• 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.

Enzedel92

DELAY.....

65 posts in this topic

I cant imagine them delaying it if there was a fully functional OR17,

 

I cant imagine them delaying the Americas Cup since the planning that goes into it is extensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go, another chance to paint OR as the bogeyman who will delay the AC in order to ensure they win it. *yawn*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at sometime in the future I would consider a thread on a Delay

 

But I see no rush

 

Not saying Never But .............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than a few conspiracy theorists in these forums, who ever intimated, hinted, implied, suggested or commented that there would ever be a delay in the staging of the next AC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had expected there might be some action to delay after the capsize.

But to have any credence it really should have been immediately after the capsize & needs to have a lot of $$$ compensation attached for those who have boats/wings that aren't fucked.

 

To make any attempt to delay now a couple of months after the capsize & if it doesn't come with compensation would be very bogeymen like indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than a few conspiracy theorists in these forums, who ever intimated, hinted, implied, suggested or commented that there would ever be a delay in the staging of the next AC?

 

Ex-zachary! Nobody did. Its just a fear and loathing of OR.

I want ETNZ to win the AC as much as any one but this boogeyman stuff is just childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had expected there might be some action to delay after the capsize.

But to have any credence it really should have been immediately after the capsize & needs to have a lot of $$$ compensation attached for those who have boats/wings that aren't fucked.

 

To make any attempt to delay now a couple of months after the capsize & if it doesn't come with compensation would be very bogeymen like indeed.

 

i guess this is the issue

 

even exploring the issue now, just in case they feel they need it as a contingency

 

weakens the events next year

 

what's the risk for people making plans and bookings to attend?

 

do the teams without busted boats need to start being even more careful with their money in case the wage bill blows out next year

 

does it make things harder for teams like korea, energy, bar to put together sponsorship deals if ac35 ends up being another year delayed due to ac34 being delayed

 

i think it would be much better to stand by larry's reputed claim that he didn't mind losing the cup as long as he had a fair chance of getting it back

 

to that end, rather than a delay to ac34 they could try and get the challengers to lock in a date for ac35 2015 in their respective club waters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had expected there might be some action to delay after the capsize.

But to have any credence it really should have been immediately after the capsize & needs to have a lot of $$$ compensation attached for those who have boats/wings that aren't fucked.

 

To make any attempt to delay now a couple of months after the capsize & if it doesn't come with compensation would be very bogeymen like indeed.

 

i guess this is the issue

 

even exploring the issue now, just in case they feel they need it as a contingency

 

weakens the events next year

 

what's the risk for people making plans and bookings to attend?

 

do the teams without busted boats need to start being even more careful with their money in case the wage bill blows out next year

 

does it make things harder for teams like korea, energy, bar to put together sponsorship deals if ac35 ends up being another year delayed due to ac34 being delayed

 

i think it would be much better to stand by larry's reputed claim that he didn't mind losing the cup as long as he had a fair chance of getting it back

 

to that end, rather than a delay to ac34 they could try and get the challengers to lock in a date for ac35 2015 in their respective club waters

 

Just think of the implications of posts (on forums that we don't even know of)

 

reguarding arrangements for the delays

 

Only Fitting to Delay thinking about it ...........eh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not happening . let this thread be denied and die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a legitimate thread

 

about a legitimate threat

 

if not here

 

then where?

 

it'll sink off the page

 

when it's no longer relevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than a few conspiracy theorists in these forums, who ever intimated, hinted, implied, suggested or commented that there would ever be a delay in the staging of the next AC?

 

It was reported in several European sailing publications recently that the defenders lawyers have been tasked with investigating whether the AC dates could be delayed. One of those publications has a pretty good track record of getting rumours right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The circle of news. Stuff gets made up here, journos pick up on it and write about it, we read about it, it makes its way back here and somehow it gained credibility.

Its like news laundering

 

Just another kiwi attempt to make the opposition look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no friend of OR but I'll be very surprised indeed if there's any reality to these rumours. It's obvious it would trip a legal shit-fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The circle of news. Stuff gets made up here, journos pick up on it and write about it, we read about it, it makes its way back here and somehow it gained credibility.

Its like news laundering

 

 

The first time it was mentioned here was several days ago. The article in the Italian publication was several days older than that.

 

Your argument doesn't wash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no friend of OR but I'll be very surprised indeed if there's any reality to these rumours. It's obvious it would trip a legal shit-fight.

 

It wouldn't be the first time. After spending months in front of the NYSC arguing against SNG that AC33 had to held in Feb 2010, OR petitioned the court late in 2009 to delay the Feb 2010 date a month because they weren't ready. The court dismissed the motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The circle of news. Stuff gets made up here, journos pick up on it and write about it, we read about it, it makes its way back here and somehow it gained credibility.

Its like news laundering

 

Just another kiwi attempt to make the opposition look bad.

 

Delay or no delay, gotta love reading this forum and the skewed sense of worth some people seem to apply to it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

You reckon? Once upon a time I penned a few paragraphs here and two hours later my exact words turned up on a well-known sailing blog under another by-line.

 

I then got accused here of plagiarism. Kind of amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a thread on best cup series ever. Great LVC. Close match racing. Eye opening coverage. Universal exposure for the freak show called sailing.

 

Can't believe that the AC was decided on the last downwind leg by someone taking a flyer up on foils chasing a puff and actually catching up to it, then gybing while staying up on the foils, and punching through to leward as they rounded outside the leader at the final mark rounding.

 

OK, maybe not - but it is at least as likely at this point in time as any other conjecture that is going on.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The circle of news. Stuff gets made up here, journos pick up on it and write about it, we read about it, it makes its way back here and somehow it gained credibility.

Its like news laundering

 

 

The first time it was mentioned here was several days ago. The article in the Italian publication was several days older than that.

 

Your argument doesn't wash.

Dunno whether you've got the chronology right. These idea came up here immediately after the capsize, was "shouted down" equally immediately and popped up again every now and then,Hints were posted by more or less knowing posters, until "the thing" manifested as a rumor on other sailing sites, supported by more factual wording ("lawyers blah blah").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say provide links to these sail rag articles or put down the crack pipe.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some FACTS & Links to post

 

But I'm Puttin it off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a delay, who do I sue?

 

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

 

Larry, ACEA?

 

Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a delay, who do I sue?

 

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

 

Larry, ACEA?

 

Who?

Travel Insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a delay, who do I sue?

 

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

 

Larry, ACEA?

 

Who?

Travel Insurance?

 

Is against my religion.

 

I assume (maybe incorrectly) people like LE have their shit together.

 

So, when they announce an event, it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a delay, who do I sue?

 

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

 

Larry, ACEA?

 

Who?

Travel Insurance?

 

Is against my religion.

 

I assume (maybe incorrectly) people like LE have their shit together.

 

So, when they announce an event, it will happen.

 

Might want to ask Venice about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a delay, who do I sue?

 

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

 

Larry, ACEA?

 

Who?

Travel Insurance?

 

Is against my religion.

 

I assume (maybe incorrectly) people like LE have their shit together.

 

So, when they announce an event, it will happen.

Assuming shit is never a good idea, especialy as this is supposition at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone is hoping and praying the AC34 goes off on schedule without a hitch. But we would be fools not to look at the history of the cup. Lets hope it never gets to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

 

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

 

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

 

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

 

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the negligible opportunity is 24.2:

 

"24.2. If.....due to the failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority, GGYC, in consultation with the Event may select....and/or dates for the Regatta. "

 

It would not be difficult for GGYC to declare that SF city did not abide by their agreement, they already have enough meat for that. Also, contrarily to what has already been said from some, the Jury has no hability to decide on that matter.

 

Also interesting: "GGYC shall give Competitors as much notice as reasonably possible both that a change to the venue or dates are being considered and of the new venue and dates."

 

 

However I don't know why Larry would accept to discredit himself in front of competitors, sponsors, and the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

 

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

 

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

 

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

 

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.

 

You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

 

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

 

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

 

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

 

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

 

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.

 

You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

 

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

 

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

 

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

 

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

 

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

 

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.

 

You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

 

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

 

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?

 

If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

 

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

 

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

 

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

 

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.

 

You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

 

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

 

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?

 

If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.

If their entry was denied because it was not submitted within the deadline, nor paid the necessary fees....or because the Defender Selection Series they wanted to compete in did not exist, I don't think it's a flyer. And if not a competitor..... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

 

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

 

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

 

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

 

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.

 

You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

 

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

 

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?

 

If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.

If their entry was denied because it was not submitted within the deadline, nor paid the necessary fees....or because the Defender Selection Series they wanted to compete in did not exist, I don't think it's a flyer. And if not a competitor..... :blink:

 

Well, that would be for the court to decide. So far they have at least not thrown the ADM case out as without grounds. I agree its unlikely, but so are all the possibilities. It is the one possibility that would be most difficult for the TNZ/LR to challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

 

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

 

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

 

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

 

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.

 

You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

 

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

 

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?

 

If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.

 

There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.

If someone doesn't invite you to a private party that doesn't generally mean you can sue them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

 

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

 

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

 

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

 

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.

 

You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

 

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

 

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?

 

If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.

 

There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.

If someone doesn't invite you to a private party that doesn't generally mean you can sue them.

 

Again, That's the court's decision to make. Probably they will agree with you, but perhaps not. As I said, so far they have not seen fit to just throw the case out as completely groundless. Just for instance as a grounds . . . Discrimination (based on color) is illegal in the US. So, is breaching a fiduciary responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dumbest thread ever, even by Enzedel standards.

 

Indio, did you start this silly crap? Why? It's supposed to be another 'everyone else is scared of ETNZ' because we're the best and a 'OR is the devil we have to fight' round-the-troops message?

 

Weird! Lmao. ETNZ better be ready, they won't get this break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dumbest thread ever, even by Enzedel standards.

 

Indio, did you start this silly crap? Why? It's supposed to be another 'everyone else is scared of ETNZ' because we're the best and a 'OR is the devil we have to fight' round-the-troops message?

 

Weird! Lmao. ETNZ better be ready.

 

Right Stingray cause we all know the AC34 will start on September 7th. Please. They are cracks starting to form on multiple levels. I wouldnt be shocked at all if the AC34 was delayed. Where do I start?

  • SF has been welching time after time on promises
  • Only 3 challengers
  • A defender with no boat. Of course they will eventually get one but trust me, the lack of water time for OR will hurt. They can overcome it but its not ideal.
  • Crowds and TV ratings not showing up
  • ACWS venues being cancelled.

I wouldnt call that a robust racing circuit by any stretch.

Shall I continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dumbest thread ever, even by Enzedel standards.

 

Indio, did you start this silly crap?

Whacha talking 'bout, Willis!!? Not me, hopefully everyone will move over to Hutch's obituary thread for a more topical thread. I feel for Hutch - he strikes me as a bit like Kostecki: puts the head down and does the job to the best of his ability. I've always had a lot of time for Hutch since his ETNZ days. Good luck to him wherever he ends up. Maybe he didn't quite fit into the Cayard school of team management..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indio, if you were not the one to press this silly rumor first, then to keep going on and on and on about it, then I must be mistaken and have to apologize.

 

Somehow the silly notion reached FV (Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you? jumping on Indio's bs?) and the ZG's normal parroting of FV and vise versa, and k_j pointing to both as supposedly 'reliable European sources' and to point (very bizarrely, as if in an attempt to provide more 'credence') that OR had asked for a one month delay, after OR had spent so much time trying so desperately to get EB onto the facking water, and only after the court finally forced EB to the water, and EB suggested Australia, and OR agreed, but only if they got a month to set the damn base up there if they had to, all by k_j to try bolster that stupid shit? Why?

 

Why are some squint-eyed people pushing this complete, utter bullshit? What's the point? Some parochial psycho-war tar-feathering attempt?

 

I seriously doubt that OR or anyone else gives one shit about it, whatever the obviously Indio, or else otherwise NZ based, dumbassed source of it is.

 

The ultimate Challenger and the Defender better be there on Sept 4 w their best boat. There is no other way to have a shot at the Cup. GGY ~will~ hold everyone to it, the point/to/able evidence, unlike the smelly's, on the real facts are abundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indio, if you were not the one to press this silly rumor first, then to keep going on and on and on about it, then I must be mistaken and have to apologize.

 

Somehow the silly notion reached FV (Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you? jumping on Indio's bs?) and the ZG's normal parroting of FV and vise versa, and k_j pointing to both as supposedly 'reliable European sources' and to point (very bizarrely, as if in an attempt to provide more 'credence') that OR had asked for a one month delay, after OR had spent so much time trying so desperately to get EB onto the facking water, and only after the court finally forced EB to the water, and EB suggested Australia, and OR agreed, but only if they got a month to set the damn base up there if they had to, all by k_j to try bolster that stupid shit? Why?

 

Why are some squint-eyed people pushing this complete, utter bullshit? What's the point? Some parochial psycho-war tar-feathering attempt?

 

I seriously doubt that OR or anyone else gives one shit about it, whatever the obviously Indio, or else otherwise NZ based, dumbassed source of it is.

 

The ultimate Challenger and the Defender better be there on Sept 4 w their best boat. There is no other way to have a shot at the Cup. GGY ~will~ hold everyone to it, the point/to/able evidence, unlike the smelly's, on the real facts are abundant.

 

could youse pleese pash the pinot....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indio, if you were not the one to press this silly rumor first, then to keep going on and on and on about it, then I must be mistaken and have to apologize.

 

Somehow the silly notion reached FV (Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you? jumping on Indio's bs?) and the ZG's normal parroting of FV and vise versa, and k_j pointing to both as supposedly 'reliable European sources' and to point (very bizarrely, as if in an attempt to provide more 'credence') that OR had asked for a one month delay, after OR had spent so much time trying so desperately to get EB onto the facking water, and only after the court finally forced EB to the water, and EB suggested Australia, and OR agreed, but only if they got a month to set the damn base up there if they had to, all by k_j to try bolster that stupid shit? Why?

 

Why are some squint-eyed people pushing this complete, utter bullshit? What's the point? Some parochial psycho-war tar-feathering attempt?

 

I seriously doubt that OR or anyone else gives one shit about it, whatever the obviously Indio, or else otherwise NZ based, dumbassed source of it is.

 

The ultimate Challenger and the Defender better be there on Sept 4 w their best boat. There is no other way to have a shot at the Cup. GGY ~will~ hold everyone to it, the point/to/able evidence, unlike the smelly's, on the real facts are abundant.

 

could youse pleese pash the pinot....

He never sccchhares....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both parties asked for a delay independently (!) during AC33. The judge told them "go and talk to each other and agree it". But this was apparently too much and could have resulted in a form of MC, and so there was no talk and no delay. Little, funny story that was never really published.

 

As for discussing the current delay speculations here: Why stop? It wouldn't be the first rumor that's filling a thread hereabouts. Just imagine what would have happened if was about EB/Alinghi. This thread would have already 212 pages and the rumor would be treated as fact by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.

 

Not true. Teams that have paid entry fees have a contract with ACEA. Breach of the protocol would be breach of contract and remedy could be sought in the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.

 

Not true. Teams that have paid entry fees have a contract with ACEA. Breach of the protocol would be breach of contract and remedy could be sought in the courts.

 

Really? Even when the terms of the contract specify that that remedy is not available to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

well that's where it becomes interesting isn't it

 

an illegal contract can easily be challenged

 

pre-nups in many countries can be torn up by the courts if they have no standing in law

 

certainly the judges of the NY courts don't want to have to spend time on this crap

 

which is why "rights" to challenge decisions of the IJ seem to have been signed away by entering

 

but if the injustice is egregious enough

 

it could be challenged

 

and we'd be right back to legal challenges as per the DOG

 

which is why, in all probability

 

the dates are cast in stone

 

ps it bugs me that korea are still officially challengers

 

or at least no official news release seems to have counteracted the news releases that said they were in

 

if they can't - won't tidy that up

 

it seems to devalue the official communication channels

 

and so we, and everyone else, is forced back to sites like SA

 

to work out what the fuck is going on

 

with all the risk that that entails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you?

 

Moi? I only deal in serious, technical stuff ... Although in this case, I saw the preposterous item on FV and ZG and couldn't resist the temptation of relaying it here, knowing full well what would happen ..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.

 

Not true. Teams that have paid entry fees have a contract with ACEA. Breach of the protocol would be breach of contract and remedy could be sought in the courts.

 

Really? Even when the terms of the contract specify that that remedy is not available to you?

 

Well if we wanted to follow a fairly absurd hypothetical chain of events, suppose that:

 

ETNZ has paid the entry fees of protocol clause 9.

 

ACEA then says, sod off we don't like you.

 

ETNZ refers to the Jury which would certainly uphold ETNZ's entry.

 

ACEA says, sod off Jury.

 

Then a court would certainly not see 15.14 as an obstacle to upholding the contract that exists between ETNZ and ACEA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waste a bit more time on this.

 

Your hypothetical : ACEA are in breach of the protocol, ETNZ protests them to the Jury (not the courts). That's correct and is exactly what I stated.

 

ACEA refuse to abide by the Juries decision - they now have a problem with their own Jury, not ETNZ.

 

What measures would the Jury would take in such a ridiculous situation - hmmm, daily fine until compliance might get their attention?? Who cares, ain't gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you?

 

Moi? I only deal in serious, technical stuff ... Although in this case, I saw the preposterous item on FV and ZG and couldn't resist the temptation of relaying it here, knowing full well what would happen ..

Lol, cool.

But it does make their posts the more curious, if they weren't sourced from the speculation being promoted here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waste a bit more time on this.

 

Your hypothetical : ACEA are in breach of the protocol, ETNZ protests them to the Jury (not the courts). That's correct and is exactly what I stated.

 

ACEA refuse to abide by the Juries decision - they now have a problem with their own Jury, not ETNZ.

 

What measures would the Jury would take in such a ridiculous situation - hmmm, daily fine until compliance might get their attention?? Who cares, ain't gonna happen.

The Jury and/or ETNZ would then apply to the NYSC to enforce the Jury decision under the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you?

 

Moi? I only deal in serious, technical stuff ... Although in this case, I saw the preposterous item on FV and ZG and couldn't resist the temptation of relaying it here, knowing full well what would happen ..

Lol, cool.

But it does make their posts the more curious, if they weren't sourced from the speculation being promoted here.

 

Well duh.

 

Italian publications

Mentioned in articles about Luna Rossa

 

Do the maths. It's not hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That both sites cite, as a reason for LR's appeal over Venice, supposed bad intentions by the Defender to intentionally disrupt Chall preparations (by holding two events in NY, instead of just one, in Venice) does suggest they're getting some of the story from an LR source; but the delay speculation - maybe especially if it is LR sourced - still strikes me as overly dramatic. There is no, as in zero, evidence that lawyers are 'secretly' working on it. There is also no plausible reason for why anyone would want them to.

 

Other thread but I wonder if ETNZ and AR will argue for or against LR's push to reinstate Venice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That both sites cite, as a reason for LR's appeal over Venice, supposed bad intentions by the Defender to intentionally disrupt Chall preparations (by holding two events in NY, instead of just one, in Venice) does suggest they're getting some of the story from an LR source; but the delay speculation - maybe especially if it is LR sourced - still strikes me as overly dramatic. There is no, as in zero, evidence that lawyers are 'secretly' working on it. There is also no plausible reason for why anyone would want them to.

It's not a secret any longer is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that SF doesn't perform and the

cup moves to Newport. Who benefits from a lighter-air venue, fully-foiling or foil-assisted boats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the delay becomes fact, what amount of momentum they have gained will be lost, and many of the faithfull will be disillusioned also.

 

It's a fart bomb in the car that no one will want to see happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that SF doesn't perform and the

cup moves to Newport. Who benefits from a lighter-air venue, fully-foiling or foil-assisted boats?

That would be a big meal ticket for the lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a delay, who do I sue?

 

 

ACEA, Oracle Racing, GGYC, the state of California, the NYSC, the US, Sweeden, and everybody else.

 

Simply contact your pal MSP, I'm sure he'll file suit tomorrow, just ask him :lol:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites