• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

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

pjfranks

Deed of Gift

58 posts in this topic

ORDER WITH RESPECT TO ADMINISTRATION OF GIFT DATED DECEMBER 17, 1956

NEW YORK YACHT CLUB, having filed a verified petition dated September 21, 1956, praying that an order be made pursuant to Section 12 of the Personal Property Law or otherwise, directing that the gift by George L. Schuyler of the America’s Cup which was won by the yacht AMERICA at Cowes, England on August 22, 1851, in trust under a Deed of Gift dated October 24, 1887, shall be administered as if the minimum load water-line length of the competing yachts or vessels of one mast and thereby required to be forty-four (44) feet and without regard to and free from the direction contained therein that yachts or vessels competing for the America’s Cup shall sail on their own bottoms to the port where the contest is to take place, and that such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper be granted to petitioner; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court from said petition and the papers annexed thereto that circumstances have so changed since the execution of said Deed of Gift, in a manner not known to the said donor and not anticipated by him, as to render impractical a literal compliance with the aforesaid terms of said Deed of Gift; and it further appearing that the grantor of said Deed of Gift has died and that the Attorney General of the Sate of New York is the only person interested in this proceeding; and said Attorney General having appeared and certified that he has no objections to the entry of an order as prayed for by petitioner,

NOW, upon motion of Carter, Ledyard and Milburn, attorneys for petitioner, it is

ORDERED that New York Yacht Club, as trustee of the America’s Cup given under the Deed of Gift dated October 24, 1887 made by George L. Schuyler, hereby is directed to administer the said Gift as if said Deed of Gift included no provision requiring yachts or vessels competing for the America’s Cup to sail, on their own bottoms, to the port where the contest is to take place, and as if the minimum load water-line length of the competing yachts or vessels of one mast was thereby required to be forty-four (44) feet.

Enter, Hon. Edgar J. Nathan, Jr. J.S.C. Justice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

 

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

 

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

 

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the DoG hadn't been amended in 1956 the AC would today be a footnote in sailing history. Nobody was interested in challenging in J-Class sized yachts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

 

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

 

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

 

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

Interesting all that KJ. Thanks.

 

I was thinking that if they had kept the requirement for boats being capable of getting to the venue on own bottom then maybe AC would have kept the spirit of adventure and ocean racing that seems to be flourishing today with sponsors and sailors and spectators of the Volvo? While in contrast the AC in the process of converting to inshore circuit racing is descending into low visibility with sponsors and sailors and spectators. Maybe they should re-instate the "own bottom" clause and get back the spirit of adventure?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the DoG hadn't been amended in 1956 the AC would today be a footnote in sailing history. Nobody was interested in challenging in J-Class sized yachts.

There is no evidence for that is there? J-Class are not mandated by the deed. It's the removal of the sailing on own bottom that changed everything not the class of boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The development of composite construction (steel frames with wooden planking), and then all metal construction meant that it was much easier to build boats with inshore scantlings, compared to building boats with wood timbers and planking. I would think that America's scantlings were pretty much the same as the British boats. Had the own-bottom requirement remained, I doubt very much that there would be much interest in building alloy boats that could survive a tow across the Atlantic only to get mashed by American boats built to a much lighter standard. Lipton and Sopwith were happy to do it, but I don't think you would have found anybody happy to piss away cash like that after the war. Lipton was selling tea, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the DoG hadn't been amended in 1956 the AC would today be a footnote in sailing history. Nobody was interested in challenging in J-Class sized yachts.

There is no evidence for that is there? J-Class are not mandated by the deed. It's the removal of the sailing on own bottom that changed everything not the class of boat.

 

I didn't say "J-Class", I said "J-Class sized". In 1956 the minimum size requirement in the DoG was reduced from 65 to 44 feet to make 12Ms eligible for the AC. This followed discussions between the NYYC and the RYS. There is ample evidence that nobody in this period believed a return to yachts of the size previous used was viable. Read Fisher's account, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the DoG hadn't been amended in 1956 the AC would today be a footnote in sailing history. Nobody was interested in challenging in J-Class sized yachts.

There is no evidence for that is there? J-Class are not mandated by the deed. It's the removal of the sailing on own bottom that changed everything not the class of boat.

 

I didn't say "J-Class", I said "J-Class sized". In 1956 the minimum size requirement in the DoG was reduced from 65 to 44 feet to make 12Ms eligible for the AC. This followed discussions between the NYYC and the RYS. There is ample evidence that nobody in this period believed a return to yachts of the size previous used was viable. Read Fisher's account, for example.

Yes but your post was based on the presumption that unless the deed had been altered it would have fallen into disuse. This theory is not correct as evidenced by AC33 and the new J-Class boat proposed by SNG. The Cup may have remained dormant for some time but sooner or later someone would have revived it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The development of composite construction (steel frames with wooden planking), and then all metal construction meant that it was much easier to build boats with inshore scantlings, compared to building boats with wood timbers and planking. I would think that America's scantlings were pretty much the same as the British boats. Had the own-bottom requirement remained, I doubt very much that there would be much interest in building alloy boats that could survive a tow across the Atlantic only to get mashed by American boats built to a much lighter standard. Lipton and Sopwith were happy to do it, but I don't think you would have found anybody happy to piss away cash like that after the war. Lipton was selling tea, anyway.

 

I don't agree as some of the fastest boats today are ocean racers. I do agree that NYYC used the own bottom rule to their advantage but with modern construction this should no longer be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but your post was based on the presumption that unless the deed had been altered it would have fallen into disuse. This theory is not correct as evidenced by AC33 and the new J-Class boat proposed by SNG. The Cup may have remained dormant for some time but sooner or later someone would have revived it.

 

Those involved at the time believed it was cost reduction or bust and the history of yachting is full of once-prestigious trophies gathering dust. Admiral's Cup, Ton Cups etc. You can believe the AC is uniquely immune from that possibility if you want to. Nobody believed it in 1956 and I don't believe it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but your post was based on the presumption that unless the deed had been altered it would have fallen into disuse. This theory is not correct as evidenced by AC33 and the new J-Class boat proposed by SNG. The Cup may have remained dormant for some time but sooner or later someone would have revived it.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. The One Ton cup is now dead. The Admirals Cup is now dead. The Southern Cross is now dead. The SORC is dead. The Kenwood Cup is dead. The longer anything goes without competition, the lower the likelihood of revival.

 

The British economy went from one where there were 2 people rich enough to afford multiple big boat challengers on their own to one where a syndicate could afford a 12 metre. The top marginal tax rate on investment income in the UK in 1945 was 97.5%. The choice the NYYC had was between accepting the Sceptre challenge and definitely keeping the AC alive to not agreeing to amend the deed, declining the challenge and hoping for the best. Hoping for the best could just have resulted in the AC being a dust receptacle in a corner of the NYYC clubhouse. Where is the One Ton Cup now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree as some of the fastest boats today are ocean racers. I do agree that NYYC used the own bottom rule to their advantage but with modern construction this should no longer be an issue.

Only because nobody is building boats that only have to survive one summer on LIS, because there isn't a competition that calls for it. What did they have to do to the most extreme inshore TP52s before taking them offshore? (Hint. It involved adding structure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the One Ton Cup now?

 

IIRC nobody seems quite sure. Last raced for in 2001 I believe in what are now called Farr 45s. Anyone know different?

 

OTC.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking that if they had kept the requirement for boats being capable of getting to the venue on own bottom then maybe AC would have kept the spirit of adventure and ocean racing that seems to be flourishing today with sponsors and sailors and spectators of the Volvo? While in contrast the AC in the process of converting to inshore circuit racing is descending into low visibility with sponsors and sailors and spectators. Maybe they should re-instate the "own bottom" clause and get back the spirit of adventure?

Agree but one has to remember that the purpose of that requirement was to oblige the Brits to build heavy vessels fit to cross the atlantic in order to race, in summer, against light NYYC yachts.

 

So, agree, the idea would be interesting at only the condition of removing the to race in summer in the Northern Emisphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

 

SF and ACRM in Jersey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree but one has to remember that the purpose of that requirement was to oblige the Brits to build heavy vessels fit to cross the atlantic in order to race, in summer, against light NYYC yachts.

My guess is that the own-bottom requirement originated in the way that America came over to the UK and won, so anybody who wants to win the cup should do the same and sail to the regatta, with the home team advantage as a secondary benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

 

SF and ACRM in Jersey?

 

good thread topic PJF

 

the D OF G -as I posted many times has been mangled by ny courts for nyyc and others

 

acrm isnt independent of evilsin so those Independence claims is more evilsin - ehman BS

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the One Ton Cup now?

IIRC nobody seems quite sure. Last raced for in 2001 I believe in what are now called Farr 45s. Anyone know different?

 

OTC.gif

There was a brief proposal that the KOD 33 should race for it in about 2003. Didn't happen, as the boat never got any traction

http://www.k-yachtin...loc%20kod33.htm

 

Boat's for sale now, if anybody wants to spend €29,500 on an orphan prototype of a failed one design.

http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/2003/KOD-KOD-33-2356474/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

 

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

 

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

 

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

 

Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

 

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

 

Wrong as usual. Where were RNZYS and SNG in 1956? The blame for the balls up rests with NYYC and NYAG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

 

Wrong as usual. Where were RNZYS and SNG in 1956? The blame for the balls up rests with NYYC and NYAG.

 

Did my post have anything to do with you?

 

What a piece of work.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

 

Wrong as usual. Where were RNZYS and SNG in 1956? The blame for the balls up rests with NYYC and NYAG.

Wrong as usual. Where were RNZYS and SNG in 1956? The blame for the balls up rests with NYYC and NYAG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is not the Cup or its history. The problem is Larry Ellison and Ernesto Bertinelli and their ilk. These ego-maniacs could give a ratz arse about the public, tradition, or even sailing. It's all about THEM all the time. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is not the Cup or its history. The problem is Larry Ellison and Ernesto Bertinelli and their ilk. These ego-maniacs could give a ratz arse about the public, tradition, or even sailing. It's all about THEM all the time. Period.

 

Ah yes, what with the loss of JP Morgan (owner of the first Columbia) and the Vanderbilts (owners of Defender, Reliance, Enterprise, Rainbow, and Ranger) the AC just can't find a good man-of-the-people billionaire anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is an expressed interest for the Cup to be in the long-term hands of an outside party that he doesn't control exactly an example of Ellison being all about him all the time, period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

 

If the NYSC had refused to allow a change to the DoG and continued the very 19th century requirement that challenger had to sail on it's own bottom the cup would still be sitting on its perch at the NYYC. Even with today's materials, if you think you would be able to sail across the Atlantic in your 90' catamaran (say Banco Populair) and defeat the NYYC's version of Dogzilla with a wingsail in the fluky winds of Newport you are quite the dreamer.

 

The thing that really changed the cup was the commercialization of the syndicates and the attempts to make it into a 'profession'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

 

If the NYSC had refused to allow a change to the DoG and continued the very 19th century requirement that challenger had to sail on it's own bottom the cup would still be sitting on its perch at the NYYC. Even with today's materials, if you think you would be able to sail across the Atlantic in your 90' catamaran (say Banco Populair) and defeat the NYYC's version of Dogzilla with a wingsail in the fluky winds of Newport you are quite the dreamer.

 

The thing that really changed the cup was the commercialization of the syndicates and the attempts to make it into a 'profession'.

 

I suggested that the boat only has to be designed to be seaworthy for ocean passage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is an expressed interest for the Cup to be in the long-term hands of an outside party that he doesn't control exactly an example of Ellison being all about him all the time, period?

Of course it's all about Ellisons power and desire to remake the deed (or what's left of it) in his and RCs own image. RW only recently said the deed was in ACEA way and that's why Ellison want Coutts WS will be the driver for AC sailing leaving the deed as coat hanger and a claim to an importance that the WS could never achieve left free range as its not commercially voiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is an expressed interest for the Cup to be in the long-term hands of an outside party that he doesn't control exactly an example of Ellison being all about him all the time, period?

Maybe this?

 

 

41.3 The net surplus revenue shall be determined (at least on a provisional basis) within 180

days after the last race of the Match and shall be paid as a contribution towards the

costs incurred by Competitors to compete in the Event as forming part of the costs

incurred in holding the Match as required by the Deed of Gift, and shall be paid within 90

days of its determination as follows:

(a) the management fee under Article 4.2; then

(B) 5% of the remainder of the net surplus up to a maximum of !10,000,000 to ACRM

toward the costs of the 35th America’s Cup, provided that the winner of the Match

and its challenger of record gives the Event Authority an unconditional

undertaking within 90 days of the last race of the Match that, for the 35th America’s

Cup:

(i) all dispute resolution shall be by way of arbitration;

(ii) provision shall be made for multiple challengers and a challenger series;

(iii) ACRM shall be maintained and provide neutral, independent, professional,

and fair management for all racing for the 35th America’s Cup;

(iv) an annual series of regattas shall commence within nine months of the last

race of the 34th Match; and

(v) hold the 35TH America’s Cup Match within five years.

If no such undertaking is provided, the payment to ACRM shall not be made, the

assets of ACRM shall be liquidated, and such sums and proceeds shall remain

part of the net surplus revenue to be distributed to the Competitors as provided

below; then

© one half of the remainder to GGYC, subject to 41.4 and 41.5; then

(d) the remainder to Challengers, subject to 41.4 and 41.5 as follows:

• 70% divided equally between all Challengers;

• 10% divided equally between all Challenger semi-finalists;

• 10% divided equally between both Challenger finalists;

• 10% to the winner of the America’s Cup Challenger Series; and

provided that, prior to the commencement of the Regatta, by unanimous

agreement the Challengers may alter this distribution formula.

41.4 A winner of the Match and its challenger of record (if entitled to a share of the net

surplus revenue) that have failed to give the undertakings referred to in Article 41.3(B)

shall not be entitled to any distribution of the net surplus revenue, and their shares shall

be redistributed to the other entitled Competitors as set out in Article 41.3© and (d).

Any forfeited shares shall be redistributed to the other entitled Competitors as set out in

Article 41.3© and (d) less the entitlement of the Competitor whose share of the net

surplus revenue has been forfeited.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

 

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

 

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

 

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

 

Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

 

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

 

Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

 

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

 

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

 

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

 

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

 

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

 

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

 

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

 

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

 

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

 

Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

 

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

 

Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

 

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

 

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

 

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

 

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

 

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

 

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.

 

That is just the funniest thing KJ

I just spilled my beer. .

The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?

Really?

After all the hate the OR gang heap on SNG who actually have an annual regatta on the Med?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

 

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

 

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

 

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

 

Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

 

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

 

Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

 

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

 

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

 

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

 

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

 

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

 

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.

 

That is just the funniest thing KJ

I just spilled my beer. .

The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?

Really?

After all the hate the OR gang heap on SNG who actually have an annual regatta on the Med?

 

Ok I'll take that. A good arse kicking kj - immaculate AC history.

 

Small points only then:

 

RNZYS could have simply said NO instead of deferring.

 

Great lakes not the same as Swiss duck pond.

 

Rule #1: Never make the mistake of losing (the race or your crew) to the mickey mouse club you let in just to make up the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

 

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

 

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

 

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

 

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

 

Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

 

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

 

Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

 

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

 

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

 

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

 

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

 

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

 

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.

 

That is just the funniest thing KJ

I just spilled my beer. .

The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?

Really?

After all the hate the OR gang heap on SNG who actually have an annual regatta on the Med?

 

Ok I'll take that. A good arse kicking kj - immaculate AC history.

 

Small points only then:

 

RNZYS could have simply said NO instead of deferring.

 

Great lakes not the same as Swiss duck pond.

 

Rule #1: Never make the mistake of losing (the race or your crew) to the mickey mouse club you let in just to make up the numbers.

You can't spin this one NavTroll

CYC sail on an inland pond and have their annual regatta on that same land locked pond.

But that's okay because they come from the land of John Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

 

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.

 

The problem about seaworthy yachts is that the AC72 would not qualify as seaworthy under the 1881 amendment.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

 

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

 

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

 

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

 

Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

 

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

 

Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

 

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

 

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

 

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

 

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

 

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

 

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.

 

That is just the funniest thing KJ

I just spilled my beer. .

The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?

Really?

After all the hate the OR gang heap on SNG who actually have an annual regatta on the Med?

 

Ok I'll take that. A good arse kicking kj - immaculate AC history.

 

Small points only then:

 

RNZYS could have simply said NO instead of deferring.

 

Great lakes not the same as Swiss duck pond.

 

Rule #1: Never make the mistake of losing (the race or your crew) to the mickey mouse club you let in just to make up the numbers.

 

RNZYS were in no position, morally or probably legally, to say no to SNG's challenge.

 

1 - Precedence for a non DoG compliant yacht club to challenge for the America's Cup was set by the NYSC 10 years previous.

2 - It would have looked like RNZYS were punishing SNG for Alinghi employing our top AC sailors.

3 - It would have legitimised the despicable Black Heart campaign which RNZYS were keeping well away from.

 

RNZYS took the fairest option and left the decision to the challengers.

 

There is no difference between the Great Lakes and a Swiss lake, apart from size. Neither can be considered the sea or an arm of the sea.

 

Schuyler deliberately re-wrote the first Deed of Gift to exclude Great Lakes yacht clubs from challenging for the America's Cup by adding the 'having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea or on an arm of the sea (or one which combines both)' and 'Vessels intending to compete for this Cup must proceed under sail on their own bottoms to the port where the contest is to take place.' clauses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't spin this one NavTroll

CYC sail on an inland pond and have their annual regatta on that same land locked pond.

But that's okay because they come from the land of John Wayne

You are the one doing the spinning. You are trying to blame the Americans for this, but wasn't the Aussies who wanted to let CYC in to the 86 AC, not SDYC? SDYC would have no interest in letting the CYC into the AC. When they were challenging, they didn't want competition and when defending they wouldn't have been petitioning to let CYC to challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

 

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.

 

 

 

Nope. Wrong again. And wrong again.

 

The US defenders were never sea-worthy after the first few defenses using the whole NYYC fleet (which were harbor-racers or coastal cruisers on the waters between Maine and NYC). The NYYC had no interest in racing sea-worth vessels as a goal. They just wanted to win. By the end of the J-boat era the defenders were being fabricated out of a mash-up of iron, steel, aluminum and copper - creating giant galvanic batteries that essentially corroded out in months. The hull plating was so thin that bow sections were literally bashed back into shape during races.

 

The 1881 amendment was not for some noble "seaworthy vessel" purpose, it was to eliminate the attempts by the Canadians to enter light-weight boats that could readily be towed to the venue which might threaten the defender's advantage. And to get rid of the Canadian "riffraff" that were just not up to NYYC social standards.

 

And if you wish to compare Chicago's challenge with SNG's, recognize that Lake Michigan has extensive ocean-going commercial traffic connected to the Atlantic by the St. Lawrence Seaway. Not that much of stretch to call it "an arm of the sea" compared to pretty little Lac Leman.

 

You can try to stop reading into the deed what you want to find to support your personal, peculiar vision, but I doubt you will succeed....or even try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

 

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.

 

 

 

Nope. Wrong again. And wrong again.

 

The US defenders were never sea-worthy after the first few defenses using the whole NYYC fleet (which were harbor-racers or coastal cruisers on the waters between Maine and NYC). The NYYC had no interest in racing sea-worth vessels as a goal. They just wanted to win. By the end of the J-boat era the defenders were being fabricated out of a mash-up of iron, steel, aluminum and copper - creating giant galvanic batteries that essentially corroded out in months. The hull plating was so thin that bow sections were literally bashed back into shape during races.

 

The 1881 amendment was not for some noble "seaworthy vessel" purpose, it was to eliminate the attempts by the Canadians to enter light-weight boats that could readily be towed to the venue which might threaten the defender's advantage. And to get rid of the Canadian "riffraff" that were just not up to NYYC social standards.

 

And if you wish to compare Chicago's challenge with SNG's, recognize that Lake Michigan has extensive ocean-going commercial traffic connected to the Atlantic by the St. Lawrence Seaway. Not that much of stretch to call it "an arm of the sea" compared to pretty little Lac Leman.

 

You can try to stop reading into the deed what you want to find to support your personal, peculiar vision, but I doubt you will succeed....or even try.

Not so sure GLS would have considered that man-made locks would form an arm of the sea but hell when you're losing best to clutch for anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't spin this one NavTroll

CYC sail on an inland pond and have their annual regatta on that same land locked pond.

But that's okay because they come from the land of John Wayne

You are the one doing the spinning. You are trying to blame the Americans for this, but wasn't the Aussies who wanted to let CYC in to the 86 AC, not SDYC? SDYC would have no interest in letting the CYC into the AC. When they were challenging, they didn't want competition and when defending they wouldn't have been petitioning to let CYC to challenge.

Nope. Not me. NYSC spun the deed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure GLS would have considered that man-made locks would form an arm of the sea but hell when you're losing best to clutch for anything.

 

While I don't think GLS would have considered that the CYC conformed to the deed and overall think it was a mistake that opened the door for clubs like SNG, one has to acknowledge that Lake Michigan is more than 6000 square miles larger than Switzerland itself. It is large enough that some might even consider that it is a sea (a fresh water one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Not me. NYSC spun the deed.

 

Certainly not you . . . except that this is a quote from your post:

 

The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure GLS would have considered that man-made locks would form an arm of the sea but hell when you're losing best to clutch for anything.

 

While I don't think GLS would have considered that the CYC conformed to the deed and overall think it was a mistake that opened the door for clubs like SNG, one has to acknowledge that Lake Michigan is more than 6000 square miles larger than Switzerland itself. It is large enough that some might even consider that it is a sea (a fresh water one).

Who says size matters? It's still a lake. SNG have an annual regatta on the Mediterranean Sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Not me. NYSC spun the deed.

 

Certainly not you . . . except that this is a quote from your post:

 

The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?

 

Unless I am mistaken the NYSC is in Yankland. N'est-ce pas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

 

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.

 

Nope. Wrong again. And wrong again.

 

The US defenders were never sea-worthy after the first few defenses using the whole NYYC fleet (which were harbor-racers or coastal cruisers on the waters between Maine and NYC). The NYYC had no interest in racing sea-worth vessels as a goal. They just wanted to win. By the end of the J-boat era the defenders were being fabricated out of a mash-up of iron, steel, aluminum and copper - creating giant galvanic batteries that essentially corroded out in months. The hull plating was so thin that bow sections were literally bashed back into shape during races.

 

The 1881 amendment was not for some noble "seaworthy vessel" purpose, it was to eliminate the attempts by the Canadians to enter light-weight boats that could readily be towed to the venue which might threaten the defender's advantage. And to get rid of the Canadian "riffraff" that were just not up to NYYC social standards.

 

And if you wish to compare Chicago's challenge with SNG's, recognize that Lake Michigan has extensive ocean-going commercial traffic connected to the Atlantic by the St. Lawrence Seaway. Not that much of stretch to call it "an arm of the sea" compared to pretty little Lac Leman.

 

You can try to stop reading into the deed what you want to find to support your personal, peculiar vision, but I doubt you will succeed....or even try.

You seem to confuse everything,

 

You are right to say that the reason for the 1881 amendment was to eliminate Canadian challenges, however the official reason given was to race against seaworthy yachts, even if they did not respected it for their own yachts.

The Deed did not change, the amendment is still valid.

 

Now it is entertaining that you and some consider the Great Lakes to be a lake when it was worthwhile to eliminate the Canadians, Ocean to allow Chicago, and that Leman is a lake because of the Swiss.

And I am sure that you are part of the guys that defend a challenger venue in winter in the Northern Emisphere. And after you speak of fair play...

You have the same kind of selective reading of the Deed that the NYYC had during decades...

 

BYW, GLS was willing to replicate his own race, and.............................. he crossed the Atlantic with his vessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to confuse everything,

...

the 1881 amendment ...

The Deed did not change, the amendment is still valid ...

Thanks for another brilliant education about the history of Deed amendments, TCI... Can I please have those 10 seconds back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to confuse everything,

...

the 1881 amendment ...

The Deed did not change, the amendment is still valid ...

Thanks for another brilliant education about the history of Deed amendments, TCI... Can I please have those 10 seconds back?

 

^^

Not aware of the 1881 amendment Spinboy ? or maybe you want to call it second Deed ? too much Pinault Noir tonight ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

 

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

 

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

When ocean racing is all the rage why is it that GGYC are trying to reinvent the the oldest ocean race of all as an inshore race?

 

 

The idea that yacht racing can't make mass media unless it bis viewed from the shore is proven wrong by the Volvo.

 

 

Why is new AC Inshore in trouble getting sponsors and teams together when modern ocean races are thriving?

 

Maybe the reason is that flashing around in a big beach cat lacks the sense of adventure that is the key to media success today?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

 

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

When ocean racing is all the rage why is it that GGYC are trying to reinvent the the oldest ocean race of all as an inshore race?

 

 

The idea that yacht racing can't make mass media unless it bis viewed from the shore is proven wrong by the Volvo.

 

 

Why is new AC Inshore in trouble getting sponsors and teams together when modern ocean races are thriving?

 

Maybe the reason is that flashing around in a big beach cat lacks the sense of adventure that is the key to media success today?

 

 

1-It was certainly not GGYC, the AC has been inshore for ages.

2-6 boats on teh VOR, not really thriving. The PR is good and fun to follow, tho.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

 

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

When ocean racing is all the rage why is it that GGYC are trying to reinvent the the oldest ocean race of all as an inshore race?

 

 

The idea that yacht racing can't make mass media unless it bis viewed from the shore is proven wrong by the Volvo.

 

 

Why is new AC Inshore in trouble getting sponsors and teams together when modern ocean races are thriving?

 

Maybe the reason is that flashing around in a big beach cat lacks the sense of adventure that is the key to media success today?

 

 

1-It was certainly not GGYC, the AC has been inshore for ages.

2-6 boats on teh VOR, not really thriving. The PR is good and fun to follow, tho.

 

 

1. No so.

2. More interest in human endeavor and adventure than in F1 style circuit sailing.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be watching in 2013, with all the interest of something bizarre like this ..........

 

 

What I won't find though, is sailboat racing. Pretty freaking sad ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No so.

2. More interest in human endeavor and adventure than in F1 style circuit sailing.

1- Then I'd be interested what "ocean racing" is for you.

2 -6 boats, really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

 

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

When ocean racing is all the rage why is it that GGYC are trying to reinvent the the oldest ocean race of all as an inshore race?

 

 

The idea that yacht racing can't make mass media unless it bis viewed from the shore is proven wrong by the Volvo.

 

 

Why is new AC Inshore in trouble getting sponsors and teams together when modern ocean races are thriving?

 

Maybe the reason is that flashing around in a big beach cat lacks the sense of adventure that is the key to media success today?

 

 

1-It was certainly not GGYC, the AC has been inshore for ages.

2-6 boats on teh VOR, not really thriving. The PR is good and fun to follow, tho.

 

 

1. No so.

2. More interest in human endeavor and adventure than in F1 style circuit sailing.

 

 

 

1. Really? The Hauraki gulf is 'free from headlands'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No so.

2. More interest in human endeavor and adventure than in F1 style circuit sailing.

1- Then I'd be interested what "ocean racing" is for you.

2 -6 boats, really?

Maybe I should have said offshore in the sense that you won't see much from the beach? That's what GGYC are trying to change. I'm saying that with Volvo it makes no difference and that endeavor and adventure drive more public and media interest than choreographed inshore drag race.

 

Oh and that live coverage is for core supporters not for mass media because sailing can't guarantee a live broadcast schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites