peterivanac

Team Australia

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, RobG said:

Even if "Team Australia" won, so what? It would have beaten a country whose only sporting claim to fame, in most people's minds, is rugby. And maybe netball.

BTW - You would have had to have beaten all the other international challengers filled with many of the best sailors and designers in the world first mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

I'm confused...

Aussie would love to have a competitive team in the Cup. If they did they'd be all over this forum like smelly prawns trying to avoid a barbie, and not just this thread, trash talking like only Aussies can. Crap analogy I know, but I'm tired.    Their media in typical Aussie fashion would be talking up their chances, endlessly reliving their victory in 83, going on about how great any Aussie sailor who has won anything is, and basically geeing up the whole country. That they haven't figured in the event for so long means the general public ignore it, and their sailors attempt to diminish it with jibes like it being irrelevant etc. The reasons they want to talk it down is A - they're not in it, and B - those cheeky little bastards across the ditch have got it, and have shown them up again. Their media coverage of the AC here is non existent. Gashby - a household name in NZ is totally unknown in his own country apart from a few sailors.

Aussies love to back a winner, but if they're not in it and winning it, the event doesn't exist. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aussie sailors would love to get the recognition in their own country that Kiwi sailors get in theirs. Fact is, Jimmy, Slingers, Ashby etc would have a far better chance of being recognised walking down the street in Auckland, than they would ever have walking down the street in Sydney or Melbourne. Australia is just not the sailing nation NZ is - no big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/03/2018 at 1:10 AM, dogwatch said:

^

Yes. Another one of those went onto iggy this morning. He can wave his willy around if he likes but we don't have to pay him the attention he apparently craves.

There are plenty of Kiwis who manage to support their team without being dicks. But the minority certainly make a lot of noise.

Is that little arrow a picture of your testicles? "Another into iggy" Conferring with the other girls to seek some support? Have the balls to confront me head on you spineless fuckstick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rh2600 said:

Sorry,  you seem to be saying you aren't interested in the topic of AC and Australia challenging and at the same time following a thread specifically about said topic and complaining it's off-topic.

I'm confused...

I can see your confusion if you think:

"I drop in to see if there's any news on an Australian team"

means

"you seem to be saying you aren't interested in the topic of AC and Australia challenging"

It shows a problem with comprehension. Also:

"…following a thread specifically about said topic and complaining it's off-topic."

is indeed confusing: it's the posts that are off topic, not the thread.

Let me try again:

This thread is about a possible Australian AC team for the next AC. My belief is that such a team will not materialise for AC36, but I'm happy to be proven wrong so keep an eye out for news.

On seeing updates, I think "maybe there's been a change to prove me wrong…", but alas, it's just more irrelevant rehashing of ancient history that should have been posted elsewhere, mostly in threads I ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Heh nah mate I totally got you saying you had been checking in, that was quite clear, obviously...

The part I found confusing what the bit where you said

"Even if "Team Australia" won, so what? It would have beaten a country whose only sporting claim to fame, in most people's minds, is rugby. And maybe netball." 

that indicated to me you think an Australian AC challenge is pointless, and worthless and uninteresting... you know, with words like "so what"...

and yes a thread *can* go off-topic...

And yes I too don't think (sadly) there will be an Aussie challenge, but if the biggest downside of that reality to you is a thread with minimal actual news to report going off-topic then you are a strange breed :-) Maybe just unfollow/ignore this thread in the mean time, I'll PM you the moment Slingers is about to start his live presser announcing the team! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad stuff from the VOR, The search for John Fisher has officially been called off. Lost at sea. Sad stuff RIP "Fish"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, sclarke said:

Sad stuff from the VOR, The search for John Fisher has officially been called off. Lost at sea. Sad stuff RIP "Fish"

How long did they search for him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

Only 7 hours. Doesn't seem like that long. What was the estimate of how long he could survive in those waters?

 

About ten minutes? Hopefully it was less..

In those conditions there is no, make that ZERO, chance of recovery. Can’t find him, can’t get there even if you could somehow pinpoint his general location, might suffer even more danger by even trying a rescue.

And the rest of the crew and boats are still in that hell for 48 hours or more. Sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There some Australian news somewhere.  Surely they aren't getting their act together?

Or is the AC superfoilers their highlight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^  And that is an epic challenge, available to most yachties, challenging enough to test the best, and with something for everyone.  It is right up there with the great yachting races.

BUT, with all their mineral resources, and country pride, you would think they would not be able to resist the EGO trip of a life time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the AC does not rate with the Australian owners as is does with NZ.  It is not the ego trip of a life time but winning the Hobart certainly is.  All the fizz went out of that when the Australians stopped winning.  I think the AC is losing its appeal around the world, as the boats get further from what most people (non yachties) perceive as normal boats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trt131 said:

But the AC does not rate with the Australian owners as is does with NZ.  It is not the ego trip of a life time but winning the Hobart certainly is.  All the fizz went out of that when the Australians stopped winning.  I think the AC is losing its appeal around the world, as the boats get further from what most people (non yachties) perceive as normal boats

I think the AC probably is still as big an ego trip even for a rich Australian, but given the Sydney to Hobart is given at least equal weight in Australia and your four times more likely to win it just on freuqncy alone and at a fraction of the cost I can see why it is far more appealing to an Australian punter!

Even as a New Zealander I think the Sydney to Hobart is a great event and we always watch the start in our household!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you the AC is definitely not a big deal for Aussie owners, I have spoken to all the current main players over the last year and they are just not interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things to remember about the AC in Australia.

One, the really big deal was the first time it was ever taken off the US. Broke the worlds longest ever winning streak. We did that. It isn't possible to do it again. Simply winning from whoever had it last doesn't have anything like the cachet. Thus a significant lack of interest.

Two, they guy that bankrolled the successful challenge was Alan Bond. That just isn't a role model anyone aspires to. Memories are long. Anyone stepping up to fund an AC challenge now is going to see instant comparisons with Bond. (I refuse to call him Bondy.) Stepping into the shoes of one of our more notorious corporate criminals is simply not a good look. If you want to engage in a dick swinging contest you pick your company carefully.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Two things to remember about the AC in Australia.

One, the really big deal was the first time it was ever taken off the US. Broke the worlds longest ever winning streak. We did that. It isn't possible to do it again. Simply winning from whoever had it last doesn't have anything like the cachet. Thus a significant lack of interest.

Two, they guy that bankrolled the successful challenge was Alan Bond. That just isn't a role model anyone aspires to. Memories are long. Anyone stepping up to fund an AC challenge now is going to see instant comparisons with Bond. (I refuse to call him Bondy.) Stepping into the shoes of one of our more notorious corporate criminals is simply not a good look. If you want to engage in a dick swinging contest you pick your company carefully.

Not so sure that Bondy's reputation is hurting  a future Aussie challenge.  That's in the past.

There's no doubt that our close neighbour to the northwest can front the design expertise, boatbuilding skills and sailing talent to get back into the fray.

What appears to be lacking is one or several big monied egos to rally the troops.

If you're seeking a scapegoat for lack of a future challenge, perhaps look to John Bertrand who initially won the Cup and then literally sank Australia's last effort. He's still a player but does he help or hinder? He is a top sailor, is technically adept and a verbal wonder. It's this last attribute,  whole words, sentences and complete paragraphs delivered invariably with a sense of superiority that could be a stumbling block for the super-rich monied class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Slingsby did have a syndicate lined up to give him $50m for a challenge under the London Agreement format. He also had a deal to buy a second hand AC50. I don't know how many were in that syndicate, but you are probably looking at something in the order of 10 people each contributing $5m through either their own money or sponsorship.. The problem is that nobody believes that it can be done for that money (Tom was at $120m in January) and the syndicate was never going to put more money up than they had committed to.

Don't under estimate the Bondy effect. I believe that there were a group of dodgy businessmen of his era that have had a major impact in the way the current crop behave. By way of example, I know of one VRO who could fund an AC campaign on his own who during an economic downturn for his businesses limited the number of new sails he buys each year because he is concerned about the optic, even though it wasn't hurting his personal net worth. I do believe that the super rich in Australia are now far more aware of how they are seen to be splashing the cash than they used to be. Nobody wants to be called the next Alan Bond which is exactly what would happen if they funded AC campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A Class Sailor said:

London Agreement format

WTF

and then you call some businessmen dodgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A Class Sailor said:

Tom Slingsby did have a syndicate lined up to give him $50m for a challenge under the London Agreement format.

Counting chickens before they hatch much?? :lol:..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Indio said:

Counting chickens before they hatch much?? :lol:..

no, counting eggs before they hatch, i don't think you quite grasp the meaning of the phrase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Indio said:

Counting chickens before they hatch much?? :lol:..

Not really. It has been shown time and again that you have very little time to get a team up and running if you want to be competitive. Any new team that starts planning after the end of the cup when the know the winner, the protocol and the rules is never going to get up to speed. If Oracle had won Tom was in a position to sign designers and sailors from that moment. Imagine if it had been the other way around, where he waited to find out the winner, then started fund raising only to find all the good designers and sailors already signed up, which is what happens to most new campaigns. Then you guys would have been on his back for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A Class Sailor said:

Not really. It has been shown time and again that you have very little time to get a team up and running if you want to be competitive. Any new team that starts planning after the end of the cup when the know the winner, the protocol and the rules is never going to get up to speed. If Oracle had won Tom was in a position to sign designers and sailors from that moment. Imagine if it had been the other way around, where he waited to find out the winner, then started fund raising only to find all the good designers and sailors already signed up, which is what happens to most new campaigns. Then you guys would have been on his back for that.

Fair enough. But I'm not sure whether the $50-mil for an Aussie Challenge under the London Agreement was even realistic, given that the LA format would only have been possible had the cheaters defended successfully in AC35 - or one of their sock puppets won. Had the cheaters defended, I could easily see Slingsby staying with the cheaters - perhaps even taking over from Jimmy.

On top of this, the London Agreement format meant AC36 in 2019, which would have left an Aussie Challenge struggling to get an AC50 design up and manufactured in 12 months. Or was the expectation that the cheaters would provide their designs to an Aussie Challenge?

I'm not buying the $50 war chest you keep bringing up in your constant blaming of ETNZ for the costs of challenging in AC36.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Indio said:

Fair enough. But I'm not sure whether the $50-mil for an Aussie Challenge under the London Agreement was even realistic, given that the LA format would only have been possible had the cheaters defended successfully in AC35 - or one of their sock puppets won. Had the cheaters defended, I could easily see Slingsby staying with the cheaters - perhaps even taking over from Jimmy.

On top of this, the London Agreement format meant AC36 in 2019, which would have left an Aussie Challenge struggling to get an AC50 design up and manufactured in 12 months. Or was the expectation that the cheaters would provide their designs to an Aussie Challenge?

I'm not buying the $50 war chest you keep bringing up in your constant blaming of ETNZ for the costs of challenging in AC36.

i don't think anyone is blaming ETNZ for the costs of challenging in ac36

i think that higher costs are absolutely necessary to push a new design, which will only become less and less if this class rule becomes stable and there are more cups using this boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, inebriated said:

no, counting eggs before they hatch, i don't think you quite grasp the meaning of the phrase

No it's definitely counting chickens, your treating your eggs as chickens in your certainty that they will be chickens in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Boybland said:

No it's definitely counting chickens, your treating your eggs as chickens in your certainty that they will be chickens in the future.

well no, he had 50m IF the london agreement went through

similar to saying "i have 50 chickens IF they all hatch" which is pretty much counting eggs when you get back to it

he said he had a certain amount of money for a certain situation, not a guaranteed situation though which he recognised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Indio said:

Fair enough. But I'm not sure whether the $50-mil for an Aussie Challenge under the London Agreement was even realistic, given that the LA format would only have been possible had the cheaters defended successfully in AC35 - or one of their sock puppets won. Had the cheaters defended, I could easily see Slingsby staying with the cheaters - perhaps even taking over from Jimmy.

$50m was very realistic because the cycle was only 2 years, it was a class where there was a significant chunk of one design and he knew the exact budget he needed. Tom had already told Larry that come what may, he was not going to be with Oracle next time. They had an agreement that made it easy for him to set up his own team. It's funny that you seem to believe ETNZ/LR when they say under the new protocol, which calls for a 4 year cycle, significantly more staff and 2 boats to a brand new design rule, it will only cost $50m yet you question that Slingsby could do a 2 year cycle with only one boat to an existing rule of that same amount.

Quote

On top of this, the London Agreement format meant AC36 in 2019, which would have left an Aussie Challenge struggling to get an AC50 design up and manufactured in 12 months. Or was the expectation that the cheaters would provide their designs to an Aussie Challenge?

WTF are you on about? As stated above, Slingsby had an agreement to buy a complete second hand AC50. He would have been up and sailing within 6 months. He could have spent the best part of 2 years developing foils, foil control systems and maybe new wing control systems.

3 hours ago, inebriated said:

I'm not buying the $50 war chest you keep bringing up in your constant blaming of ETNZ for the costs of challenging in AC36.

You are right. $50 won't get you very far:D

Unlike some, I do blame ETNZ for the OTT costs of challenging for AC36. Let's ignore the choice of a new, unknown design concept and all the costs associated with that. Instead, look at the team size increases which adds significant costs. Then there is the need to build 2 boats. It's been known for years that is something to vastly increase costs and even more than the last AC, because there are 2 platforms to be designed, so your design team will need to stay at full size almost the whole campaign. 

You could almost excuse those if it weren't for the length of the cycle. If it had been 3 years, one boat and a smaller crew it would have cost significantly less. Considering past comments about out of control budgets, I was certainly surprised ETNZ didn't do anything at all the attempt to constrain budgets. They were under no obligation to do so, but it still seems to me to be rather hypocritical to have not done more to reduce budgets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@A Class Sailor, not too sure where you got that quote of mine from in post #328

you must have quoted me and then edited it, although that kind of defeats the purpose of quoting me in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, inebriated said:

@A Class Sailor, not too sure where you got that quote of mine from in post #328

you must have quoted me and then edited it, although that kind of defeats the purpose of quoting me in the first place

Sorry! Not sure what happened but it was Indio's mad rantings i was meant to quote.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now