided the money), then the current 2 (OR/AR) - 2 (TNZ/LR) 'deadlocked' would go in OR's favor 3 (OR/AR/BARF) - 2 (TNZ/LR)

 

I think the mystery of why Oracle Racing Ainslie changed to Ben Ainslie Racing just became more apparent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside . . . if BARF were to post the AC72 entry bond (even if OR provided the money), then the current 2 (OR/AR) - 2 (TNZ/LR) 'deadlocked' would go in OR's favor 3 (OR/AR/BARF) - 2 (TNZ/LR)

 

I think the mystery of why Oracle Racing Ainslie changed to Ben Ainslie Racing just became more apparent!

 

The problem with this (basically GD proposed) line is that it assumes that (say) OR and AR and BAR will always share the the same interests, which would somehow be different from TNZ and LR - who would for some inexplicable reason both have the opposite interests, on some or all votes. The reality could just as easily be that different teams will vote in their own different interests, depending what that vote is for.

 

GD's assumption of 'block' voting is apparently an assumption - even a charge - of there being bribery between teams. Well if you are going to vote against your best interest, with the Cup on the line, then how much freakin' money would (for one example) LR have to then pay to ETNZ, to ensure ETNZ votes against ETNZ's better judgment? Likewise, why would TT be willing to be bought off by an LE when TT (much like the others) is also trying to win the damn Cup away from LE? If AR looks like the strongest competitor then what? Do they all pay each other off to vote Nae on whatever AR is about to vote Yay for? Who all is paying how much to who all, and does it somehow change between votes, are some votes worth more, do some teams sometimes sell to the highest bidder regardless who's bid returns what vote?

 

I think the whole 'buying votes' premise is a little silly once you get to the various Big Teams, who all have variously big interests of their own on the line. That said, GD was right to question whether teams who had not yet ponied up per the Protocol should be allowed to vote on strictly matters above the ACWS; and the IJ agreed it, proving him right. I just don't think that the (us vs them, D vs G) reasons that he is seemingly so suspicious of, are the reasons the IJ ruled it that way and neither will the decision have/start/cause or end the block-voting effects he is apparently assuming. The IJ ruled the rules, other teams will play by those same rules.

 

Once push comes to shove in the sharp end of the DSS and teams start to get eliminated, well so will the votes get eliminated anyhow. The game for GD is to beat out every other challenger first; and vise versa, and I doubt that any team will be taking any paid falls whether some like to think it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside . . . if BARF were to post the AC72 entry bond (even if OR provided the money), then the current 2 (OR/AR) - 2 (TNZ/LR) 'deadlocked' would go in OR's favor 3 (OR/AR/BARF) - 2 (TNZ/LR)

 

I think the mystery of why Oracle Racing Ainslie changed to Ben Ainslie Racing just became more apparent!

 

The problem with this (basically GD proposed) line is that it assumes that (say) OR and AR and BAR will always share the the same interests, which would somehow be different from TNZ and LR - who would for some inexplicable reason both have the opposite interests, on some or all votes. The reality could just as easily be that different teams will vote in their own different interests, depending what that vote is for.

 

GD's assumption of 'block' voting is apparently an assumption - even a charge - of there being bribery between teams. Well if you are going to vote against your best interest, with the Cup on the line, then how much freakin' money would (for one example) LR have to then pay to ETNZ, to ensure ETNZ votes against ETNZ's better judgment? Likewise, why would TT be willing to be bought off by an LE when TT (much like the others) is also trying to win the damn Cup away from LE? If AR looks like the strongest competitor then what? Do they all pay each other off to vote Nae on whatever AR is about to vote Yay for? Who all is paying how much to who all, and does it somehow change between votes, are some votes worth more, do some teams sometimes sell to the highest bidder regardless who's bid returns what vote?

 

I think the whole 'buying votes' premise is a little silly once you get to the various Big Teams, who all have variously big interests of their own on the line. That said, GD was right to question whether teams who had not yet ponied up per the Protocol should be allowed to vote on strictly matters above the ACWS; and the IJ agreed it, proving him right. I just don't think for the (us vs them, D vs G) reasons that he is seemingly so suspicious of, are the reasons the IJ ruled it that way and neither will the decision have/start/cause or end the block-voting effects he is apparently assuming. The IJ ruled the rules, other teams will play by those same rules.

 

Once push comes to shove in the sharp end of the DSS and teams start to get eliminated, well so will the votes get eliminated anyhow. The game for GD is to beat out every other challenger first; and vise versa, and I doubt that any team will be taking any paid falls whether some like to think it or not.

I think the Dalton Amendment was the fire behind the whole thing - for the whole field to accept a rule that hadn't even been drafted yet showed Dalts that the rest of the AC45 competitors couldn't be trusted to vote with common sense and team interest over the interest of the folks that let them play without paying full price. That's what I think he'd say, anyway - I'm going to talk to him after the Ainslie conference hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Dalton Amendment was the fire behind the whole thing - for the whole field to accept a rule that hadn't even been drafted yet showed Dalts that the rest of the AC45 competitors couldn't be trusted to vote with common sense and team interest over the interest of the folks that let them play without paying full price. That's what I think, anyway - I'm going to talk to him after the Ainslie conference hopefully.

Yep - Could well be.

 

If you do get the chance then ask him why that vote was so important, and/or maybe give examples of other potential votes he is afraid of 'block-voting' on? Hell, ask if he is charging bribery? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside . . . if BARF were to post the AC72 entry bond (even if OR provided the money), then the current 2 (OR/AR) - 2 (TNZ/LR) 'deadlocked' would go in OR's favor 3 (OR/AR/BARF) - 2 (TNZ/LR)

 

I think the mystery of why Oracle Racing Ainslie changed to Ben Ainslie Racing just became more apparent!

 

The problem with this (basically GD proposed) line is that it assumes that (say) OR and AR and BAR will always share the the same interests, which would somehow be different from TNZ and LR - who would for some inexplicable reason both have the opposite interests, on some or all votes. The reality could just as easily be that different teams will vote in their own different interests, depending what that vote is for.

 

GD's assumption of 'block' voting is apparently an assumption - even a charge - of there being bribery between teams. Well if you are going to vote against your best interest, with the Cup on the line, then how much freakin' money would (for one example) LR have to then pay to ETNZ, to ensure ETNZ votes against ETNZ's better judgment? Likewise, why would TT be willing to be bought off by an LE when TT (much like the others) is also trying to win the damn Cup away from LE? If AR looks like the strongest competitor then what? Do they all pay each other off to vote Nae on whatever AR is about to vote Yay for? Who all is paying how much to who all, and does it somehow change between votes, are some votes worth more, do some teams sometimes sell to the highest bidder regardless who's bid returns what vote?

 

I think the whole 'buying votes' premise is a little silly once you get to the various Big Teams, who all have variously big interests of their own on the line. That said, GD was right to question whether teams who had not yet ponied up per the Protocol should be allowed to vote on strictly matters above the ACWS; and the IJ agreed it, proving him right. I just don't think for the (us vs them, D vs G) reasons that he is seemingly so suspicious of, are the reasons the IJ ruled it that way and neither will the decision have/start/cause or end the block-voting effects he is apparently assuming. The IJ ruled the rules, other teams will play by those same rules.

 

Once push comes to shove in the sharp end of the DSS and teams start to get eliminated, well so will the votes get eliminated anyhow. The game for GD is to beat out every other challenger first; and vise versa, and I doubt that any team will be taking any paid falls whether some like to think it or not.

 

The CSS?

 

It would all be clearer if we knew for sure who had paid what. Is there any way that can be determined from the payment schedule or something? Or is there too much 'discretion' being applied for the schedule to have real meaning now?

 

I presume they aren't going to suddenly announce it and we have not really been privy to the voting details up till now which would be another sign - maybe RG can find out?

 

The financial finagling involved in the raising of the $12million makes me doubt, we can expect much transparency to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, ask if he is charging bribery? :)

 

Bribery is paying off a public official.

 

Paying off an individual or team is just 'sharing'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CSS?

Oops, yes

 

It would all be clearer if we knew for sure who had paid what. Is there any way that can be determined from the payment schedule or something? Or is there too much 'discretion' being applied for the schedule to have real meaning now?

 

I presume they aren't going to suddenly announce it and we have not really been privy to the voting details up till now which would be another sign - maybe RG can find out?

GD apparently knows who has paid what, but isn't naming names, so it must be confidential for whatever reasons. What he has done is to say that he has only 3 competitors so far, meaning presumably OR, AR, and LR. By 'competitors' he likely is defining it as being 'teams fully paid on all accounts, with nothing owed for anything.'

 

The financial finagling involved in the raising of the $12million makes me doubt, we can expect much transparency to be honest.

If the various philanthropists (Jewitt, etc) want to for any reason advertise their contributions then I suppose that they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this (basically GD proposed) line is that it assumes that (say) OR and AR and BAR will always share the the same interests, which would somehow be different from TNZ and LR - who would for some inexplicable reason both have the opposite interests, on some or all votes. The reality could just as easily be that different teams will vote in their own different interests, depending what that vote is for.

 

 

 

Sting, the individual teams will obviously vote for specific items that benefit them, but GD's position comes into focus if you think about over arching issues. Let me just mention three for example:

1. How important is the acws - PC and RC have shared interests here, which GD and LR do not

2. Is 'the event' more important than 'the teams' or vice versa. In franchise type situations either can be made to work and it is a matter of management philosophy which way to go. RC and PC seem to have one perspective and GD/LR another.

3. How important are team sponsors and giving the teams what they need to get and feed sponsors. RC and PC don't need sponsors. GD and LR have sponsors and need to feed them (well advanced scheduled races and media coverage plans).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a good example vote question that would illustrate the split as you describe it above? Keep in mind too that LR is $B backed.

 

It needs to be not strictly an ACWS question, if I read the IJ decision correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is a good example vote question that would illustrate the split as you describe it above?

 

Good question.

 

Not thinking too much about it . . . ,

 

How about - Should on-boat team media reps be able to tweet directly to their followers while racing (could only be done on an AC72 - too much going on and team too small on a 45)? OR and AR will want it all to be run thru the AC organization, while GD and LR will want to be able to connect their followers more directly to their sponsors.

 

How about - should teams be able to, and given permission from ACRM to, build their own clone AC45's that do not count as surrogate yachts for testing (and/or racing) purposes (as 'real ac45s do not'). OR and AR would not want it (harder to control ac45 one design nature) and GD and LR would (because Ac72 test beds are much more important than the ACWS).

 

How about GD's one of GD's favorite - should there be stronger national rules next time around? OR and AR will be against and GD and LR for.

 

Just to throw in an acws only issue - How about - should acws races be schedule with no regard for and in conflict with x40 races or should they be cooperative - RC and PC would be happy to put x40 out of business and certainly do seem to see any value in cooperating, while GD and LR would probably see media/brand value in both.

 

Keep in mind too that LR is $B backed.

 

yes, but I suspect they expect/need/want to get prada brand media coverage. Except for TNZ it does seem to require a $b in the current cup & economic environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like acrimony is begetting acrimony.

 

After AC32/33 nobody trusts anybody.

 

The no-paid-up teams are not going to tick-off the ones who let them in to play.

 

And GD knows it, so he is feeling claustriphobic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see little evidence the 4 would split the way you propose they would, on the first 3 questions. It could be that none, all, or some may want to tweet. If they think they can build 45s cheaper or better, some or all may want that; or none, or OR may even just refuse to let Core build any more wings for capacity reasons, who knows? Nationality, yes possibly, but is something that complicated about to get voted on, and passed? No chance! I doubt ~anyone~ would vote Yay at this stage to a strict nat ruleset.

 

And on the ACWS 4th question, I doubt any of them have any more interest in the ESS anyway. We already know OR and ETNZ, and probably AR, are not sailing it; and why would LR either, since they have a lot else on their plate too, likely including two AC45s and possibly some SL33's?

 

GD said following the LR agreement he has no more money issues, quote "money will not be an excuse this time around" and so: How about some competition/competitive rule proposals as examples instead? Ones that would put ETNZ and LR somehow on opposite sides of both AR and OR? Not tweet$, stuff that matters to winning on the water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see little evidence the 4 would split the way you propose they would, on the first 3 questions. It could be that none, all, or some may want to tweet. If they think they can build 45s cheaper or better, some or all may want that; or none, or OR may even just refuse to let Core build any more wings for capacity reasons, who knows? Nationality, yes possibly, but is something that complicated about to get voted on, and passed? No chance! I doubt ~anyone~ would vote Yay at this stage to a strict nat ruleset.

 

And on the ACWS 4th question, I doubt any of them have any more interest in the ESS anyway. We already know OR and ETNZ, and probably AR, are not sailing it; and why would LR either, since they have a lot else on their plate too?

 

GD said following the LR agreement he has no more money issues, quote "money will not be an excuse this time around" and so: How about some competition/competitive rule proposals as examples instead? Ones that would put ETNZ and LR somehow on opposite sides of both AR and OR?

 

 

Sting, I played honestly, you asked for one question and I gave you four, but it seems like you are just going to brush off whatever questions I propose. I have no interest in that sort of game here.

 

Just for example . . . on tweeting - we have already had a major conflict about media control (website) and there are in fact to different factions - those who want to built the central ACEA traffic and those who want to build their own team/brand traffic. There are two different philosophies that conflict. That;s just a plain documented fact. And having teams build ac45's would weaken the one design nature of the ACWS which RC and PC would not like, but which would be cheaper for TNZ and LR - another very clear difference. And with nationality you agree with me but then say there will not be a vote - perhaps - but some sort CIC nationality issue could well come up - not sure how but somehow seems like they do every cup.

 

You want a competition issue. so how about a macro one . . . why OR should have any vote at all in CSS topics?, By the protocol they do, as the CSS and match are totally bundled together. OR wrote it and AR has agreed to it (I presume because the intent is to fold the CSS as an 'asset' into the AC circus) - that's documented fact, while I would think certainly GD and LR would disagree and vote against OR having any say in the CSS.

 

My suggestion is that we just agree to disagree on this. You don't think there are clear factions - that's fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like acrimony is begetting acrimony.

 

After AC32/33 nobody trusts anybody.

 

The no-paid-up teams are not going to tick-off the ones who let them in to play.

 

And GD knows it, so he is feeling claustriphobic.

Has there ever been "trust" in the AC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see little evidence the 4 would split the way you propose they would, on the first 3 questions. It could be that none, all, or some may want to tweet. If they think they can build 45s cheaper or better, some or all may want that; or none, or OR may even just refuse to let Core build any more wings for capacity reasons, who knows? Nationality, yes possibly, but is something that complicated about to get voted on, and passed? No chance! I doubt ~anyone~ would vote Yay at this stage to a strict nat ruleset.

 

And on the ACWS 4th question, I doubt any of them have any more interest in the ESS anyway. We already know OR and ETNZ, and probably AR, are not sailing it; and why would LR either, since they have a lot else on their plate too?

 

GD said following the LR agreement he has no more money issues, quote "money will not be an excuse this time around" and so: How about some competition/competitive rule proposals as examples instead? Ones that would put ETNZ and LR somehow on opposite sides of both AR and OR?

 

 

Sting, I played honestly, you asked for one question and I gave you four, but it seems like you are just going to brush off whatever questions I propose. I have no interest in that sort of game here.

 

Just for example . . . on tweeting - we have already had a major conflict about media control (website) and there are in fact to different factions - those who want to built the central ACEA traffic and those who want to build their own team/brand traffic. There are two different philosophies that conflict. That;s just a plain documented fact. And having teams build ac45's would weaken the one design nature of the ACWS which RC and PC would not like, but which would be cheaper for TNZ and LR - another very clear difference. And with nationality you agree with me but then say there will not be a vote - perhaps - but some sort CIC nationality issue could well come up - not sure how but somehow seems like they do every cup.

 

You want a competition issue. so how about a macro one . . . why OR should have any vote at all in CSS topics?, By the protocol they do, as the CSS and match are totally bundled together. OR wrote it and AR has agreed to it (I presume because the intent is to fold the CSS as an 'asset' into the AC circus) - that's documented fact, while I would think certainly GD and LR would disagree and vote against OR having any say in the CSS.

 

My suggestion is that we just agree to disagree on this. You don't think there are clear factions - that's fine.

 

Well again, 'at this stage' any kind of strict nationality rules are almost a self-disqualification even if it were restricted only to sailors somehow. That would have to be re-considered next time instead. A vote on the ability to somehow build AC45's for cheaper themselves? Yes, okay maaaybe.

 

I do basically understand the 'franchise models' subject you've brought up, GD has brought it up too wrt who has more power in 'sharing' assets like web hits (but I discount the value of tweets, they're essentially worthless as money-makers best I can tell..) and yes, the web site issue was indicative of that split in opinion, apparently it went 5-4 and had the decision above been enacted prior to that vote then it may well have gone 2-2 if LR was already entered at that time and was the only other fully paid up entry. There are a lot of ways one could write a Protocol, perhaps it will be done differently next time. But again, since the LR deal it seems ETNZ is no longer so preoccupied with cash-raising anyway, and some teams who are still fund raising were apparently happy to host their content inside AC.com, and GD did also in the end get some kind of agreement where ETNZ's AC web content is shared between the two sites - seems like a good compromise, maybe it somehow covers live tweets too - in case anyone cares that aspect. edit: The AC page does already have Tweet links to Teams' tweet accounts anyway - Facebook links too.

 

There was another commercial issue GD raised that had to do with the size, placement or usage of the AC logo on team T-shirts; maybe that's an even bigger issue for Prada as you suggest but again, any team with clothing sponsors may vote (or have voted) to change it; and I think it did get changed anyway after ETNZ complained about it.

 

I maintain that the premise of there being factions of LR/ETNZ vs OR/AR on every issue is a stretch, and agree to disagree :) Perhaps we'll see evidence one way or the other as the timeline progresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see little evidence the 4 would split the way you propose they would, on the first 3 questions. It could be that none, all, or some may want to tweet. If they think they can build 45s cheaper or better, some or all may want that; or none, or OR may even just refuse to let Core build any more wings for capacity reasons, who knows? Nationality, yes possibly, but is something that complicated about to get voted on, and passed? No chance! I doubt ~anyone~ would vote Yay at this stage to a strict nat ruleset.

 

And on the ACWS 4th question, I doubt any of them have any more interest in the ESS anyway. We already know OR and ETNZ, and probably AR, are not sailing it; and why would LR either, since they have a lot else on their plate too?

 

GD said following the LR agreement he has no more money issues, quote "money will not be an excuse this time around" and so: How about some competition/competitive rule proposals as examples instead? Ones that would put ETNZ and LR somehow on opposite sides of both AR and OR?

 

 

Sting, I played honestly, you asked for one question and I gave you four, but it seems like you are just going to brush off whatever questions I propose. I have no interest in that sort of game here.

 

Just for example . . . on tweeting - we have already had a major conflict about media control (website) and there are in fact to different factions - those who want to built the central ACEA traffic and those who want to build their own team/brand traffic. There are two different philosophies that conflict. That;s just a plain documented fact. And having teams build ac45's would weaken the one design nature of the ACWS which RC and PC would not like, but which would be cheaper for TNZ and LR - another very clear difference. And with nationality you agree with me but then say there will not be a vote - perhaps - but some sort CIC nationality issue could well come up - not sure how but somehow seems like they do every cup.

 

You want a competition issue. so how about a macro one . . . why OR should have any vote at all in CSS topics?, By the protocol they do, as the CSS and match are totally bundled together. OR wrote it and AR has agreed to it (I presume because the intent is to fold the CSS as an 'asset' into the AC circus) - that's documented fact, while I would think certainly GD and LR would disagree and vote against OR having any say in the CSS.

 

My suggestion is that we just agree to disagree on this. You don't think there are clear factions - that's fine.

 

Well again, 'at this stage' any kind of strict nationality rules are almost a self-disqualification even if it were restricted only to sailors somehow. That would have to be re-considered next time instead. A vote on the ability to somehow build AC45's for cheaper themselves? Yes, okay maaaybe.

 

I do basically understand the 'franchise models' subject you've brought up, GD has brought it up too wrt who has more power in 'sharing' assets like web hits (but I discount the value of tweets, they're essentially worthless as money-makers best I can tell..) and yes, the web site issue was indicative of that split in opinion, apparently it went 5-4 and had the decision above been enacted prior to that vote then it may well have gone 2-2 if LR was already entered at that time and was the only other fully paid up entry. There are a lot of ways one could write a Protocol, perhaps it will be done differently next time. But again, since the LR deal it seems ETNZ is no longer so preoccupied with cash-raising anyway, and some teams who are still fund raising were apparently happy to host their content inside AC.com, and GD did also in the end get some kind of agreement where ETNZ's AC web content is shared between the two sites - seems like a good compromise, maybe it somehow covers live tweets too - in case anyone cares that aspect. edit: The AC page does already have Tweet links to Teams' tweet accounts anyway - Facebook links too.

 

There was another commercial issue GD raised that had to do with the size, placement or usage of the AC logo on team T-shirts; maybe that's an even bigger issue for Prada as you suggest but again, any team with clothing sponsors may vote (or have voted) to change it; and I think it did get changed anyway after ETNZ complained about it.

 

I maintain that the premise of there being factions of LR/ETNZ vs OR/AR on every issue is a stretch, and agree to disagree :) Perhaps we'll see evidence one way or the other as the timeline progresses.

 

In the court documents we saw that were signed as OR(BMWO?)/GGYC and Alinghi/SNG 'made peace', there was an inclusion that had to do with AC Logos and their permitted use. It seemed to be based on something from RPYC. The use and team design possibilities it spelled out seemed much more permissive than the published rules by ACRM. Does the court tabled document no longer hold significance? Due to MC? Anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of strict nationality rules . . . . factions on every issue

 

No one said anything about 'strict' or 'on every issue'. You can of course push almost any topic to absurdity if you want. GD's concern is still valid (for him) if the factions exist on only a few (important) issues.

 

It would be interesting to know how many times AR has voted different than OR - if I had to guess, I would guess not many, but I have no hard facts to support that guess as there is no transparancy (for us) into the voting.

 

We will have a chance right now to see if you are right about PC's independence. As COR he should challenge the BARF agreement as an obvious sham - will he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We will have a chance right now to see if you are right about PC's independence. As COR he should challenge the BARF agreement as an obvious sham - will he?

Think I saw at AR's Facebook a congratulations to BAR on their ACWS entry, so that seems unlikely.

 

Am not yet convinced there is any kind of supportable protest to make on it; BA apparently gets to run his own fully independent race team, then join OR after the ACWS conclusion. As was his ask. With only one boat, who is going to chop that thing up to test new foils and such? Where is there any possible design advantage to OR's AC72 program in the BAR AC45? And if there were, then why would OR risk breaking some rule to try do so?

 

That quote in the Guardian did suggest it's going to be questioned, my guess it was NZ sourced; but iirc that came before the announcement details so maybe the concern is already moot. It wouldn't be a vote issue anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have a chance right now to see if you are right about PC's independence. As COR he should challenge the BARF agreement as an obvious sham - will he?

Think I saw at AR's Facebook a congratulations to BAR on their ACWS entry, so that seems unlikely.

 

Agreed

 

Am not yet convinced there is any kind of supportable protest to make on it; BA apparently gets to run his own fully independent race team, then join OR after the ACWS conclusion. As was his ask. With only one boat, who is going to chop that thing up to test new foils and such? Where is there any possible design advantage to OR's AC72 program in the BAR AC45? And if there were, then why would OR risk breaking some rule to try do so?

 

Well that gets us to a different thread - but AR should protest under 22.6 which is designed to limit teams to entering two boats. BARF is clearly a sham/shell designed to allow OR to run three boats, using people who already have agreed to be part of the OR team (presented with the OR CEO on the stage supporting it - interesting question is OR funding it, or LE not thru OR). There does not need to be a specific performance issue for 22.6 - but obviously it gives team OR more sailing time, which is a performance advantage. They should probably also protest under 33.4, which is the clause you are thinking of, which does require performance information. For OR the most valuable such information is simply whether BA is any good as a multi-hull helm, but I am not sure if that meets the 33.4 qualification or not (need a jury decision on it) but clearly a 3rd boat allows them to look at further headsail design options which does clearly meet the 33.4 requirements.

 

I don't know if AR would prevail with the jury on this, but there is a clear question about its merits, and as an independent COR AR is obligated to challenge it. They sure pulled out a protest when it was TNZ on the other end (and then temporarily sidelined it deference to OR questions).

 

It wouldn't be a vote issue anyway.

Agreed, but might tend to show the existence of 'factions'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that gets us to a different thread - but AR should protest under 22.6 which is designed to limit teams to entering two boats. BARF is clearly a sham/shell designed to allow OR to run three boats, using people who already have agreed to be part of the OR team (presented with the OR CEO on the stage supporting it - interesting question is OR funding it, or LE not thru OR). There does not need to be a specific performance issue for 22.6 - but obviously it gives team OR more sailing time, which is a performance advantage.

BA says it was his demand, money for the creation of and then acceptance of an independent GBR/BAR in return for his subsequently moving on to OR after the conclusion of ACWS racing in Venice, in May 2013. So proving it is a 'sham' ACWS entry may be a difficult protest.

 

As to 'obviously it gives team OR more sailing time, which is a performance advantage' - yes it for certain helps OR that BA will first get experience sailing winged cats, RC explicitly says it's one of the reasons he agreed BA's demand. As to its legality I suppose one would have to look to the Protocol for clauses preventing sailors switching teams. Draper's going to LR had me wondering too - is there anything on the subject?

 

Okay, maybe we should go to the other thread with this :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BA says it was his demand, money for the creation of and then acceptance of an independent GBR/BAR in return for his subsequently moving on to OR after the conclusion of ACWS racing in Venice, in May 2013. So proving it is a 'sham' ACWS entry may be a difficult protest.

 

 

 

Has BARF paid the $$$$ needed to enter the LVC/AC?

No!

 

So no new vote in that department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no new vote in that department.

Agreed, given the IJ decision it's hard see how BAR will get to vote on anything that is not strictly ACWS. Even if they paid the various fees, their stated intention to not participate in the LVC or AC would surely preclude them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So proving it is a 'sham' ACWS entry may be a difficult protest.

 

 

well, the jury will have to define what makes a team a 'sham' vs 'legitimate'. I would suggest just for a start: funding (some significant % at least) independent from the other teams, an intent to keep the team running (and not be already planing to jump ship to the funding team), and that the other team CEO's sees the team as competitors rather than part of their team. BARF is simply the classic case of a sham paper shell team, and OR went to no effort at all to hide that fact. So, they must figure they have the jury sorted out. But if BARF is judged legitimate that means the jury has approved all such paper shell teams for the future. . . . LE could even select BARF as his COR next time around, fund it and supply it with OR team members and with an OR design.

 

I don't know what or how the jury would make that determination and would not guess at the outcome, but I do believe that AR as COR has an obligation to challenge something that stretches at least two protocol points this far this blatantly. Their role is to keep the defender honest. And they jumped right in on TNZ/LR, and BARF is at least as blatant, so why would they not react here also?

 

OR is putting several m$ into BARF, and they are taking on the distraction of helping managing another team, so you have to presume they are getting some sort of advantage out of setting it up as a separate shell team rather than just bringing it inside OR, and that extra advantage is exactly what the two protocol clauses are trying to limit. Perhaps they have found a (pretty blatant) way around the wording, but it should be tested and by the COR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BARF is simply the classic case of a sham paper shell team, and OR went to no effort at all to hide that fact.

Umm... Isn't that putting words that he didn't say into RC's mouth? Lol

 

The way I see it is BA sold his services to OR for the Cup defense, starting in 2013. He used some of it to start his own team now, for the stated goals he lays out.

 

The 2012/2013 ACWS season's competition will be stronger as a result. Some teams will surely get beaten by BAR and may have a beef with that aspect of it; but there's also nothing they can do about that, unless you can find 'sham' language in the Protocol to support your own words to that effect.

 

But agreed, we may not see the ET or Alephs or whoever else all welcome it, guess time will tell. Some may be thinking "where's my handout?" to which RC might respond "what have you got to offer OR that we want that badly?" Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is BA sold his services to OR for the Cup defense, starting in 2013. He used some of it to start his own team now, for the stated goals he lays out.

 

Ok, that's a decent defense of BARF - I don't buy it, but it's reasonable (assuming he can show that BARF's funding is all really 'pay to BA' - and he has paid taxes on it all! and none controlled by OR to BARF corporate shell - I wonder given the quoted price tage is $3m - BA is paying Grant and the rest of the team out of his OR pay?). But if the jury buys it, then, they have also bought that LE could fund BARF into the CSS with his boat #1 design, and next time around could still fund them and pick them as his COR, and all other teams could fund such sham teams to get around the sailing days restriction.

 

The protocol does not say 'everything not specifically prohibited is allowed', so there does not have to be specific language disallowing shells/shams for them to be found in fact to be illegal if the jury sees them as just mechanisms to get around the specifically stated prohibitions. There is no definition of 'team' in the protocol, so that's left to the jury to decide. This is a good test case, because if BARF is not found a sham then the jury will be saying that there is not such a thing as a sham and teams can set up shell/sham teams to their heart's content in order to circumvent various restrictions. . . . .

 

But if you are looking for language to show intent to prohibit this sort of shell - 33.4 was obviously written exactly to prevent this sort of shell set-up (it's a bit out-of-date because when it was written they thought AC72's would be used in the ACWS, but the intent is obvious). And 22.6 is pretty clear on point when you realize that BA is a contracted OR team member now/already.

 

The odd part is that OR's 8 questions to the jury did not contain this particular scenario. OR's scenarios focused on AC72's and did not bring up the 'shared funding source' and 'later OR team commitment' at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the reason for this figure, BAR presents a challenge not complete, it is precisely to "read hard" Jury responses.

 

Perhaps he had also considered the other option, a full Challenge. Or maybe Ainslie's participation in other possible Defender candidate . But a "hard read" the responses have led to dismiss these alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BARF is simply the classic case of a sham paper shell team, and OR went to no effort at all to hide that fact.

Umm... Isn't that putting words that he didn't say into RC's mouth? Lol

 

The way I see it is BA sold his services to OR for the Cup defense, starting in 2013. He used some of it to start his own team now, for the stated goals he lays out.

 

The 2012/2013 ACWS season's competition will be stronger as a result. Some teams will surely get beaten by BAR and may have a beef with that aspect of it; but there's also nothing they can do about that, unless you can find 'sham' language in the Protocol to support your own words to that effect.

 

But agreed, we may not see the ET or Alephs or whoever else all welcome it, guess time will tell. Some may be thinking "where's my handout?" to which RC might respond "what have you got to offer OR that we want that badly?" Lol

 

You are so naive that you must lay awake at night dreaming that everyone else is equally retarded to believe any of your puerile "logic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is BA sold his services to OR for the Cup defense, starting in 2013. He used some of it to start his own team now, for the stated goals he lays out.

 

Ok, that's a decent defense of BARF - I don't buy it, but it's reasonable. But if the jury buys it, then, they have also bought that LE could fund BARF into the CSS with his boat #1 design, and next time around could still fund them and pick them as his COR, and all other teams could fund such sham teams to get around the sailing days restriction.

How is it that "if the jury buys it, then, they have also bought..." all that other stuff? They are completely different scenarios. On "to get around the sailing days restriction" this BAR team has nothing to do with AC72's; and if you are referring to AC45's well LR just picked up Draper who - guess what - has a lot of AC45 experience; it also seems likely we'll see other sailors - with more AC45 experience than BA - switch to different CSS teams.

 

The protocol does not say 'everything not specifically prohibited is allowed', so there does not have to be specific language disallowing shells/shams for them to be found in fact to be illegal if the jury sees them as just mechanisms to get around the specifically stated prohibitions. There is no definition of 'team' in the protocol, so that's left to the jury to decide. This is a good test case, because if BARF is not found a sham then the jury will be saying that there is not such a thing as a sham and teams can set up shell/sham teams to their heart's content in order to circumvent various restrictions.

"in order to circumvent various restrictions" an ETNZ could sail another AC45 in the series, or buy one to sail as much as they like outside the series, or whatever they want to do with them. There are very few AC45 restrictions, except for perhaps in the supply line or in ACRM's logistical capacity. IM said some time ago he'd struggle to run races with 12 boats, well we have that big a fleet coming already by Naples. Should or could ETNZ fund an AUS wannabe team, with Ashby at the helm? Why not, if it's his demand for being on their AC72?

 

The odd part is that OR's 8 questions to the jury did not contain this particular scenario. OR's scenarios focused on AC72's and did not bring up the 'shared funding source' and 'later OR team commitment' at all.

 

Maybe because 'shared funding source' is not illegal, anywhere. The closest clause I can think of is in the 'independent builder.' But I agree that back when OR asked the questions they may well have already figured BAR would not be an AC/AC72 entry and that there's a chance that another team will make an OR arrangement as asked about. Otoh it's possible the BAR decision to not go forward as an AC entry had to do with those answers, and so potential funding sources were still a moot point anyway.

 

I agree it would be bad to see a CoR funded by a defender and have said many times it is good that LE didn't step in to cover VO's shortfall. Having TT as effectively the CoR is in many ways a better situation if, as many people originally had thought in the ML case, there were money influences going on. Didn't happen with ML, and it's almost inconceivable with a TT.

 

The only vote issue I could see happening wrt any of the above is if teams want to vote to restrict further ACWS entries for whatever reasons. Getting lost in a growing crowd may not be in the majority's best interests? Would that create an 'everyone else on one side versus both AR and OR on the other'? Would LR and ETNZ both even vote the same way? Would AR agree with OR? Hard to say. It's like my original argument that teams will have different votes depending the issue; this 'voting block' thing seems largely manufactured in the absence of much evidence to point to so far; and ACWS issues like BAR can't have been the point of GD's having gone to the IJ over AC matter votes anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because 'shared funding source' is not illegal, anywhere.

 

Sting, you really really need to read 33.4 more closely before we continue this - because you are just plain wrong on that. It makes 'any agreement . . . ' illegal, not just shared funding, but any agreement . . . that leads to a second party getting any boat and then helping out the first party in essentially any way at all ("in the program of design, development or challenge"). That clause was written exactly to prevent sham teams. It was poorly written but that's its clear intent. Please read it closely and come back to the thread and then Seis can help you understand the further implications :)

 

and as I said 22.6 prevents a team from running more than 2 AC45's in ACWS, and if BA is an already signed contracted OR employee, funded by OR, the jury might well listen to an argument that he is sailing an illegal 3rd OR boat.

 

I will say again, I don't know how the jury would rule on these two points, but they are very clearly borderline with reasonable arguments they prohibit BARF, and so they should be challenged by the COR in order to keep the defender honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because 'shared funding source' is not illegal, anywhere.

 

Sting, you really really need to read 33.4 more closely before we continue this - because you are just plain wrong on that. It makes 'any agreement . . . ' illegal, not just shared funding, but any agreement . . . that leads to a second party getting any boat and then helping out the first party in essentially any way at all ("in the program of design, development or challenge"). That clause was written exactly to prevent sham teams. It was poorly written but that's its clear intent. Please read it closely and come back to the thread and then Seis can help you understand the further implications :)

 

But it's all about AC72s, right??

 

33. DESIGN

33.1. From 1 January 2013 each Competitor shall engage separate and independent Designers

who, from that date forward shall have no design involvement with any other Competitor's

program for this Event in developing an AC72 Yacht Hull, deck, cockpit, Wing Mast (Mast

sections and flap elements), geometry of the standing rigging, appendages or sails

excluding battens and sail hardware, or those same components of any other yacht

capable of being measured as an AC72 Yacht without significant modification, except that a

Designer whose contract is terminated by a Competitor prior to the Regatta may work for

another Competitor, but not where the Designer terminates or intentionally initiates

termination of their contract. Refer amendments 3.12 and 8

33.2. From 1 January 2013 Competitors, including through the assistance of third parties, shall

not share or exchange any further AC72 Class design or performance information or

equipment. This restriction shall not apply to: Refer amendments 3.13 and 8

(a) the receipt or use of equipment designed prior to 1 January 2013, or the receipt or

use at anytime of design information created prior to such date; Refer amendments 4.04, 3.14

and 8

(b ) hardware available for purchase by all Competitors on similar terms (not being AC72

Yacht Hull, deck, cockpit, Wing Mast, Mast sections, geometry of the standing rigging,

appendages or sails excluding battens and sail hardware);

(c )design and performance information which may be gleaned without assistance when

competing against or training with another Competitor;

(d) design and performance information from the media or scuttlebutt; and

(e) A supplier to two or more Competitors disclosing improved construction methods or

technology developed solely by the supplier, provided the designs, methods or

technology developed by the Competitors are not disclosed or exchanged.

33.3. Model testing of a Hull, Mast, geometry of the standing rigging, or appendages of an AC72

Yacht shall not be done at greater than one-third scale.

33.4. Any agreement, arrangement or other understanding, whether legally enforceable or not, by

one person or entity (in this paragraph "the first person"), whether then a Competitor or not,

with any other person or entity (in this paragraph "the second person") that the second

person will directly or indirectly build, acquire or otherwise obtain one or more yachts of

whatever type (in this paragraph "other yachts") so that the first person can directly or

indirectly obtain, in any manner whatever, design or performance information regarding the

other yacht or yachts for use in the program of design, development or challenge of the first

person, is prohibited.

^ And I fail to see how, or if it were illegal then why, OR would try to use BAR's AC45 for AC72 design ideas. Christ, they have four of their own already!

 

and as I said 22.6 prevents a team from running more than 2 AC45's in ACWS, and if BA is an already signed contracted OR employee, funded by OR, the jury might well listen to an argument that he is sailing an illegal 3rd OR boat.

BA has said, basically, "BAR is completely independent and has nothing whatsoever to do with OR." That is almost a direct quote. He ALSO told us that he is not even joining Oracle until after the ACWS conclusion. If he can't sign to an OR, then what allows other sailors to sign with teams (so long as it is prior to the CSS if it's a switch?) This is no different, he is not working for two teams at the same time, did you not hear it?

I will say again, I don't know how the jury would rule on these two points, but they are very clearly borderline with reasonable arguments they prohibit BARF, and so they should be challenged by the COR in order to keep the defender honest.

I don't know either how they would 'rule these two points' and also can't think who might try make issue out of it. The possibly ETNZ-sourced comment in (was it?) The Guardian yesterday was all about if they were a 'fully fledged' AC34 entry, and so therefore with possible AC72 implications.

 

I really don't think that anyone will gives a rat's ass about the above; the greater import of it all is much more in the fact BA will be signing with Oracle at all for AC34 proper, instead of with any of them. LR likely is disappointed, it sounds like that was another possibility he had, but would they try prove a 'sham' argument that seems unsupportable by any protocol language? 33.4 above certainly isn't it, and yes I have read it.

 

The closest I can think of it being an advantage to OR is in him being trained up in AC45's before joining OR. But again, it's hard to separate his given right to go that route from other sailors' rights to do the same - including some of whom already have more AC45 experience than he does. How do you make that case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's all about AC72s, right??

 

No! Please read it a little more closely! 33.4 says explicitly "one or more yachts of whatever type". "Whatever type" would certainly include an ac45.

 

"Whatever type" is pretty clear and includes ac45s, but if you are trying to say because 33.1 refers to AC72s than 33.4 must also, please remember that the Jury just said that the points are to be read independently and there is no 'read-down'. Jury pp23 ends with "To read Article 33.4 as being 'subject to' other clauses is not provided for in either the Protocol or the clause itself."

 

BA has said, basically, "BAR is completely independent and has nothing whatsoever to do with OR."

 

That's exactly what a shell would say. But, if he is funded by OR, has a contract with OR, trying to win a major position on OR, probably being given one of OR's boats, . . . does the jury agree he is completely independent?

 

But again, it's hard to separate his ability to go that route from other sailors' rights to do the same - including some of whom already have more AC45 experience than he does. How do you make that case?

 

SEIS has explained that very well in the performance thread . . . the difference (re 33.4) is the advance agreement between teams . . . that results in the acquisition of any boat . . . and (re:22.6) the question of whether the team is an independent team, or as described elsewhere an OR subsidiary. If OR asked BA to help them tune up their rig - would he say no? That is a very different situation than a crew member leaving for a better offer with another team. If he was simply first helming for LR and then got a better offer from OR there would be no problem at all - but there would be a problem if there were an advance agreement that involved LR getting their boat (33.4) and/or if OR was basically in control of LR (22.6).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, well okay then, maybe someone has a case to try make. Of COURSE a 'sham' would say exactly what he said :)

 

Just now realized this thread is linked to from the MP - yikes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now realized this thread is linked to from the MP - yikes!

So now, I am a famous "AC rule watcher"! LOL

What an honor!

I have to celebrate tonight as it is!

Watch Sting, from now you will have to treat me with the due respect!

If not, I'll jump to your boat, and give you a lesson! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites