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

 

Trying to figure out the protocol's boat rule options, that will apparently get majority-voted on. Schiller seems to think they will vote for the 'enhanced 45s' but RC says there are 3 options (62, 5X, 45)

 

From Bernie Wilson's AP Article:

 

In a cost-cutting measure, organizers want to go from 62-foot catamarans to either souped-up 45-foot cats or a boat that could be up to 52 or 54 feet long.[/size]

...[/size]

It wasn't clear what size boat America's Cup organizers want. Schiller said it was his impression it would be "strictly the enhanced 45s."[/size]

 

However, Coutts said the length hasn't been determined.

 

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/article16381877.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

And on this, well if Auckland really has been dropped before any protocol/new-boat-rule change was voted on, well then the boat size didn't matter after all, maybe they just ran out of time trying to put it together?

 

Dalton said Team New Zealand would oppose the proposal to move to smaller boats.

He said there were two options, one of resuming with the bigger boats and keeping Auckland as a venue, or moving to smaller boats and Auckland missing out.

That's a head scratcher?

Wouldn't it make more sense reversed, option 1,moving to smaller boats which saves money and allows the teams to budget for going to Auckland or option 2,the larger 62 boat and abandoning the Auckland races?

 

 

 

And of course NZ state sponsorship is tied to the occurrence of the Auckland regatta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why a move to 45s, or even 5x, wouldn't still save GD money. The govt already said any govt sponsorship would be on 'a much lower basis' this time, and so GD already knows that his other sources are a relatively bigger part than last time.

 

The budget cuts being talked about are bigger than the entire govt contribution from last time, let alone a probably much smaller one this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like TF have bought a design package from someone(?). Got to be TNZ as favorites. If so TNZ budget could look more comfortable and they could have a new partner in TF (as LR appear to be going alone)

 

If this is so TNZ must have some leverage over TF.

 

Could be some very interesting negotiations going on behind the scenes.

 

I would deal with LR (PB) and TF (Cammas) and BAR (BA) and take their word. But would not trust RC and Schiller or anyone at OR unless it was in writing and signed in their blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like TF have bought a design package from someone(?). Got to be TNZ a

Cammas said a few months ago that AC was a strange animals where alliances were changing from one AC to the other, so I would point to OR.

Could, at the end, Aibus help indirectly a european team ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trying to figure out the protocol's boat rule options, that will apparently get majority-voted on. Schiller seems to think they will vote for the 'enhanced 45s' but RC says there are 3 options (62, 5X, 45)

 

From Bernie Wilson's AP Article:

 

In a cost-cutting measure, organizers want to go from 62-foot catamarans to either souped-up 45-foot cats or a boat that could be up to 52 or 54 feet long.[/size]

...[/size]

It wasn't clear what size boat America's Cup organizers want. Schiller said it was his impression it would be "strictly the enhanced 45s."[/size]

 

However, Coutts said the length hasn't been determined.

 

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/article16381877.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

And on this, well if Auckland really has been dropped before any protocol/new-boat-rule change was voted on, well then the boat size didn't matter after all, maybe they just ran out of time trying to put it together?

 

Dalton said Team New Zealand would oppose the proposal to move to smaller boats.

He said there were two options, one of resuming with the bigger boats and keeping Auckland as a venue, or moving to smaller boats and Auckland missing out.

That's a head scratcher?

Wouldn't it make more sense reversed, option 1,moving to smaller boats which saves money and allows the teams to budget for going to Auckland or option 2,the larger 62 boat and abandoning the Auckland races?

That's what I was thinking - smaller boats mean roadshow, but, guess not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why a move to 45s, or even 5x, wouldn't still save GD money. The govt already said any govt sponsorship would be on 'a much lower basis' this time, and so GD already knows that his other sources are a relatively bigger part than last time.

 

The budget cuts being talked about are bigger than the entire govt contribution from last time, let alone a probably much smaller one this time.

 

I wonder if they feel they'll need to set-up base in Bermuda sooner if the qualifiers are there vs staying in Auckland for longer and saving a bucketload of money in base and housing costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't get why a move to 45s, or even 5x, wouldn't still save GD money. The govt already said any govt sponsorship would be on 'a much lower basis' this time, and so GD already knows that his other sources are a relatively bigger part than last time.

 

The budget cuts being talked about are bigger than the entire govt contribution from last time, let alone a probably much smaller one this time.

I wonder if they feel they'll need to set-up base in Bermuda sooner if the qualifiers are there vs staying in Auckland for longer and saving a bucketload of money in base and housing costs?

Yes, that possibility occurred to me too

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

 

+1!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like TF have bought a design package from someone(?). Got to be TNZ as favorites. If so TNZ budget could look more comfortable and they could have a new partner in TF (as LR appear to be going alone)

 

If this is so TNZ must have some leverage over TF.

 

Could be some very interesting negotiations going on behind the scenes.

 

I would deal with LR (PB) and TF (Cammas) and BAR (BA) and take their word. But would not trust RC and Schiller or anyone at OR unless it was in writing and signed in their blood.

That would be a hoot, the French team asking ETNZ to design them a multihull.

Talk about bruised frog ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again... http://www.yacht.de/sport/americas_cup/nur-noch-ein-kleines-action-spektakel/a97339.html

 

d_0f655102d4.jpeg

© tati

Seinerzeit noch in Diensten Alinghis: Jochen Schümann

 

"Die Faszination America's Cup rührt von den einst großen und imposanten Yachten her. Oracle hat dann die neuen Katamarane erst auf 72 Fuß reduziert, dann auf 62 Fuß. Nun sollen die Boote noch kleiner werden. Da bleibt irgendwann nur noch ein kleines Action-Spektakel übrig."

Dass der Vorstoß der Amerikaner erst im laufenden Wettbewerb kommt, kritisiert Schümann scharf: "Segeln ist schon an sich eine komplexe und komplizierte Sportart. Da ist Kontinuität das A und O im Ringen um die Gunst der Fans. Das jüngste Manöver zeigt einfach wieder, dass der jetzige Verteidiger nicht gut ist für den Cup. Sie haben es in vier Jahren nicht geschafft, den Cup so zu organisieren, dass er gesund wächst. Die tun dem Cup weh."

 

Paraphrased: Big boats provide the spectacle, reduced and reduced again, nothing left over but a little action movie, it's a complex sport, this latest trick shows that the current holder is not good for the cup, they have achieved nothing in 4 years to ensure that the cup grows healthily, they are hurting the cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who will beat Russell?

 

A community college graduate who took Business 101?

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'.

 

Are you on crack? Where did I say or even remotely imply that? I was commenting on the editorial slant on the FP, which way predated - by YEARS - the tragic accident that took Andrew Simpson's life.

 

Fuck off, troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looks like TF have bought a design package from someone(?). Got to be TNZ as favorites. If so TNZ budget could look more comfortable and they could have a new partner in TF (as LR appear to be going alone)

 

If this is so TNZ must have some leverage over TF.

 

Could be some very interesting negotiations going on behind the scenes.

 

I would deal with LR (PB) and TF (Cammas) and BAR (BA) and take their word. But would not trust RC and Schiller or anyone at OR unless it was in writing and signed in their blood.

That would be a hoot, the French team asking ETNZ to design them a multihull.

Talk about bruised frog ego.

 

 

 

Next we will be having NZ designed boats in Italian museum's - oh wait!

 

 

or

 

 

TNZ could supply design for Frogs and Frogs can supply info on how to blow up boats!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "smaller budget" argument is sperrious.

The "value" of winning the America's Cup doesn't change with the boats.

The budget is always what the wealthiest or best funded competitor is willing to pay to win.

The America's Cup has proven that people will spend over $150 million to play and up to 250 million to win.

All making the boats smaller will reduce the cost of each individual development, but will not effect the overall cost of the campaign.

Restricting the design will only effect the range of experimentation, making the $ spent for each .01knot higher.

 

If there is money to spend, it will be spent.

If someone has more money to spend, those without will claim competitive disadvantage.

Everyone dreams of being able to outspend the competition.

For rich guys it's ego, for sailors, builders and the teams, it's money in their pockets.

 

I seriously think the best protocol would set a budget by mutual consent, and have and independent authority that polices the competitors, because they will cheat. While everyone complains about the cost, they all want to have more money than the other guy, and will lie to do it.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "smaller budget" argument is sperrious.

The "value" of winning the America's Cup doesn't change with the boats.

The budget is always what the wealthiest or best funded competitor is willing to pay to win.

The America's Cup has proven that people will spend over $150 million to play and up to 250 million to win.

All making the boats smaller will reduce the cost of each individual development, but will not effect the overall cost of the campaign.

Restricting the design will only effect the range of experimentation, making the $ spent for each .01knot higher.

 

If there is money to spend, it will be spent.

If someone has more money to spend, those without will claim competitive disadvantage.

Everyone dreams of being able to outspend the competition.

For rich guys it's ego, for sailors, builders and the teams, it's money in their pockets.

 

I seriously think the best protocol would set a budget by mutual consent, and have and independent authority that polices the competitors, because they will cheat. While everyone complains about the cost, they all want to have more money than the other guy, and will lie to do it.

SHC

You can always spend more money, but that does not in any way make victory a certainty. Think 2003 and 2007.

 

But taken from the other angle, being significantly underfunded WILL nearly always put you out of the race. So, to me, there is a huge upside to this cost reduction - the French (and to a lesser degree, BA racing) will not be crippled by budget issues.

 

Will they be outspent, possibly by ridiclous margin? Sure. But at least they will be seriously in the race, which to me is a very positive result.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Next we will be having NZ designed boats in Italian museum's - oh wait!

 

Isn't it already the case ?

 

 

Humour is never as funny, when you have to explain it! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Who will beat Russell?

 

A community college graduate who took Business 101?

 

So not you then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Who will beat Russell?

A community college graduate who took Business 101?

So not you then
Clean is aspiring to pass Drama 101..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I basically have little interest in any professional sports

 

I'm a doer not a watcher

 

in order for me to care about any sporting event that I'm not participating in, there has to be something unusual - it has to be a bit of a spectacle

 

The AC in 45fters will not have much to interest me- it will be just another regatta

 

the 72s were amazing to watch

 

By the time the finals of this event get going, the sight of a 45ft foiling cat will be entirely unremarkable - it's not even all that remarkable now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just getting excited already for the prospects of a Team Japan and Team France sailing around for last place on a hand-me-down design from another team. Woohoo!

 

As an aside, I have ZERO problem with AC45 foilers racing for the America's Cup. Zero.

 

I have serious problems about every part of the way this move was handled, serious problems that yet another major sponsor of sailing (Bermuda) is going to get burned to the tune of $70M and half their country will hate sailing forever, serious problems with seeing tens of milions of development and salary dollars spent by challengers thrown into the fucking garbage, and serious problems with the sheer incompetence it took to get 19 months into this cycle only to find out that ALL YOUR NUMBERS, PLANS, AND FORECASTS WERE WRONG.

 

In any business subject to some kind of rational direction, the entire management team would out on their asses, hanging their heads in shame and terrified they'd never work again. In the AC, it's business as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Next we will be having NZ designed boats in Italian museum's - oh wait!

 

Isn't it already the case ?

...but its the French. They see themselves as multihull gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Who will beat Russell?

A community college graduate who took Business 101?

Actually, this one's a tough question. It's an odd game where you need to cater to both egotistical billionaires as well as corporations looking for returns on sponsorship. There is no obvious answer to what is right. With the end game being having the largest field of real teams, it's a mess. No standard business model fits, let alone one learned in Business 101.

Edit: and I'm not defending this mess. I don't like it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Who will beat Russell?

A community college graduate who took Business 101?

Actually, this one's a tough question. It's an odd game where you need to cater to both egotistical billionaires as well as corporations looking for returns on sponsorship. There is no obvious answer to what is right. With the end game being having the largest field of real teams, it's a mess. No standard business model fits, let alone one learned in Business 101.

Edit: and I'm not defending this mess. I don't like it either.

 

The business model seemed to work OK when the rules were fixed, well promulgated and not subject to change every 5 minutes and the lawyers were not the A Team. What's that? The billionaires couldn't win in that environment, you say? Hmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Next we will be having NZ designed boats in Italian museum's - oh wait!

 

Isn't it already the case ?

 

 

Humour is never as funny, when you have to explain it! :)

 

French foils in NZ museums ?... oh wait ! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Next we will be having NZ designed boats in Italian museum's - oh wait!

Isn't it already the case ?

...but its the French. They see themselves as multihull gods.

 

Be reassured, if LR bails out, they won't buy their roman shiny clothes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC's flying circus? Sounds good. I get that. Happy for LE and sponsors to fund it too.

But why fuck with the America's Cup?
Every now and again a billionaire or two and/or a smart commercial team will come along and decide to have a pissing contest - which is the way it used to be. Might be a bit of a delay between drinks on occasions - but so what? But you can bet it will command attention from the sailing world, just as it always has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have serious problems .. that yet another major sponsor of sailing (Bermuda) is going to get burned to the tune of $70M

My guess: You'l manage to get over your serious problems eventually, somehow. Especially since you and your opinion have nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just getting excited already for the prospects of a Team Japan and Team France sailing around for last place on a hand-me-down design from another team. Woohoo!

 

As an aside, I have ZERO problem with AC45 foilers racing for the America's Cup. Zero.

 

I have serious problems about every part of the way this move was handled, serious problems that yet another major sponsor of sailing (Bermuda) is going to get burned to the tune of $70M and half their country will hate sailing forever, serious problems with seeing tens of milions of development and salary dollars spent by challengers thrown into the fucking garbage, and serious problems with the sheer incompetence it took to get 19 months into this cycle only to find out that ALL YOUR NUMBERS, PLANS, AND FORECASTS WERE WRONG.

 

In any business subject to some kind of rational direction, the entire management team would out on their asses, hanging their heads in shame and terrified they'd never work again. In the AC, it's business as usual.

 

Actually, the Team France thing is a rather brilliant move by Coutts. He can make a couple of bucks off selling Cammas the Oracle design, and then he has a great benchmark against all the challengers. Who better to be the driver for an Oracle test boat against the challengers than Cammas? Ainslie should be shitting right about now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other benefit to getting Luna Rossa to drop out is that it will seriously decrease the influence that ISAF has with the AC. Bertelli basically owns ISAF President Croce. Croce was the former President of Luna Rossa. He is the President of the Italian MNA, of which Prada was a big sponsor at one time. Croce could use Bertelli to jam ISAF down Coutts throat. Now...with Luna Rossa maybe dropping out, perhaps not so much. (I'm still not convinced that Luna Rossa is going to bail if they change boats).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought: Disruptive technology (don't laugh!)

 

AC72's were supposed to float - but new technology was invented that disrupted the rule.

 

The next foiler we got, the AC45T, did the same thing. It exceeded expectations. It blew minds.

 

Now, there are plenty people whose expectations aren't exceeded. 45 feet - been there, done that. However, I haven't heard a single negative report from anybody who has seen the boat. Or sailed the boat.

 

I doubt it's even a contest: Ask anyone directly involved whether they would rather race the AC72 or an AC45T. AC45T every time, no doubt.

 

And it's even better than that - the rule may get to AC55.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm just getting excited already for the prospects of a Team Japan and Team France sailing around for last place on a hand-me-down design from another team. Woohoo!

 

As an aside, I have ZERO problem with AC45 foilers racing for the America's Cup. Zero.

 

I have serious problems about every part of the way this move was handled, serious problems that yet another major sponsor of sailing (Bermuda) is going to get burned to the tune of $70M and half their country will hate sailing forever, serious problems with seeing tens of milions of development and salary dollars spent by challengers thrown into the fucking garbage, and serious problems with the sheer incompetence it took to get 19 months into this cycle only to find out that ALL YOUR NUMBERS, PLANS, AND FORECASTS WERE WRONG.

 

In any business subject to some kind of rational direction, the entire management team would out on their asses, hanging their heads in shame and terrified they'd never work again. In the AC, it's business as usual.

Actually, the Team France thing is a rather brilliant move by Coutts. He can make a couple of bucks off selling Cammas the Oracle design, and then he has a great benchmark against all the challengers. Who better to be the driver for an Oracle test boat against the challengers than Cammas? Ainslie should be shitting right about now.

But Peter, you told us Coutts was setting Ben up for a coup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other benefit to getting Luna Rossa to drop out is that it will seriously decrease the influence that ISAF has with the AC. Bertelli basically owns ISAF President Croce. Croce was the former President of Luna Rossa. He is the President of the Italian MNA, of which Prada was a big sponsor at one time. Croce could use Bertelli to jam ISAF down Coutts throat. Now...with Luna Rossa maybe dropping out, perhaps not so much. (I'm still not convinced that Luna Rossa is going to bail if they change boats).

Bail?

 

Prada and Bermuda belong together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have serious problems .. that yet another major sponsor of sailing (Bermuda) is going to get burned to the tune of $70M

My guess: You'l manage to get over your serious problems eventually, somehow. Especially since you and your opinion have nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

 

The funniest aspect of this shrinkage drama is Cleans total transformation into a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have serious problems .. that yet another major sponsor of sailing (Bermuda) is going to get burned to the tune of $70M

My guess: You'l manage to get over your serious problems eventually, somehow. Especially since you and your opinion have nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

 

The funniest aspect of this shrinkage drama is Cleans total transformation into a troll.

 

clean only weighs in on AC matters when he sees the opportunity to stir things up or attack people he hates. Nothing new here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm just getting excited already for the prospects of a Team Japan and Team France sailing around for last place on a hand-me-down design from another team. Woohoo!

 

As an aside, I have ZERO problem with AC45 foilers racing for the America's Cup. Zero.

 

I have serious problems about every part of the way this move was handled, serious problems that yet another major sponsor of sailing (Bermuda) is going to get burned to the tune of $70M and half their country will hate sailing forever, serious problems with seeing tens of milions of development and salary dollars spent by challengers thrown into the fucking garbage, and serious problems with the sheer incompetence it took to get 19 months into this cycle only to find out that ALL YOUR NUMBERS, PLANS, AND FORECASTS WERE WRONG.

 

In any business subject to some kind of rational direction, the entire management team would out on their asses, hanging their heads in shame and terrified they'd never work again. In the AC, it's business as usual.

Actually, the Team France thing is a rather brilliant move by Coutts. He can make a couple of bucks off selling Cammas the Oracle design, and then he has a great benchmark against all the challengers. Who better to be the driver for an Oracle test boat against the challengers than Cammas? Ainslie should be shitting right about now.

But Peter, you told us Coutts was setting Ben up for a coup.

 

 

That was then. This is now. Coutts loved NZL. Then he didn't. Coutts loved Ernesto. Then he didn't. Coutts loved Ainslie. Maybe now he wants a three way with Ainslie and Cammas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The funniest aspect of this shrinkage drama is Cleans total transformation into a troll.

 

clean only weighs in on AC matters when he sees the opportunity to stir things up or attack people he hates. Nothing new here.

 

Can you post without bitching or is it your psychotherapy ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The funniest aspect of this shrinkage drama is Cleans total transformation into a troll.

clean only weighs in on AC matters when he sees the opportunity to stir things up or attack people he hates. Nothing new here.

 

Can you post without bitching or is it your psychotherapy ?

 

You never have liked the facts have you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The funniest aspect of this shrinkage drama is Cleans total transformation into a troll.

clean only weighs in on AC matters when he sees the opportunity to stir things up or attack people he hates. Nothing new here.

 

Can you post without bitching or is it your psychotherapy ?

 

You do realize that you are bitching about me bitching, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought: Disruptive technology (don't laugh!)

 

AC72's were supposed to float - but new technology was invented that disrupted the rule.

 

The next foiler we got, the AC45T, did the same thing. It exceeded expectations. It blew minds.

 

Now, there are plenty people whose expectations aren't exceeded. 45 feet - been there, done that. However, I haven't heard a single negative report from anybody who has seen the boat. Or sailed the boat.

 

I doubt it's even a contest: Ask anyone directly involved whether they would rather race the AC72 or an AC45T. AC45T every time, no doubt.

 

And it's even better than that - the rule may get to AC55.

 

Interesting. But not really plausible, IMO. And still RC's fuck-over continues.

 

The step down from AC72's to AC62's was supposed to be the answer to rampant budgets (while still retaining the prestige of bigger boats). But now, with teams STILL struggling for funding, the AC62's are now too expensive. In other words those budget cost savings were never there, as discussed at the time.

 

So now, the proposal is to shrink AC62's to possibly AC55's. I can't see the math working out any better, frankly.

 

Where I can see the math maybe working is shrinking to AC45T's and ditching the 'qualifiers' in Auckland. I suspect this is the real agenda.

 

Edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The funniest aspect of this shrinkage drama is Cleans total transformation into a troll.

clean only weighs in on AC matters when he sees the opportunity to stir things up or attack people he hates. Nothing new here.

 

Can you post without bitching or is it your psychotherapy ?

 

You do realize that you are bitching about me bitching, right?

 

That's way beyond the comprehension of a troll like TC. Don't confuse him with facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on track, people.....

 

It's the AMERICA'S CUP, not a group hug regatta in little foiling cats.

 

Deed of Gift still rules. So is there anyone out there that can do a Larry to Larry, and get all this embarrassing shit consigned to the history books? Abramovich perhaps?

 

Damn, I hate what this has all dissolved into.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have serious problems about every part of the way this move was handled, serious problems that yet another major sponsor of sailing (Bermuda) is going to get burned to the tune of $70M and half their country will hate sailing forever, serious problems with seeing tens of milions of development and salary dollars spent by challengers thrown into the fucking garbage, and serious problems with the sheer incompetence it took to get 19 months into this cycle only to find out that ALL YOUR NUMBERS, PLANS, AND FORECASTS WERE WRONG.

 

 

Sorry Clean but have you ever worked in business planning? Finding numbers, plans and forecasts were wrong, even very wrong, isn't exactly a rare occurrence. Accepting it and doing something about it is good. The big mistake is carrying on regardless.

 

If you were arguing the numbers were obviously delusional from the start then I'd agree but that doesn't make a move in the direction of reality a bad thing. Better late than never.

 

I just don't believe teams have spent $10Ms on development yet that is uniquely relevant to the AC62. All indications are that most of the work to date has been testing concepts and by and large, concepts scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Deed of Gift still rules. So is there anyone out there that can do a Larry to Larry, and get all this embarrassing shit consigned to the history books?

.

 

 

Apparently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But now, with teams STILL struggling for funding, the AC62's are now too expensive. In other words those budget cost savings were never there, as discussed at the time.

 

 

 

That's a false conclusion. The cost savings were there. The budgets still cannot be raised, by anyone except the 3 $B-funded teams and 3 teams isn't enough. Someone will now say it's a challenge event and 2 teams are enough. Tell that to Bermuda or NBC or the people who are actually paying the bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that the first ACWS regatta in Sardinia will now be in NON foiling 45s-unless of course it gets shit-canned altogether by LR pulling out.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My thought: Disruptive technology (don't laugh!)

 

AC72's were supposed to float - but new technology was invented that disrupted the rule.

 

The next foiler we got, the AC45T, did the same thing. It exceeded expectations. It blew minds.

 

Now, there are plenty people whose expectations aren't exceeded. 45 feet - been there, done that. However, I haven't heard a single negative report from anybody who has seen the boat. Or sailed the boat.

 

I doubt it's even a contest: Ask anyone directly involved whether they would rather race the AC72 or an AC45T. AC45T every time, no doubt.

 

And it's even better than that - the rule may get to AC55.

Interesting. But not really plausible, IMO. And still RC's fuck-over continues.

 

The step down from AC72's to AC62's was supposed to be the answer to rampant budgets (while still retaining the prestige of bigger boats). But now, with teams STILL struggling for funding, the AC62's are now too expensive. In other words those budget cost savings were never there, as discussed at the time.

 

So now, the proposal is to shrink AC62's to possibly AC55's. I can't see the math working out any better, frankly.

 

Where I can see the math maybe working is shrinking to AC45T's and ditching the 'qualifiers' in Auckland. I suspect this is the real agenda.

 

Edit.

Russell is in an interesting position - he needs his opposition.

 

Perhaps he pulled the plug on Auckland once he felt confident TNZ was in. It looks like they can make it.

 

Saving France seems a valiant effort - good luck!

 

Who knows about BAR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that the first ACWS regatta in Sardinia will now be in NON foiling 45s-unless of course it gets shit-canned altogether by LR pulling out.....

Get out of here. I mean, you're out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But now, with teams STILL struggling for funding, the AC62's are now too expensive. In other words those budget cost savings were never there, as discussed at the time.

 

 

 

That's a false conclusion. The cost savings were there. The budgets still cannot be raised, by anyone except the 3 $B-funded teams and 3 teams isn't enough. Someone will now say it's a challenge event and 2 teams are enough. Tell that to Bermuda or NBC or the people who are actually paying the bills.

 

As far as I'm concerned, one Defender vc Challenger is all that is required. The rest? Mauseoleum building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other benefit to getting Luna Rossa to drop out is that it will seriously decrease the influence that ISAF has with the AC. Bertelli basically owns ISAF President Croce. Croce was the former President of Luna Rossa. He is the President of the Italian MNA, of which Prada was a big sponsor at one time. Croce could use Bertelli to jam ISAF down Coutts throat. Now...with Luna Rossa maybe dropping out, perhaps not so much. (I'm still not convinced that Luna Rossa is going to bail if they change boats).

Your theory. Except it doesn't jibe with LR voluntarily abdicating its CoR role/power of interdiction, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one here who notices a similarity to what happened with The Little America's Cup when it was hijacked and put up for One Design competition?

Yes, it was cost saving, yes, it would have reversed the trend of dropping participation - but it completely went against the "spirit" of the contest.

Smart Lawyers could argue that Black is White and vice versa. That is not what we need here.

What we have here, is a proposal based upon cost cutting and increased participation.

The America's Cup does not have a good record with respect to multi challenger competitions - Yes, Valencia was good, but dull, Auckland Good and Fremantle was the best - high participation, good venue/conditions and great excitement - but don't forget all those dull years at Newport and San Diego to put it in context.

The Cup is steeped in prestige, glamour, tradition, flamboyance, subterfuge, excellence, technology and exclusiveness.

There are a hundred other descriptors - but it is all about high end, elite competition.

The point I am trying to make is - where do you draw the line in moving the Cup into being cheaper & better attended? - without finding that you are no longer holding an event that bears any connection to the history of the America's Cups of yesteryear.

Corporations have a poor track record in every industry of dismantling history and tradition in the search for a quick fix. The management of the Cup in this current cycle seems to be without a plan, vision or conviction.

Holding a cup, with little respect to nationality (yes, I know this is not new...) in a venue chosen because they couldn't stay in their home town, in a process that was little more than revenue raising 101, and now a year after requiring entry by teams, to change the specs of the boats so significantly is moronic.

It is very sad that San Fran is no longer the venue - it had great geography, conditions, and an audience on its threshold - a better venue I struggle to think of - but RCFC fucked it with grandiose claims of revenue and wealth that never came to be. Why today do we not have focus on building an event or product that is judged on its merits, rather than its failings (to deliver revenue)? The sailing side of the last Cup was spectacular. It had everything, great boats, good conditions, a breeze direction that enabled easy explanation by good TV coverage and a comeback, the likes of which we are never to see again.

LE, I surmise, has lost his appetite for the gravy train that he has created.

Past team members going legal in all manner of ways, a City that won't play, and a society that is (ironically) so connected and informed by modern IT, that it becomes difficult to build a cohesive story or change direction of your business without everyone getting to know the (real) backstory......

If you were to take these steps to the logical conclusion, why not hold a contest in Moths, Flying Phantoms or Nacra FCS 20's?

You already have these boats in the teams, and the sailors are champions of the Moths already.

The answer of course, is that what you are left with, is a competition, that is not the America's Cup.

 

Bermuda and Sponsors may well feel aggrieved over the shifting sands and alterations that are being proposed.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "smaller budget" argument is sperrious.

The "value" of winning the America's Cup doesn't change with the boats.

The budget is always what the wealthiest or best funded competitor is willing to pay to win.

The America's Cup has proven that people will spend over $150 million to play and up to 250 million to win.

All making the boats smaller will reduce the cost of each individual development, but will not effect the overall cost of the campaign.

Restricting the design will only effect the range of experimentation, making the $ spent for each .01knot higher.

 

If there is money to spend, it will be spent.

If someone has more money to spend, those without will claim competitive disadvantage.

Everyone dreams of being able to outspend the competition.

For rich guys it's ego, for sailors, builders and the teams, it's money in their pockets.

 

I seriously think the best protocol would set a budget by mutual consent, and have and independent authority that polices the competitors, because they will cheat. While everyone complains about the cost, they all want to have more money than the other guy, and will lie to do it.

SHC

This. It's exactly the same for any sailing trinket. Restricting the number of sails etc. etc. is just fiddling round the edges. The only problem is, what value do you put on charity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Deed of Gift still rules. So is there anyone out there that can do a Larry to Larry, and get all this embarrassing shit consigned to the history books?

.

 

 

Apparently not.

 

Be careful what you wish for. To out Larry Larry you need to be more Larry than Larry, just as Larry out Ernesto'ed Ernesto by being more Ernesto than Ernesto.

 

The Deed does still rule and the Deed says "Agree the rules that you need to make the game". Just as in real life the rules them selves are in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "smaller budget" argument is sperrious.

The "value" of winning the America's Cup doesn't change with the boats.

The budget is always what the wealthiest or best funded competitor is willing to pay to win.

The America's Cup has proven that people will spend over $150 million to play and up to 250 million to win.

All making the boats smaller will reduce the cost of each individual development, but will not effect the overall cost of the campaign.

Restricting the design will only effect the range of experimentation, making the $ spent for each .01knot higher.

 

If there is money to spend, it will be spent.

If someone has more money to spend, those without will claim competitive disadvantage.

Everyone dreams of being able to outspend the competition.

For rich guys it's ego, for sailors, builders and the teams, it's money in their pockets.

 

I seriously think the best protocol would set a budget by mutual consent, and have and independent authority that polices the competitors, because they will cheat. While everyone complains about the cost, they all want to have more money than the other guy, and will lie to do it.

SHC

I totally agree with the first two paragraphs. I have my about the third. Then, apart from de the army of engineers and lawyers, you'll have to have an army of counters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Bermuda and Sponsors may well feel aggrieved over the shifting sands and alterations that are being proposed.....

 

I suspect Bermuda would be entirely happy with anything that maximises the number of teams and therefore the number of countries that take up broadcasting rights. It's getting their marketing message out that matters to them.

 

Sponsors? What sponsors? We have Prada, of whom Bertelli is CEO, hence a rather special case. Neither BAR nor Team France have announced major sponsors. AFAIK TNZ has made reassuring noises but not specifically announced its AC35 sponsors. IIRC OR has announced technology partners rather than sponsors. Don't think Artemis has announced sponsors (other than its owner/backer).

 

This is the entire issue. There still isn't a value proposition commensurate with an AC62-based budget. Many have made the point in the AC34 cycle as well as the present. What's apparently changing is that for whatever reason, OR and ACEA are starting to listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "smaller budget" argument is sperrious.

The "value" of winning the America's Cup doesn't change with the boats.

The budget is always what the wealthiest or best funded competitor is willing to pay to win.

The America's Cup has proven that people will spend over $150 million to play and up to 250 million to win.

All making the boats smaller will reduce the cost of each individual development, but will not effect the overall cost of the campaign.

Restricting the design will only effect the range of experimentation, making the $ spent for each .01knot higher.

 

 

The argument is false. The highest budget doesn't necessarily win the AC. There are plenty of examples that prove that. The more intrinsically expensive the boat and all the people necessarily involved in operating it, the higher the probability the biggest spender does win. Therefore a smaller boat opens up the field more to teams with a limited (but not tiny) budget with good sailors and good management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I note that RC was quick to agree that salary caps for sailors was a good idea. But if anyone thinks going down that road is worthwhile, restrictions should apply to the whole team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the Team France thing is a rather brilliant move by Coutts. He can make a couple of bucks off selling Cammas the Oracle design, and then he has a great benchmark against all the challengers.

 

Is there confirmation of this ^ somewhere?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought: Disruptive technology (don't laugh!)

 

AC72's were supposed to float - but new technology was invented that disrupted the rule.

 

The next foiler we got, the AC45T, did the same thing. It exceeded expectations. It blew minds.

 

Now, there are plenty people whose expectations aren't exceeded. 45 feet - been there, done that. However, I haven't heard a single negative report from anybody who has seen the boat. Or sailed the boat.

 

I doubt it's even a contest: Ask anyone directly involved whether they would rather race the AC72 or an AC45T. AC45T every time, no doubt.

 

And it's even better than that - the rule may get to AC55.

 

Clearly blew your mind.

 

If 55 is better than 45 IYO, why not go better again - and stick with 62?

 

The 'crew parade' for a 45? 6 guys lost in the crowd :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, the Team France thing is a rather brilliant move by Coutts. He can make a couple of bucks off selling Cammas the Oracle design, and then he has a great benchmark against all the challengers.

Is there confirmation of this ^ somewhere?

 

Its more likely RC has given (for free)a design to the French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "smaller budget" argument is sperrious.

The "value" of winning the America's Cup doesn't change with the boats.

The budget is always what the wealthiest or best funded competitor is willing to pay to win.

The America's Cup has proven that people will spend over $150 million to play and up to 250 million to win.

All making the boats smaller will reduce the cost of each individual development, but will not effect the overall cost of the campaign.

Restricting the design will only effect the range of experimentation, making the $ spent for each .01knot higher.

Not so false. I recall the last cup. If the situacion would have been the other way round, TNZ wouldn't had any chances. They didn't have the back-up TO had.Mistakes appart.

 

The argument is false. The highest budget doesn't necessarily win the AC. There are plenty of examples that prove that. The more intrinsically expensive the boat and all the people necessarily involved in operating it, the higher the probability the biggest spender does win. Therefore a smaller boat opens up the field more to teams with a limited (but not tiny) budget with good sailors and good management.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boink

 

The point I am trying to make is - where do you draw the line in moving the Cup into being cheaper & better attended? - without finding that you are no longer holding an event that bears any connection to the history of the America's Cups of yesteryear.

 

^ This

 

Question is, does it matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its more likely RC has given (for free)a design to the French.

 

Why ? he would be wiser to sell them a design for 3 or 4 M. It leaves 16 M the TF to build an pay the crew. Not a lot but perhaps enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Bermuda and Sponsors may well feel aggrieved over the shifting sands and alterations that are being proposed.....

I suspect Bermuda would be entirely happy with anything that maximises the number of teams and therefore the number of countries that take up broadcasting rights. It's getting their marketing message out that matters to them.

 

Sponsors? What sponsors? We have Prada, of whom Bertelli is CEO, hence a rather special case. Neither BAR nor Team France have announced major sponsors. AFAIK TNZ has made reassuring noises but not specifically announced its AC35 sponsors. IIRC OR has announced technology partners rather than sponsors. Don't think Artemis has announced sponsors (other than its owner/backer).

 

This is the entire issue. There still isn't a value proposition commensurate with an AC62-based budget. Many have made the point in the AC34 cycle as well as the present. What's apparently changing is that for whatever reason, OR and ACEA are starting to listen.

Artemis no longer a Corinthean effort - check the thread:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Deed of Gift still rules. So is there anyone out there that can do a Larry to Larry, and get all this embarrassing shit consigned to the history books?

.

 

 

Apparently not.

 

Be careful what you wish for. To out Larry Larry you need to be more Larry than Larry, just as Larry out Ernesto'ed Ernesto by being more Ernesto than Ernesto.

 

The Deed does still rule and the Deed says "Agree the rules that you need to make the game". Just as in real life the rules them selves are in the game.

 

 

in other words, M-U-T-U-A-L C-O-N-S-E-N-T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one here who notices a similarity to what happened with The Little America's Cup when it was hijacked and put up for One Design competition?

 

Yes, it was cost saving, yes, it would have reversed the trend of dropping participation - but it completely went against the "spirit" of the contest.

 

Smart Lawyers could argue that Black is White and vice versa. That is not what we need here.

 

What we have here, is a proposal based upon cost cutting and increased participation.

 

The America's Cup does not have a good record with respect to multi challenger competitions - Yes, Valencia was good, but dull, Auckland Good and Fremantle was the best - high participation, good venue/conditions and great excitement - but don't forget all those dull years at Newport and San Diego to put it in context.

 

The Cup is steeped in prestige, glamour, tradition, flamboyance, subterfuge, excellence, technology and exclusiveness.

 

There are a hundred other descriptors - but it is all about high end, elite competition.

 

The point I am trying to make is - where do you draw the line in moving the Cup into being cheaper & better attended? - without finding that you are no longer holding an event that bears any connection to the history of the America's Cups of yesteryear.

 

Corporations have a poor track record in every industry of dismantling history and tradition in the search for a quick fix. The management of the Cup in this current cycle seems to be without a plan, vision or conviction.

 

Holding a cup, with little respect to nationality (yes, I know this is not new...) in a venue chosen because they couldn't stay in their home town, in a process that was little more than revenue raising 101, and now a year after requiring entry by teams, to change the specs of the boats so significantly is moronic.

 

It is very sad that San Fran is no longer the venue - it had great geography, conditions, and an audience on its threshold - a better venue I struggle to think of - but RCFC fucked it with grandiose claims of revenue and wealth that never came to be. Why today do we not have focus on building an event or product that is judged on its merits, rather than its failings (to deliver revenue)? The sailing side of the last Cup was spectacular. It had everything, great boats, good conditions, a breeze direction that enabled easy explanation by good TV coverage and a comeback, the likes of which we are never to see again.

 

LE, I surmise, has lost his appetite for the gravy train that he has created.

 

Past team members going legal in all manner of ways, a City that won't play, and a society that is (ironically) so connected and informed by modern IT, that it becomes difficult to build a cohesive story or change direction of your business without everyone getting to know the (real) backstory......

 

If you were to take these steps to the logical conclusion, why not hold a contest in Moths, Flying Phantoms or Nacra FCS 20's?

 

You already have these boats in the teams, and the sailors are champions of the Moths already.

 

The answer of course, is that what you are left with, is a competition, that is not the America's Cup.

 

Bermuda and Sponsors may well feel aggrieved over the shifting sands and alterations that are being proposed.....

 

Well put.

 

But was the DOG predicated on a standard of sportsmanship and honourable dealing, that no longer exists in certain segments of certain societies?

 

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

+1!!

It's the AC, what else would you all expect?? A fair competition?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smaller means more competitors, but AC is also about the spectacle. That just won't be as good as the bigger boats.

 

This is and has always been a big bucks game, an exclusive club...and that is part of its appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some amusing posts today.

Can we bet a beer in Bermudas that the AC will be sailed with cats between 45 - 50 ft, that LR and TNZ will accept it ?

LR can defend an small advantage even after their will to retire as CoR but they are not that stupid to bail out after investing that much. LMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is how big can you go and still fit in a container?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else see the consistency within Coutts here? He made a deal with Spooner (and others on OTUSA) at a certain wage rate based on a common understanding of where the event might be (if not SFO, at least stateside). Then, after Spooner gets his own Visa counsel (instead of the counsel that OTUSA used to provide for the team), Simmer later pulls the trump card of two weeks notice (bad on Spooner to have ever signed that deal with that in there, but the legal moves aren't over) when Spooner figures out he get screwed when the event moved to Bermuda.

 

Then...there's an agreement to have an event in Auckland.

 

Now...because Brigadier General (ret) Schiller saw something on FB, he cancelled the Auckland event.

 

A clear agreement to use 62's, against which serious teams have been working towards.

 

And Russell just changed his mind about what size boat to use.

 

Clearly, Russell is the type of guy who believes the negotiations start as soon as the contract is signed.

 

Why on earth would anyone trust him ever again, with anything?

 

So even assume they figure something out for some of the people in this weeks drama to save face (but not all). What's Russell going to decided to change next, and when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is how big can you go and still fit in a container?

60' container = 55' cat, I'd imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is how big can you go and still fit in a container?

If they decide to have the stern or the bow as a separate element elements it depends there should be no problems with the hull even with a 40 ft container

The beams could go up to 38 ft I guess.

It would even be easier in 60 ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The question is how big can you go and still fit in a container?

 

60' container = 55' cat, I'd imagine.

Too lazy to search, but really? 60 ft containers must be a custom and pain in the ass to move around, do they even exist??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The question is how big can you go and still fit in a container?

60' container = 55' cat, I'd imagine.

Too lazy to search, but really? 60 ft containers must be a custom and pain in the ass to move around, do they even exist??

 

No idea. Last time I had anything to do with containerised freight they did. Mind you, that would have been 25 years ago! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The question is how big can you go and still fit in a container?

60' container = 55' cat, I'd imagine.

Too lazy to search, but really? 60 ft containers must be a custom and pain in the ass to move around, do they even exist??

 

No idea. Last time I had anything to do with containerised freight they did. Mind you, that would have been 25 years ago! :(

 

weird, have been going round with container carriers (about 30 years ago) and that's the first I hear about a 60 footer, sure occasionally a freak container (usually an open platform) would pop up but 99.99% of containers would be 40 or 20 foot boxes. container ships are not ready for too many deviant sizes, not even today, they can acomodate but it's always a -costly-hassle.

yachts are usually loaded on these open platform containers (might be a better engrish verbiage for that, Clean should chime in on that one) and then they can be longer by simply taking the space of the next slots too, and if there was enough space and the ones responsible for the loading scheme (like 1st mate) felt like it, they'd put them somewhere in the middle and surround them with containers for protection ... but was once on a carrier going from Marseille to Montreal, we had 3 50'ish foot yachts on board and they were intentionally loaded right on the side : "if they fall off they'll float anyway" was the reaction of the former east-german 1st mate who was still in commy mode, "fuck those fucking capitalists with those posh capitalist plastic toys" B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is coalescing into a sort of consensus - or as much as has ever occurred in these forums.....

 

I agree in the main with most views - its not like I hope to enter a syndicate into this event.

 

What I am trying to stress upon people is finding the balance between altering the chemistry of the event (or recipe, if you are that way inclined) - to the extent that the event is seen to evolve to a new state - or change it so radically, in a way that is so poorly conceived and implemented, that the only connection to previous events, is its name.

History and evolution by their very definition take time, lots of it, and todays fixes to sort out immediate concerns do clash with change that would otherwise more naturally evolve , and when handled like this do more harm than good.

 

If ACEA (read: LE or RC) had truly been smart and altruistic in their planning and decision making, they would have thought of all of this before the deadline was reached and challengers signed.

 

We all know that finding sponsors is a far from straightforward task, nigh on impossible when the venue is unknown for another year, and now that the platform to be used is up for re-negotiation.

 

I personally think that the 45T's are way cool, exciting and well suited to a series that has designs on being a globally mobile circus.

But I also feel that there has to be some sort of a differentiator to make the story easy to tell - so why not settle on 48 - - you could engineer a catamaran with bolt on bows - that would still dissemble into 40ft containers for shipping? - and a 48 would be accommodating to a slightly larger crew(team) and be physically large enough to easily distinguish from an Extreme 40, ACWS45 etc.

 

But, and it is a big but(t), you look fucking foolish to propose it after 18months of proposing a much more sophisticated larger platform that people were salivating over seeing.

 

So, if you consider yourself as the Ulysse Nardin procurement director, the signing of a deal to be associated with an event that has a history of elitism, high wealth, exclusive, glamorous and high technology - sits well with the customer base that you are seeking. How is he/she feeling now that the platform proposed is seen as little more than an Extreme 40 catamaran +10% more length (do not now tell me the differences between an Extreme 40 and a 45T - I know they are a universe apart - but I am not the audience that has to be educated here.....)

 

It is not a coincidence that you see Prada, Louis Vuitton, Hugo Boss, Rolex, BMW, and many other luxury brands associated with high end yacht racing, motorsport, horse racing etc.

 

You don't, unfortunately, see a lot of their logo's on small dinghy's, club motorsport, or similar events.

And yet it is giving these sponsors a credible story/platform/event to take to their audience/clients/segment, which is what is so required if there is to a fulfilling relationship between syndicate and sponsor. Credible stories can be formulated when you deal with evolution and reasoned change, but what is going on here is anything but that.

Remember that billionaires with an interest in high tech sailboats are few on the ground (it's an entirely separate debate about whether that is good or bad). So, if the AC or our sport is to grow in participation, sponsors need to be in the mix. Remember the bad old days where sponsorship was decided upon by nepotism, favour or tax avoidance? Eventually, shareholders query large sponsorship deals that have poor returns, poor exposure or poor association.

French sailing in general, also Mark Turner and the OC Group has demonstrated that sponsors can get credible return on investment when the right campaign is told with a credible story.

 

I strongly feel that an AC in 45T's could have been sold credibly and successfully, if all the details had been worked out prior to announcing the event.

Not so now, so late after everything that has passed.

 

Consider also, the AC event in Bermuda is trying to secure the attendance of a J-class regatta to immediately precede the Finals - and the irony that this event will probably attract as much attention as the actual AC, and how the sponsors will possibly rue the day that they did not divert their dollars to the J-Class event instead......

 

45T's around a fleet of J-Class boats will look something akin to a Jack Russel biting at the ankles of a Thoroughbred Horse.

 

It is a monumental clusterfuck that needs a lot of smart heads to resolve - I used to respect RC, having met him after he had won the cup in San Diego, but I am now seeing a ruthless muppet, who as was pointed out above, starts negotiations after the contract has been signed, because he can.......

 

I hope that history is truly reflective on who did what to the cup - because it seems to be increasingly Lord of the Rings - with a "precious" bauble exerting it's dark magic over anyone who touches it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is coalescing into a sort of consensus - or as much as has ever occurred in these forums.....

 

I agree in the main with most views - its not like I hope to enter a syndicate into this event.

 

What I am trying to stress upon people is finding the balance between altering the chemistry of the event (or recipe, if you are that way inclined) - to the extent that the event is seen to evolve to a new state - or change it so radically, in a way that is so poorly conceived and implemented, that the only connection to previous events, is its name.

History and evolution by their very definition take time, lots of it, and todays fixes to sort out immediate concerns do clash with change that would otherwise more naturally evolve , and when handled like this do more harm than good.

 

If ACEA (read: LE or RC) had truly been smart and altruistic in their planning and decision making, they would have thought of all of this before the deadline was reached and challengers signed.

 

We all know that finding sponsors is a far from straightforward task, nigh on impossible when the venue is unknown for another year, and now that the platform to be used is up for re-negotiation.

 

I personally think that the 45T's are way cool, exciting and well suited to a series that has designs on being a globally mobile circus.

But I also feel that there has to be some sort of a differentiator to make the story easy to tell - so why not settle on 48 - - you could engineer a catamaran with bolt on bows - that would still dissemble into 40ft containers for shipping? - and a 48 would be accommodating to a slightly larger crew(team) and be physically large enough to easily distinguish from an Extreme 40, ACWS45 etc.

 

But, and it is a big but(t), you look fucking foolish to propose it after 18months of proposing a much more sophisticated larger platform that people were salivating over seeing.

 

So, if you consider yourself as the Ulysse Nardin procurement director, the signing of a deal to be associated with an event that has a history of elitism, high wealth, exclusive, glamorous and high technology - sits well with the customer base that you are seeking. How is he/she feeling now that the platform proposed is seen as little more than an Extreme 40 catamaran +10% more length (do not now tell me the differences between an Extreme 40 and a 45T - I know they are a universe apart - but I am not the audience that has to be educated here.....)

 

It is not a coincidence that you see Prada, Louis Vuitton, Hugo Boss, Rolex, BMW, and many other luxury brands associated with high end yacht racing, motorsport, horse racing etc.

 

You don't, unfortunately, see a lot of their logo's on small dinghy's, club motorsport, or similar events.

And yet it is giving these sponsors a credible story/platform/event to take to their audience/clients/segment, which is what is so required if there is to a fulfilling relationship between syndicate and sponsor. Credible stories can be formulated when you deal with evolution and reasoned change, but what is going on here is anything but that.

Remember that billionaires with an interest in high tech sailboats are few on the ground (it's an entirely separate debate about whether that is good or bad). So, if the AC or our sport is to grow in participation, sponsors need to be in the mix. Remember the bad old days where sponsorship was decided upon by nepotism, favour or tax avoidance? Eventually, shareholders query large sponsorship deals that have poor returns, poor exposure or poor association.

French sailing in general, also Mark Turner and the OC Group has demonstrated that sponsors can get credible return on investment when the right campaign is told with a credible story.

 

I strongly feel that an AC in 45T's could have been sold credibly and successfully, if all the details had been worked out prior to announcing the event.

Not so now, so late after everything that has passed.

 

Consider also, the AC event in Bermuda is trying to secure the attendance of a J-class regatta to immediately precede the Finals - and the irony that this event will probably attract as much attention as the actual AC, and how the sponsors will possibly rue the day that they did not divert their dollars to the J-Class event instead......

 

45T's around a fleet of J-Class boats will look something akin to a Jack Russel biting at the ankles of a Thoroughbred Horse.

 

It is a monumental clusterfuck that needs a lot of smart heads to resolve - I used to respect RC, having met him after he had won the cup in San Diego, but I am now seeing a ruthless muppet, who as was pointed out above, starts negotiations after the contract has been signed, because he can.......

 

I hope that history is truly reflective on who did what to the cup - because it seems to be increasingly Lord of the Rings - with a "precious" bauble exerting it's dark magic over anyone who touches it.

 

 

 

Good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, and it is a big but(t), you look fucking foolish to propose it after 18months of proposing a much more sophisticated larger platform that people were salivating over seeing.

 

It's better to look temporarily foolish correcting a mistake than carry on in the wrong direction for another 30 months.

 

“When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?”

 

Not clear who originally said this. Might have been the economist Keynes. http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Dogwatch - and don't get me wrong - I am not anti a smaller boat and more sustainable conditions, higher participation etc.