Archived

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

PeterHuston

Is the 62 really going to end up as a 45?

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

I just did a quick search of the news and shockingly I cannot find a single Bermuda newspaper that has written anything about the proposed change. There are a few reprintings of the press release, but that's it.

 

This is a huge red flag, and it means that Bermuda had no fucking idea this was coming. It also means they are not happy about it, because they have been very quick to get every good announcement straight to their media mouthpieces.

That, or they don't actually care so long as the boats are fast foilers, with the America's Cup on the line.

They sent out a 3 page press release to announce that they had chosen a PR team. Three pages. This was two days ago.

 

They care about EVERYTHING associated with the cup; more than a few political careers will be destroyed if this AC is as big a fuckup as we expect.

Wonder if the size of boat was specified in the hosting contract???
Who cares? Even if it did change the venue terms, well then: so what?

 

I read a few dozen comments on a Bermuda News site and not one of them was disappointed at the possibility of the boats getting smaller, not a single one. Surprised me, it was mostly about "they'd fit better on Great Sound."

 

 

I would have to think Bermuda would much prefer more teams, more TV sets from different nations, to be tuned in to their little tourist destination than being worried about how a smaller boat would be a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I read a few dozen comments on a Bermuda News site and not one of them was disappointed at the possibility of the boats getting smaller, not a single one. Surprised me, it was mostly about "they'd fit better on Great Sound."

 

 

There are some great ones there.

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 5.30.41 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully some reasonable middle ground will be reached, I want to see a solid LR in this and suspect that TT and LE are plenty game for a big-money contest between Billionaires too if it still comes down to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would have to think Bermuda would much prefer more teams, more TV sets from different nations, to be tuned in to their little tourist destination than being worried about how a smaller boat would be a negative.

 

 

Italian audience have long been a huge consumer of AC on TV and were forecast by AC staff to be the top nation for TV audience through 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, from S-W:

 

In a further legal complication the mooted change may also fail on other grounds in the Protocol, which required the Defender to publish the AC62 Class Rule prior to the opening of the Entry Period, and having published this Rule, and met this deadline, it would require regatta organisers to re-write history to give effect to the proposed change in boat.

 

Porthos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I would have to think Bermuda would much prefer more teams, more TV sets from different nations, to be tuned in to their little tourist destination than being worried about how a smaller boat would be a negative.

 

 

 

 

Italian audience have long been a huge consumer of AC on TV and were forecast by AC staff to be the top nation for TV audience through 2017.
So what?

 

The entire basis of the recent We assery on the FP was premised on the supposed fuckery that Bermuda was taking in the ass (why? with no evidence whatsoever to support that premise) it's clear that you (oops, We, but almost nobody here in the AC forum threads) have some psychotic agenda to attack any AC development proposal, ever. Wtf is the point, is it that you know better?? Lmfao, Clean. You're an idiot: you've got nothing constructive to add, just a long list of completely f'd up sailing relationships in your history. Lots of influential AC players already gave up on you, which makes you totally irrelevant to us here too.

 

Go play on some other forum and spare us your We ass-hattedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, from S-W:

 

In a further legal complication the mooted change may also fail on other grounds in the Protocol, which required the Defender to publish the AC62 Class Rule prior to the opening of the Entry Period, and having published this Rule, and met this deadline, it would require regatta organisers to re-write history to give effect to the proposed change in boat.

Porthos?

 

 

Blanket answer: S-W is always wrong about legal unless they are copying SA or paraphrasing something Richard learned here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S-W is sometimes wrong but in general outshine the SA FP. I subscribe to their newsletter, it's mostly full of very good sailing material. On AC topics the SA FP is completely useless, agenda-based crap and so never worth any attention because of the dumbass We authoring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure do read it quickly though. Bernie Wilson called an hour ago while I was at the gym and thanked me for clarifying things for him, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go play on some other forum and spare us your We ass-hattedness.

 

 

How about if you go play on some other forum like you've threatened over and over and over again? Does it bother you that you don't have the manhood to follow through and leave this place? You know they have programs that can help...on other forums

 

Can't help with your manhood, but maybe your addiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, Bernie is into the toxic 'hang RC' brigade too. Not sure how that benefits anybody since Doc S likely has LE's ear moreso than RC does, and since nothing you write will ever change LE's general direction.

 

For sure nobody is concerned about your input. And yet you keep evangelizing as if you're somehow a player - do you wear a special Fool outfit when doing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't answered the question about when you'll fuck off and leave yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Blanket answer: S-W is always wrong about legal unless they are copying SA or paraphrasing something Richard learned here.

What about the-other-site-that-shall-not-be-named then? It does have some interesting tidbits, like

 

The idea of changing the boat size has been floated for some time.

 

Part the way through the venue process in 2014, we discussed with the teams downscaling the size of the boats to give us more room to maneuver with some of the venues under consideration, said Americas Cup defense CEO Russell Coutts in December. It was quite an intense and robust discussion, with consideration also toward moving these boats around the world, the future of these boats, the costs, and so forth, how many crew they should have. But the teams didnt vote for downsizing, for various good reasons actually.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha...the 72's were 'too big and expensive', and now the 45s are 'too small'.

I guess the 62's - which generated a similar level of hubris and hand-wringing when they were introduced from the same people that hated on the 72s and are now hating on the 45s - were (in hindsight) 'just right', like baby bear's porridge.

Gosh, it really IS a 'matter of perspective'!

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't answered the question about when you'll fuck off and leave yet.

Direct that to Clean, he doesn't follow the subject as closely as most of us here, but always spouts complete bullshit despite that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, Bernie is into the toxic 'hang RC' brigade too. Not sure how that benefits anybody since Doc S likely has LE's ear moreso than RC does, and since nothing you write will ever change LE's general direction.

 

For sure nobody is concerned about your input. And yet you keep evangelizing as if you're somehow a player - do you wear a special Fool outfit when doing it?

 

So the most respected AC journalist in America joins most of the rest of the world in pillorying Coutts for his complete and utter failures, and you blame Bernie now? Holy fucking shit you are absolutely delusional!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You haven't answered the question about when you'll fuck off and leave yet.

Direct that to Clean, he doesn't follow the subject as closely as most of us here, but always spouts complete bullshit despite that.

Feel like answering the question yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Blanket answer: S-W is always wrong about legal unless they are copying SA or paraphrasing something Richard learned here.

What about the-other-site-that-shall-not-be-named then? It does have some interesting tidbits, like

 

The idea of changing the boat size has been floated for some time.

 

Part the way through the venue process in 2014, we discussed with the teams downscaling the size of the boats to give us more room to maneuver with some of the venues under consideration, said Americas Cup defense CEO Russell Coutts in December. It was quite an intense and robust discussion, with consideration also toward moving these boats around the world, the future of these boats, the costs, and so forth, how many crew they should have. But the teams didnt vote for downsizing, for various good reasons actually.

 

 

There was no vote. The other site is getting that shit from Russell, who has been using Scuttlefuck as a bullhorn since last year's dressing-down.

That's funny - we were the biggest cheerleader of all for the 72. Over and over, we cheered it. Where were you?

 

 

Hahaha...the 72's were 'too big and expensive', and now the 45s are 'too small'.

 

I guess the 62's - which generated a similar level of hubris and hand-wringing when they were introduced from the same people that hated on the 72s and are now hating on the 45s - were (in hindsight) 'just right', like baby bear's porridge.

 

Gosh, it really IS a 'matter of perspective'!

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Blanket answer: S-W is always wrong about legal unless they are copying SA or paraphrasing something Richard learned here.

What about the-other-site-that-shall-not-be-named then? It does have some interesting tidbits, like

 

The idea of changing the boat size has been floated for some time.

 

Part the way through the venue process in 2014, we discussed with the teams downscaling the size of the boats to give us more room to maneuver with some of the venues under consideration, said Americas Cup defense CEO Russell Coutts in December. It was quite an intense and robust discussion, with consideration also toward moving these boats around the world, the future of these boats, the costs, and so forth, how many crew they should have. But the teams didnt vote for downsizing, for various good reasons actually.

 

 

There was no vote. The other site is getting that shit from Russell, who has been using Scuttlefuck as a bullhorn since last year's dressing-down.

That's funny - we were the biggest cheerleader of all for the 72. Over and over, we cheered it. Where were you?

 

 

Hahaha...the 72's were 'too big and expensive', and now the 45s are 'too small'.

 

I guess the 62's - which generated a similar level of hubris and hand-wringing when they were introduced from the same people that hated on the 72s and are now hating on the 45s - were (in hindsight) 'just right', like baby bear's porridge.

 

Gosh, it really IS a 'matter of perspective'!

 

LOL

 

I flew over to SF to cheer 'em on. Meanwhile, you guys never even showed up, and the FP coverage ranged from negative to straight up character assassination of Cayard. So forgive me if I find your sudden 'concern for the good of the cup' more than a little disingenuous.

 

We were out sailing an F31 in the bay before the first race, and OR buzzed us at what looked like full boogie - fucking awesome, sounded like a jet taking off.

But that doesn't mean that 45' cats with 80' wings going in excess of 50 kts won't ALSO be awesome, esp within the confines of Bermuda's pond. While not as viscerally impressive as the 72s at first glance, I bet the racing - which will now include a fully funded BA racing and one hopes a french team as well - will more than make up for it. Especially on tv.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yep, Bernie is into the toxic 'hang RC' brigade too. Not sure how that benefits anybody since Doc S likely has LE's ear moreso than RC does, and since nothing you write will ever change LE's general direction.

 

For sure nobody is concerned about your input. And yet you keep evangelizing as if you're somehow a player - do you wear a special Fool outfit when doing it?

So the most respected AC journalist in America joins most of the rest of the world in pillorying Coutts for his complete and utter failures, and you blame Bernie now? Holy fucking shit you are absolutely delusional!!!

This is where you are delusional: "joins most of the rest of the world in pillorying Coutts for his complete and utter failure."

 

Most of the AC teams seem to want, or are at least willing to go with, a move to a smaller boat.

 

We all know that TE is one of Bernie's sources, and it shows glaringly sometimes. Bernie's articles often reflect sometimes-TE based takes on things. You have accused me of taking 'toxic' opinions from TE, you even fucking threatened to ban me for doing so, when I was actually respectful but completely indifferent to TE's current positions, and yet here you (oops, We) are, trying to create some 'complete and utter failure' pin-it-on-the-ass sign?

 

Again, if you were some freaking sailing/marketing genius then maybe you'd be doing something important. Instead, you just meander about, pretending that you are in some bizarre alternate universe that only a meth-head would conjure up, a distant one where your opinion actually mattered.

 

If you want to see Delusional then look into the nearest mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, from S-W:

 

In a further legal complication the mooted change may also fail on other grounds in the Protocol, which required the Defender to publish the AC62 Class Rule prior to the opening of the Entry Period, and having published this Rule, and met this deadline, it would require regatta organisers to re-write history to give effect to the proposed change in boat.

Porthos?

 

Not sure what whoever wrote that meant by it. Yes, the Protocol required the AC62 Class Rule to be published prior to the start of the Entry Period and that happened. But the teams can agree to amend the Protocol to say whatever they want. Which, in effect, is re-writing history. The only document that takes precedence over the Protocol is the Deed; the class rules and racing rules are all subordinate to the Protocol (per. Paras. 19.1, 19.2). To the extent the teams amend the Protocol, anything inconsistent with that amendment in the class rules or elsewhere doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Blanket answer: S-W is always wrong about legal unless they are copying SA or paraphrasing something Richard learned here.

What about the-other-site-that-shall-not-be-named then? It does have some interesting tidbits, like

 

 

The idea of changing the boat size has been floated for some time.

 

Part the way through the venue process in 2014, we discussed with the teams downscaling the size of the boats to give us more room to maneuver with some of the venues under consideration, said Americas Cup defense CEO Russell Coutts in December. It was quite an intense and robust discussion, with consideration also toward moving these boats around the world, the future of these boats, the costs, and so forth, how many crew they should have. But the teams didnt vote for downsizing, for various good reasons actually.

 

There was no vote. The other site is getting that shit from Russell, who has been using Scuttlefuck as a bullhorn since last year's dressing-down.

 

That's funny - we were the biggest cheerleader of all for the 72. Over and over, we cheered it. Where were you?

 

 

 

Hahaha...the 72's were 'too big and expensive', and now the 45s are 'too small'.

 

I guess the 62's - which generated a similar level of hubris and hand-wringing when they were introduced from the same people that hated on the 72s and are now hating on the 45s - were (in hindsight) 'just right', like baby bear's porridge.

 

Gosh, it really IS a 'matter of perspective'!

 

LOL

I flew over to SF to cheer 'em on. Meanwhile, you guys never even showed up, and the FP coverage ranged from negative to straight up character assassination of Cayard. So forgive me if I find your sudden 'concern for the good of the cup' more than a little disingenuous.

 

We were out sailing an F31 in the bay before the first race, and OR buzzed us at what looked like full boogie - fucking awesome, sounded like a jet taking off.

But that doesn't mean that 45' cats with 80' wings going in excess of 50 kts won't ALSO be awesome, esp within the confines of Bermuda's pond. While not as viscerally impressive as the 72s at first glance, I bet the racing - which will now include a fully funded BA racing and one hopes a french team as well - will more than make up for it. Especially on tv.

I think the Ed got thrown out of the St. Fancy - or something like that. Hence San Francisco ranks right up there with Fresno as a place to be.

 

Much to their personal detriment of course - you know as well as I what an unforgettable spectacle AC34 was.

 

I've been thrown out of the St. Francis myself - but I don't hold it against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all J. Navas's fault. He provided the video that shows a version of the AC45's would be a reasonable choice.

Darn that J Navas and his amazing videos!!!!

 

LOL

 

I bet the sailors are starting to really dig the hot-rodded 45s, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One advantage of racing in AC45's is they'll spend shitloads of money on small boats. People should do this more often so us normal small-boat sailors can learn something from it. 45' foiling daysailer? Wazp 45? hell yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the fuck is this bullshit? I'm out of the loop for 5 months and come back to the AC boats being reduced to 45 feet??

 

What a pussified event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From NZ:

 

"The Italians are threatening to pull out of the next America's Cup if the unexpected plans to make the foiling catamarans smaller are given the green light.

Luna Rossa released a strongly-worded statement on Friday, a day after America's Cup bosses indicated they wanted to reduce the 62-foot foiling catamarans to 45-foot versions in a cost-cutting measure."

The Kiwis upped the ante later in the day. While they gave no indication they were ready to pull out of the problem-plagued regatta, they made their feelings clear, saying: "Emirates Team New Zealand agrees with Luna Rossa Challenge. It would be unfair to change the rules at this stage unless all America's Cup teams agree to do so."

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/67522941/team-nz-back-luna-rossas-opposition-to-using-smaller-boats-in-americas-cup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One advantage of racing in AC45's is they'll spend shitloads of money on small boats. People should do this more often so us normal small-boat sailors can learn something from it. 45' foiling daysailer? Wazp 45? hell yes!

 

 

 

The question would be based on what protocol? With all of the lost time, how many and what type of restrictions will be imposed? One things for sure, the smaller (safer?) boats should hopefully allow for a more radical level of experimentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same article:" The complex cup protocol needs the unanimous agreement of the teams to make changes at this late stage."

 

I don't know where they read that.

 

I can understant both teams are willing to protect the developments they already made but I cannot understand why LR would bail out if they go smaller. It defies common sense if they really want to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same article:" The complex cup protocol needs the unanimous agreement of the teams to make changes at this late stage."

 

I don't know where they read that.

 

I can understant both teams are willing to protect the developments they already made but I cannot understand why LR would bail out if they go smaller. It defies common sense if they really want to win.

Could be they're just fucked off with RC's continuous dicking around with the protocols and rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK i'm tired of all this shit. IMO AC 72 was the best cup ever. Complaining about costs and venues, downsize ok., then go and sail the cup with moths and stop the crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure RG's article on the other site has been updated from what I initially read this morning, either that or I was still half asleep before my coffee hit . Found this part particularly interesting now.

 

"Contrary to other media comment the Protocol Amendment is for a new class of boat - in the 47 to 54ft range, and not a foiling AC45 as has been suggested.

The initiative for the change is believed to have come from Larry Ellison as part of a move to make the America's Cup more sustainable and for the class to be adopted by the teams for future America's Cups and avoid the boat changing that has marked the more recent editions.

Initially both Oracle Team USA and Emirates Team New Zealand backed a move to a smaller boat (AC54) after the AC62 had been announced, and the discussion has been ongoing at the last two or three Competitor Meetings for the 35th America's Cup.


The new AC5X rule is being drafted by the same group that produced the AC62 rule and is expected to be just a scaling of that rule."

 

http://www.sail-world.com/America_s_Cup__Luna_Rossa_threatens_withdrawal_over_boat_change/132805

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One good result - someone else now can and WILL win the Auld Mug from the sorry crew currently 'acting as' trustees.

 

And the next cycle may well revert to some version of the dignity that this trophy deserves.

 

Perhaps LE was just getting tired of it, and wanted to open the door for someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11424260

 

Basically, if this change goes ahead, LR and ETNZ will tell Larry and Russell to fuck off and will leave the competition.

 

RC has told the challengers that if the boat change gets the green light, they will scrap Auckland.

 

Fuck this, fuck Russell, fuck Larry.. Basically!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moths, fuck no!

 

We already know how that story would end.

Good post floater - got a good laugh out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11424260

 

Basically, if this change goes ahead, LR and ETNZ will tell Larry and Russell to fuck off and will leave the competition.

 

RC has told the challengers that if the boat change gets the green light, they will scrap Auckland.

 

Fuck this, fuck Russell, fuck Larry.. Basically!

Was probable that most teams would boycott Auckland anyway, so no real change here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11424260

 

Basically, if this change goes ahead, LR and ETNZ will tell Larry and Russell to fuck off and will leave the competition.

 

RC has told the challengers that if the boat change gets the green light, they will scrap Auckland.

 

Fuck this, fuck Russell, fuck Larry.. Basically!

Was probable that most teams would boycott Auckland anyway, so no real change here.

 

 

What a bunch of old-world whiners, the Europeans are. At least when we go down the plug hole in this part of the world, we'll spin the right way. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any issue with a switch to an AC5x at this early stage.

 

Not convinced Cammas can get funding for that any more than he can get funding for an AC62 but it obvious increases the chances. For BAR, it would certainly help reduce the £££ yet to raise.

 

I'm curious how ready LR seems to throw in the towel and whether there's more to this than we yet know.

 

Qualifiers in Auckland is a fundamentally stupid idea. Apparently other teams should go to huge inconvenience and expense to make it easier for a competitor who is in any case in meltdown to raise money from the Kiwi taxpayer, large numbers of whom evidently don't want to pay anyway. If that idiocy is being scrapped, good. If that takes TNZ out of the running, well, if ever a team needed a fresh start with new ideas and new management, it's TNZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any issue with a switch to an AC5x at this early stage.

 

Not convinced Cammas can get funding for that any more than he can get funding for an AC62 but it obvious increases the chances. For BAR, it would certainly help reduce the £££ yet to raise.

 

I'm curious how ready LR seems to throw in the towel and whether there's more to this than we yet know.

 

Qualifiers in Auckland is a fundamentally stupid idea. Apparently other teams should go to huge inconvenience and expense to make it easier for a competitor who is in any case in meltdown to raise money from the Kiwi taxpayer, large numbers of whom evidently don't want to pay anyway. If that idiocy is being scrapped, good. If that takes TNZ out of the running, well, if ever a team needed a fresh start with new ideas and new management, it's TNZ.

kiwi Jon sends his love to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We must think about the future of long-term Cup"

 

Somebody should probably tell Harvey how a challenge cup works.

Ha, ha. I think it's LE who should get that piece of 'news'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any issue with a switch to an AC5x at this early stage.

 

Not convinced Cammas can get funding for that any more than he can get funding for an AC62 but it obvious increases the chances. For BAR, it would certainly help reduce the £££ yet to raise.

 

I'm curious how ready LR seems to throw in the towel and whether there's more to this than we yet know.

 

Qualifiers in Auckland is a fundamentally stupid idea. Apparently other teams should go to huge inconvenience and expense to make it easier for a competitor who is in any case in meltdown to raise money from the Kiwi taxpayer, large numbers of whom evidently don't want to pay anyway. If that idiocy is being scrapped, good. If that takes TNZ out of the running, well, if ever a team needed a fresh start with new ideas and new management, it's TNZ.

Mmmm - tend to agree with you, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

had it been clear from the start I would have appriciated an flying AC45 cat alot!

even though they are similar in size with the foils and the wing sail they cannot be compared to the Extreme 40 - completely different thing.

I do understand that some people get upset about this, because the AC must be the biggest and best shit out there. and in an ideal world it should be!

The 35th AC in San Francisco was epic. It was the best TV (online streaming) sailing I ever saw. By far. It was more than epic. The AC72 where epic, the venue was epic, the race progression was epic. Only the wrong boat won.

what was also great about the 35th AC where the pre-races. They were absolutely amazing. I personally think the match racing can get rather boring. There is nothing like ten cat hurringy to the next mark in a bunch in over 20kn of boat speed. The fleet races where epic. I also liked the fact that "enlarged" the cup. It started more than a year before the cup itself. For me as a follower, it was so great to watch. The races in Naples where amazing, the the ones in england (where was it? Weymouth? Darthmouth?) where just as great.

Thats why - in principle - think a foiling AC45 and 10+ competitors would be a good thing.

the timing is of course very lousy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qualifiers in Auckland is a fundamentally stupid idea. Apparently other teams should go to huge inconvenience and expense to make it easier for a competitor who is in any case in meltdown to raise money from the Kiwi taxpayer, large numbers of whom evidently don't want to pay anyway. If that idiocy is being scrapped, good. If that takes TNZ out of the running, well, if ever a team needed a fresh start with new ideas and new management, it's TNZ.

 

The qualifying series was a stupid idea wherever it was held. They didn't have enough entries to justify running a qualifying series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 35th AC in San Francisco was epic. It was the best TV (online streaming) sailing I ever saw. By far. It was more than epic.

 

 

 

Dont know about 35.

 

34th AC was crap, shit and just bull shit. What you say is not correct. It was not on TV and it was not possible to steam. Our friend mister big mouth RC and his dad with the big wallet LE decided that as it was no teams from most of the European country's it should not be possible to watch the AC on TV or stream it from Europe. Thats no fucking good is it but I guess that it was RC and LEs plan to erode the wallets of the others teams to make it more difficult to get sponsors for the next AC in the same way as the selection of Bermuda makes it more difficult to get sponsors. No sponsors means no teams means no good challengers means that RC and LE can keep the cup that they do not deserve a bit longer. Anyway RC and RC are not interested in sailing. They just want to win with there lawyers as they clearly have been showing since 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky you. It did not steam to France or Switzerland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 35th AC in San Francisco was epic. It was the best TV (online streaming) sailing I ever saw. By far. It was more than epic.

35th AC was crap, shit and just bull shit. What you say is not correct. It was not on TV and it was not possible to steam. Our friend mister big mouth RC and his dad with the big wallet LE decided that as it was no teams from most of the European country's it should not be possible to watch the AC on TV or stream it from Europe. Thats no fucking good is it but I guess that it was RC and LEs plan to erode the wallets of the others teams to make it more difficult to get sponsors for the next AC in the same way as the selection of Bermuda makes it more difficult to get sponsors. No sponsors means no teams means no good challengers means that RC and LE can keep the cup that they do not deserve a bit longer. Anyway RC and RC are not interested in sailing. They just want to win with there lawyers as they clearly have been showing since 2007.

 

since AC35 hasn't taken place yet, I'll assume you're a total visionary, at least in your own mind :)

 

AC34 was pretty fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC34 was a great watch, but the challenger series has to have been the worst in history - by a huge margin. Everyone seems to forget that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky you. It did not steam to France or Switzerland

 

Talk to Canal+ then - IIRC they had the broadcast rights for those countries.

 

Belgium was fine for streaming.

 

Just another illustration of the argument I've been making regularly for a long time: selling exclusive broadcast & TV rights for non-sailing centered regions actually reduces the number of viewers you are able to reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky you. It did not steam to France or Switzerland

 

WHAT? I streamed it from my couch in switzerland! no tricks involved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC34 was a great watch, but the challenger series has to have been the worst in history - by a huge margin. Everyone seems to forget that.

 

yes that is true. it was absolute crap. I thought the whole event would turn out as a big desaster. It was really bad. That it turned out that well in the finals is quite a miracle. Maybe somebody payed for it all to work out like it did ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The 35th AC in San Francisco was epic. It was the best TV (online streaming) sailing I ever saw. By far. It was more than epic.

35th AC was crap, shit and just bull shit. What you say is not correct. It was not on TV and it was not possible to steam. Our friend mister big mouth RC and his dad with the big wallet LE decided that as it was no teams from most of the European country's it should not be possible to watch the AC on TV or stream it from Europe. Thats no fucking good is it but I guess that it was RC and LEs plan to erode the wallets of the others teams to make it more difficult to get sponsors for the next AC in the same way as the selection of Bermuda makes it more difficult to get sponsors. No sponsors means no teams means no good challengers means that RC and LE can keep the cup that they do not deserve a bit longer. Anyway RC and RC are not interested in sailing. They just want to win with there lawyers as they clearly have been showing since 2007.

 

since AC35 hasn't taken place yet, I'll assume you're a total visionary, at least in your own mind :)

 

AC34 was pretty fantastic.

 

 

no the visionary i'd like to be ...

sorry, it is AC34 i was talking about.

btw, i think it is really confusing to name the boats and the events ACXX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will become confusing if they decide to use 35 footers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will become confusing if they decide to use 35 footers.

when so much money is involved everything becomes confusing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this for confusing:

 

Now we hear that the downsizing would not necessarily be to the AC45's but to something inbetween, the 'AC5x'

 

The only way to achieve that is to amend the protocol to read that the match is to be sailed in boats conforming to the AC5x class rules

 

And they want the teams to vote up or down on this by the end of the month, ie in 5 days time or less?

 

Surely no one is going to vote without knowing the full details of the new boat...

 

So are they going to draft the AC5x class rules over the weekend???? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It will become confusing if they decide to use 35 footers.

when so much money is involved everything becomes confusing

 

 

 

Lord. Was a joke. 35 footer = AC35,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

N.B. I am not claiming that ditching the AC62 now is a wise move and am just pointing out what the rules allow that all the competitors agreed to, including ETNZ.

 

Edit: I think I misspoke here. At the time the amendment creating the CC was drafted, I think that amendment only required the approval of LR, which was the CoR at the time (i.e., the Protocol at that time required the approval of the CoR and GGYC for any amendment). So ETNZ did not necessarily have to agree to the majority rule found in the CC presently, but LR did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find staggering in all of this is that Schiller and Russell can't even get their own stories straight about the size of the new boat. If that doesn't display organization weakness, I don't know what would.

 

Who on earth would trust anything either of them would say right now? What sponsor can take them seriously (not that there was a lot of credibility to beginwith)?

 

Schiller admits he pulled the Auckland event because of something ETNZ posted on FB about supporting Luna Rossa. Seriously? And he admitted that? Did he unfriend them too? Remember Schiller is a Retired Brigadier General in the US Air Force. I've had the good fortune to know a few other senior military officers and this sort of emotional reaction and admission of such is stunning from someone with that sort of training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just meet in the middle with a 53.5 ft catamaran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

N.B. I am not claiming that ditching the AC62 now is a wise move and am just pointing out what the rules allow that all the competitors agreed to, including ETNZ.

 

Thank you for the clarification. So, if you are correct RC can down size the boat without the approval of LR and ET.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I flew over to SF to cheer 'em on. Meanwhile, you guys never even showed up, and the FP coverage ranged from negative to straight up character assassination of Cayard. So forgive me if I find your sudden 'concern for the good of the cup' more than a little disingenuous.

 

We were out sailing an F31 in the bay before the first race, and OR buzzed us at what looked like full boogie - fucking awesome, sounded like a jet taking off.

But that doesn't mean that 45' cats with 80' wings going in excess of 50 kts won't ALSO be awesome, esp within the confines of Bermuda's pond. While not as viscerally impressive as the 72s at first glance, I bet the racing - which will now include a fully funded BA racing and one hopes a french team as well - will more than make up for it. Especially on tv.

 

Interesting that you are more concerned about supposed character assignation that the actual death that took place, being polite here, 'on Cayard's watch'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

N.B. I am not claiming that ditching the AC62 now is a wise move and am just pointing out what the rules allow that all the competitors agreed to, including ETNZ.

Thank you for the clarification. So, if you are correct RC can down size the boat without the approval of LR and ET.
'A majority of teams' (not 'RC') can vote to do that, is my understanding.

 

And btw, we are assuming OT would go with it, but don't actually know it for certain. ~If~ LE is who is proposing this, then it'd be certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

N.B. I am not claiming that ditching the AC62 now is a wise move and am just pointing out what the rules allow that all the competitors agreed to, including ETNZ.

Thank you for the clarification. So, if you are correct RC can down size the boat without the approval of LR and ET.
'A majority of teams' (not 'RC') can vote to do that, is my understanding.

 

And btw, we are assuming OT would go with it, but don't actually know it for certain. ~If~ LE is who is proposing this, then it'd be certain.

 

To amend the Protocol (as currently written), you need the approval of: (1) a majority of challengers; and (2) GGYC. Assuming Artemis, BAR, and TF agree to a change, as does GGYC, they can change the Protocol over the objections of ETNZ and LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

N.B. I am not claiming that ditching the AC62 now is a wise move and am just pointing out what the rules allow that all the competitors agreed to, including ETNZ.

 

Edit: I think I misspoke here. At the time the amendment creating the CC was drafted, I think that amendment only required the approval of LR, which was the CoR at the time (i.e., the Protocol at that time required the approval of the CoR and GGYC for any amendment). So ETNZ did not necessarily have to agree to the majority rule found in the CC presently, but LR did.

 

 

You confirmed exactly the AC 'legal' points I made, but did not address the broader question raised of why they were put there in the first place.

 

Same goes for the question of downsizing, people getting caught up in Schiller's 'equal speed' ploy, but ignoring the strong arguments that were made when the larger vessel was decided on.

 

Same goes for the legality of the set up 'GGYC' has put in place. All legal and above board you assure us, so I asked at what point of removal from Club and Country, things that clearly had relevance to GS, you thought they might have finally moved 'beyond' the America's Cup and should for example simply create their own 'Product'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

N.B. I am not claiming that ditching the AC62 now is a wise move and am just pointing out what the rules allow that all the competitors agreed to, including ETNZ.

 

Edit: I think I misspoke here. At the time the amendment creating the CC was drafted, I think that amendment only required the approval of LR, which was the CoR at the time (i.e., the Protocol at that time required the approval of the CoR and GGYC for any amendment). So ETNZ did not necessarily have to agree to the majority rule found in the CC presently, but LR did.

 

 

You confirmed exactly the AC 'legal' points I made, but did not address the broader question raised of why they were put there in the first place.

 

Same goes for the question of downsizing, people getting caught up in Schiller's 'equal speed' ploy, but ignoring the strong arguments that were made when the larger vessel was decided on.

 

Same goes for the legality of the set up 'GGYC' has put in place. All legal and above board you assure us, so I asked at what point of removal from Club and Country, things that clearly had relevance to GS, you thought they might have finally moved 'beyond' the America's Cup and should for example simply create their own 'Product'?

 

I have to be honest -- I have no idea what you are talking about. I likewise have no idea why the rules were put in place or what the parties or any party were thinking when they agreed to them. I am pretty sure I do know what the rules say and what they allow. The clear language in an agreement is the best evidence of what the parties intended rather than trying to guess what was in the parties' collective mind or the mind of any particular party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when the change to the protocol was drafted to create the callengers commssion, no one could conceive of doing away with the AC62's alltogether. Hence the unanimity required to change the class rule, but only majority decision to change the protocol.

 

So they can ditch the entire AC62 class by simple majority - but can't change the class itself unless everybody is on board...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

N.B. I am not claiming that ditching the AC62 now is a wise move and am just pointing out what the rules allow that all the competitors agreed to, including ETNZ.

 

Edit: I think I misspoke here. At the time the amendment creating the CC was drafted, I think that amendment only required the approval of LR, which was the CoR at the time (i.e., the Protocol at that time required the approval of the CoR and GGYC for any amendment). So ETNZ did not necessarily have to agree to the majority rule found in the CC presently, but LR did.

 

 

You confirmed exactly the AC 'legal' points I made, but did not address the broader question raised of why they were put there in the first place.

 

Same goes for the question of downsizing, people getting caught up in Schiller's 'equal speed' ploy, but ignoring the strong arguments that were made when the larger vessel was decided on.

 

Same goes for the legality of the set up 'GGYC' has put in place. All legal and above board you assure us, so I asked at what point of removal from Club and Country, things that clearly had relevance to GS, you thought they might have finally moved 'beyond' the America's Cup and should for example simply create their own 'Product'?

 

I have to be honest -- I have no idea what you are talking about. I likewise have no idea why the rules were put in place or what the parties or any party were thinking when they agreed to them. I am pretty sure I do know what the rules say and what they allow. The clear language in an agreement is the best evidence of what the parties intended rather than trying to guess what was in the parties' collective mind or the mind of any particular party.

 

 

Yeah fair enough - it's clear that that is the only kind of answer you can/are trained to give. It is certainly useful, at times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

N.B. I am not claiming that ditching the AC62 now is a wise move and am just pointing out what the rules allow that all the competitors agreed to, including ETNZ.

 

Edit: I think I misspoke here. At the time the amendment creating the CC was drafted, I think that amendment only required the approval of LR, which was the CoR at the time (i.e., the Protocol at that time required the approval of the CoR and GGYC for any amendment). So ETNZ did not necessarily have to agree to the majority rule found in the CC presently, but LR did.

 

 

You confirmed exactly the AC 'legal' points I made, but did not address the broader question raised of why they were put there in the first place.

 

Same goes for the question of downsizing, people getting caught up in Schiller's 'equal speed' ploy, but ignoring the strong arguments that were made when the larger vessel was decided on.

 

Same goes for the legality of the set up 'GGYC' has put in place. All legal and above board you assure us, so I asked at what point of removal from Club and Country, things that clearly had relevance to GS, you thought they might have finally moved 'beyond' the America's Cup and should for example simply create their own 'Product'?

 

I have to be honest -- I have no idea what you are talking about. I likewise have no idea why the rules were put in place or what the parties or any party were thinking when they agreed to them. I am pretty sure I do know what the rules say and what they allow. The clear language in an agreement is the best evidence of what the parties intended rather than trying to guess what was in the parties' collective mind or the mind of any particular party.

 

 

Yeah fair enough - it's clear that that is the only kind of answer you can/are trained to give. It is certainly useful, at times!

 

Yes, I am not as emotional or prone to hyperbole or conjecture as you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when the change to the protocol was drafted to create the challengers commssion, no one could conceive of doing away with the AC62's alltogether. Hence the unanimity required to change the class rule, but only majority decision to change the protocol.

 

You think this was accidental even after seeing how the Russell and Larry show works for 5 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a majority can change the protocol, how about they change it to require a unanimous vote to change the class used in the race. Can LR & ETNZ muster enough votes for that?

 

And as dickish a move as it would be, changing the class & getting more teams to participate may be considered a win even if ETNZ and LR drop out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think when the change to the protocol was drafted to create the challengers commssion, no one could conceive of doing away with the AC62's alltogether. Hence the unanimity required to change the class rule, but only majority decision to change the protocol.

 

You think this was accidental even after seeing how the Russell and Larry show works for 5 years?

 

 

I should correct myself: 'LR could not conceive of doing away with the AC62's'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

changing the class & getting more teams to participate may be considered a win even if ETNZ and LR drop out.

 

Just imagine...you could have Red Bull Sailing and SAP and Oman Sail and US-One embarrassing themselves in front of an audience of hundreds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

changing the class & getting more teams to participate may be considered a win even if ETNZ and LR drop out.

 

Just imagine...you could have Red Bull Sailing and SAP and Oman Sail and US-One embarrassing themselves in front of an audience of hundreds!

 

That many??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of a 50-something footer is really interesting...especially since three different Oracle/AC folks all have three different stumbling replies when I asked them about it...anyone want to bet on how long Oracle's been working on their AC50?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I was one of the first here to say that LR was cooked because they decided to give the role of CoR to a committee of all the challengers.

However your explanation is a bit simplistic, we all know that the AC62 rule needs unanimity and the forum needs majority. Here is not the question.

 

The real question is to know how the CoR committee decides, unanimity or majority ?

I tend to think the majority works, but is the mechanism defined somewhere ? I guess not.

It is also wrong to assume that the forum mechanism apply to the challenger committee, the forum includes all competitors, the CoR committee challengers only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of a 50-something footer is really interesting...especially since three different Oracle/AC folks all have three different stumbling replies when I asked them about it...anyone want to bet on how long Oracle's been working on their AC50?

THIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC34 was a great watch, but the challenger series has to have been the worst in history - by a huge margin. Everyone seems to forget that.

Forget what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Shake-down!

 

There is an argument that the specs of the AC boat had to be announced months ago (as per the Protocol) and could not then be changed without unanimous support to ensure there were no unfair/unapproved changes, level playing field, certainty for teams and sponsors, no wasted money on false starts on design etc etc etc.

 

It seems all this can now be undone by a simple majority vote on changing the relevant sections of the Protocol itself, but that certainly does not address the obvious reasons theses provisions where negotiated and included in the first place.

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

N.B. I am not claiming that ditching the AC62 now is a wise move and am just pointing out what the rules allow that all the competitors agreed to, including ETNZ.

Thank you for the clarification. So, if you are correct RC can down size the boat without the approval of LR and ET.
'A majority of teams' (not 'RC') can vote to do that, is my understanding.

 

And btw, we are assuming OT would go with it, but don't actually know it for certain. ~If~ LE is who is proposing this, then it'd be certain.

To amend the Protocol (as currently written), you need the approval of: (1) a majority of challengers; and (2) GGYC. Assuming Artemis, BAR, and TF agree to a change, as does GGYC, they can change the Protocol over the objections of ETNZ and LR.
TF is such a puppet. Weren't they even forgiven the $1,000,000 performance bond?

 

They scarcely exist - yet they cast the deciding vote.

 

The politics and maneuvering right now is stunning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The AC62 class rules cannot be changed without unanimous consent. The Protocol can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Competitors Committee. If they change the Protocol to remove reference to the AC62, then what the AC62 rules say don't matter. The AC62 rules can remain unchanged; they just won't be used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I was one of the first here to say that LR was cooked because they decided to give the role of CoR to a committee of all the challengers.

However your explanation is a bit simplistic, we all know that the AC62 rule needs unanimity and the forum needs majority. Here is not the question.

 

The real question is to know how the CoR committee decides, unanimity or majority ?

I tend to think t