Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, rh2600 said:

For the same reason the cup is no longer resident on your shores perhaps? As further evidenced by your own "can't be done" attitude and lack of vision for innovation by scoffing at those pushing sailing forward.

Foils are now all over monos all over the world and are starting to show up in 'consumer' boats too... It's the future of all hulls, so why not let the AC push massively predominant monos forward?

That's an amazing statement about America, probably the most innovative country the world has seen.

Share this post


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

You're getting there... think through some scenarios as to how this could play out... and why ENTZ preserving veto is important for a proper AC

To justify their twisted interpretation of the Deed, don't forget that all other challengers were accepted by RNZYS.

And because challengers vote with no rights, RNZYS can refuse all elected challenger until their choice is done; this selected challenger will receive all the CoR funds.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sclarke said:

They have the right to present options to the CoR.

No, they vote and the meeting is chaired by the defender:

b)     The RNZYS will chair without voting right the above-mentioned Challenger Meeting(s) which may also be attended by the Initial Challenger of Record with full voting rights, unless it has confirmed that he will not continue to compete as a Challenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trt131 said:

That's an amazing statement about America, probably the most innovative country the world has seen.

My statement was localised to the sailing industry, and to Hoggie's own commentary...

But having said that, your own suggestion that the USA is the most innovative country the world has seen is frankly also an amazing statement - I'd be keen to determine by which dimension you are measuring that by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

No, they vote and the meeting is chaired by the defender:

b)     The RNZYS will chair without voting right the above-mentioned Challenger Meeting(s) which may also be attended by the Initial Challenger of Record with full voting rights, unless it has confirmed that he will not continue to compete as a Challenger.

So whats the problem? ETNZ only chairs that meeting. They have no voting rights. The CoR has full voting rights.

Share this post


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

So whats the problem? ETNZ only chairs that meeting. They have no voting rights. The CoR has full voting rights.

Why do you say challengers have to present options ? you are wrong, they have to vote

And you really don't get the real issue. 

If the CoR is in charge of the CSS as claimed, why do they want to chose the succession CoR ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Why do you say challengers have to present options ? you are wrong, they have to vote

And you really don't get the real issue. 

If the CoR is in charge of the CSS as claimed, why do they want to chose the succession CoR ?

 

 

Because if it all falls over that is who they have to DOG fight with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Why do you say challengers have to present options ? you are wrong, they have to vote

And you really don't get the real issue. 

If the CoR is in charge of the CSS as claimed, why do they want to chose the succession CoR ?

 

Because thats what the protocol says they have to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Boybland said:

 

Because if it all falls over that is who they have to DOG fight with...

Because they claim they have no responsability on the CSS, but in fact they are in charge of the whole event, so they want to choose their CoR.

As the challengers are (falsely) deemed to have challenged at the same time, they are bound to a bogus vote.

At the end, only the defender and the initial CoR have some power in this AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Because they claim they have no responsability on the CSS, but in fact they are in charge of the whole event, so they want to choose their CoR.

As the challengers are (falsely) deemed to have challenged at the same time, they are bound to a bogus vote.

At the end, only the defender and the initial CoR have some power in this AC.

They only choose if the Challengers can't decide. 

Thats exactly right, and thats the way it always has been, and always should be. It prevents factions from forming majority's and out numbering other teams, as we saw in Bermuda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Because they claim they have no responsability on the CSS, but in fact they are in charge of the whole event, so they want to choose their CoR.

As the challengers are (falsely) deemed to have challenged at the same time, they are bound to a bogus vote.

At the end, only the defender and the initial CoR have some power in this AC.

I'm not quite sure that's right...

I would think a newly selected COR would be given all the powers of the previous COR possibly including the right to DOG in the event the CSS is cancelled for whatever reason, they are after all still a valid challenger.

I can totally see why ETNZ wouldn't want to just bestow those rights on any old challenger, especially if someone inclined towards courtroom resolution like Oracle or Alinghi were in the list of potentials.

Share this post


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

They only choose if the Challengers can't decide. 

 

No, there is no restriction to their veto, but they can also appoint a new CoR if the election is not successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Boybland said:

I'm not quite sure that's right...

I would think a newly selected COR would be given all the powers of the previous COR possibly including the right to DOG in the event the CSS is cancelled for whatever reason, they are after all still a valid challenger.

I can totally see why ETNZ wouldn't want to just bestow those rights on any old challenger, especially if someone inclined towards courtroom resolution like Oracle or Alinghi were in the list of potentials.

At least on that:

b)     The Initial Challenger of Record shall transfer forthwith to the new Challenger of Record all the funds that it retains as Challenger of Record and all relevant accounting and contractual documents.

Basically they control the challenger with a hip pocket, nothing new here, however they lock the control by preventing any competitor meeting and by giving themselves the right to choose the new CoR within the challengers. Do we have any precedent ?

I would say the instead of preventing a courtroom resolution it could create one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

No, there is no restriction to their veto, but they can also appoint a new CoR if the election is not successful.

a) The Initial Challenger of Record shall forthwith notify the RNZYS and the other Challengers of its decision and the RNZYS shall either:
i. appoint within (20) days from the receipt of the notice by the initial Challenger of Record, a new Challenger of Record which shall be then confirmed by a majority vote of the Challengers at a Challengers meeting of all of the then Challengers, to take place within (60) days after such an appointment; or
ii. convene within (20) days from the receipt of the notice by the initial Challenger of Record, a meeting of all of the then Challengers to elect by a majority vote the new Challenger of Record amongst the candidates. The RNZYS shall have veto right on such election to be exercised immediately after the election at the Challengers meeting; in such case the Challengers shall immediately proceed with a new election, the RNZYS maintaining its veto right.


b) The RNZYS will chair without voting right the above-mentioned Challenger meeting(s) which may also be attended by the initial Challenger of Record with full voting rights, unless it has confirmed that he will not continue as a Challenger.


c) In the event of the above procedure(s) not being successful, the RNZYS shall appoint the new Challenger of Record, which will only need to be confirmed by the Arbitration Panel within (20) days of its appointment.


d) Upon the final appointment of the new Challenger of Record, the Initial Challenger of Record shall relinquish its position as the Initial Challenger of Record, but shall retain the status of a Challenger under this Protocol if and only if its yacht continues to compete in the AC36.


e) All Challengers present or voting by proxy at the Challengers meeting or any other duly convened meeting of the Challengers shall be entitled to one vote each. If a Challenger is unable to be represented in person at any meeting of Challengers, that Challenger may appoint in writing another Challenger to vote a sits proxy. No Challenger can hold more than one proxy and all matter shall be determined by a majority of votes.


f) The Initial Challenger of Record Shall transfer forthwith to the new Challenger of Record all the funds that it retains as Challenger of Record and all relevant accounting and contractual documents.

I don't see what the problem is? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sclarke said:

a) The Initial Challenger of Record shall forthwith notify the RNZYS and the other Challengers of its decision and the RNZYS shall either:
i. appoint within (20) days from the receipt of the notice by the initial Challenger of Record, a new Challenger of Record which shall be then confirmed by a majority vote of the Challengers at a Challengers meeting of all of the then Challengers, to take place within (60) days after such an appointment; or
ii. convene within (20) days from the receipt of the notice by the initial Challenger of Record, a meeting of all of the then Challengers to elect by a majority vote the new Challenger of Record amongst the candidates. The RNZYS shall have veto right on such election to be exercised immediately after the election at the Challengers meeting; in such case the Challengers shall immediately proceed with a new election, the RNZYS maintaining its veto right.


b) The RNZYS will chair without voting right the above-mentioned Challenger meeting(s) which may also be attended by the initial Challenger of Record with full voting rights, unless it has confirmed that he will not continue as a Challenger.


c) In the event of the above procedure(s) not being successful, the RNZYS shall appoint the new Challenger of Record, which will only need to be confirmed by the Arbitration Panel within (20) days of its appointment.


d) Upon the final appointment of the new Challenger of Record, the Initial Challenger of Record shall relinquish its position as the Initial Challenger of Record, but shall retain the status of a Challenger under this Protocol if and only if its yacht continues to compete in the AC36.


e) All Challengers present or voting by proxy at the Challengers meeting or any other duly convened meeting of the Challengers shall be entitled to one vote each. If a Challenger is unable to be represented in person at any meeting of Challengers, that Challenger may appoint in writing another Challenger to vote a sits proxy. No Challenger can hold more than one proxy and all matter shall be determined by a majority of votes.


f) The Initial Challenger of Record Shall transfer forthwith to the new Challenger of Record all the funds that it retains as Challenger of Record and all relevant accounting and contractual documents.

I don't see what the problem is? 

"RNZYS shall have veto right on such election to be exercised immediately after the election at the Challengers meeting; in such case the Challengers shall immediately proceed with a new election, the RNZYS maintaining its veto right."  And you can add, until they pick the challenger of their choice.

And you are part of the whiners who were complaining about " It prevents factions from forming majority's and out numbering other teams, as we saw in Bermuda."

If democracy does not fit your interest chose dictatorship and complain about the past.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

"RNZYS shall have veto right on such election to be exercised immediately after the election at the Challengers meeting; in such case the Challengers shall immediately proceed with a new election, the RNZYS maintaining its veto right."  And you can add, until they pick the challenger of their choice.

And you are part of the whiners who were complaining about " It prevents factions from forming majority's and out numbering other teams, as we saw in Bermuda."

If democracy does not fit your interest chose dictatorship and complain about the past.

 

Ridiculous. Veto rights exist for that very reason! To prevent factions from forming and dictating the format which is exactly what we saw in Bermuda. Majority vote became a gang of friends lead by the Defender, pulling together to eliminate the two strongest challenging teams. Veto rights prevent that from happening. Paying your friends off to vote your way, is NOT democracy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given what actually initiates this process in the first place is the current COR deliberately choosing to pull out it all seems rather a storm in a tea cup to get so upset about a process which would normally just consist of the defender choosing a new COR. Or in the case of entries being recieved in a certain order simply the next cab off the rank, no voting no nothing....

In fact I would think the only reason this process even exists in any form is the deliberate choice where all extra entries are deemed accepted at the same moment in time.  ETNZ could just as easily accepted their second favourite option before anyone else and there would be no choice or process at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sclarke said:

Ridiculous. Veto rights exist for that very reason! To prevent factions from forming and dictating the format which is exactly what we saw in Bermuda. Majority vote became a gang of friends lead by the Defender, pulling together to eliminate the two strongest challenging teams. Veto rights prevent that from happening. Paying your friends off to vote your way, is NOT democracy!

You really don't get it. Your version of democracy is no democracy because the may vote against you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Boybland said:

In fact I would think the only reason this process even exists in any form is the deliberate choice where all extra entries are deemed accepted at the same moment in time.  ETNZ could just as easily accepted their second favourite option before anyone else and there would be no choice or process at all.

If so, why the vote ? But I agree the discussion is purely theoretical, it won't happen, the present CoR will stay the CoR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really follow your argument, but I think something is being lost in translation as that clause is to ensure that a hostile COR doesn't prevail and de-rail the competition.  The mutual consent part of modern AC is a tenuous and delicate dance between two (theoretically) competing factions, but one in which the parties share the same overall vision for the way the event should be run.  Remove that and the entire event would be thrown into jeopardy.  Remember, there can only be one challenger at any given time under the Deed so the COR actually holds a fair amount of power with the threat of a DOG race always present if a mutual consent event can't be agreed upon  - the legal battle that would follow if a new COR decided to renege on the agreed protocol (notwithstanding Section 51) and go rogue would be incredibly messy to say the least, but someone with deep enough pockets could absorb that pain if they were motivated enough to screw up the event (see Larry circa 2009-2010).  I'm not a fan of a lot that ETNZ has done - that fucking boat - but this seems pretty inoffensive and given recent cup history makes a lot of sense to protect the viability of the event and assure sponsors and challengers that they won't be sinking a bucket load of cash into something that may end up stalled in the NY courts because someone wants to impose an alternative vision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 3:11 PM, sclarke said:

Really, if the AC went with boats that the average member of the sailing community has access to, it would die a slow, (or maybe even a quick) death.

My argument is do we know for a fact that the multi's are better for foiling? We haven't seen an efficient foiling monohull yet. It took 2 cycles to perfect a foiling multihull for Americas Cup racing. It may take 2 cycles to perfect an efficient foiling monohull as well.

As for the CoR "demanding a monohull because it provides a design reset for a team who sat out the last Cup cycle, a team who would be one cycle behind the design curve if the AC50's were kept" I think that would be incorrect, as if LR had the input into the ETNZ AC50 that many here say they did, it would make more sense that they would be well ahead of the design curve than well behind.

Again, the Americas Cup doesn't exist for the average joe from down the road to participate in. It exists to inspire those people, to motivate them. If the AC used boats that the average person goes day sailing in, it wouldn't be the Americas Cup. 

 

The design is chosen.  I will refrain from commenting on it further until we see one in the water.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

You really don't get it. Your version of democracy is no democracy because the may vote against you :)

The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest. Either way that's within the rights of the defender, as it has always been. Otherwise there's no reason to become the Defender/ Cor, as the majority may vote against you the entire time, and your "vision" may suddenly become someone elses vision. There is nothing hypocritical about anything. Thats your point right? You're trying to point out some kind of hypocrisy from the defender/ CoR point of view, and you're trying to twist the wording of the protocol to suit your narrative. But in reality, you're over reaching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sclarke said:

The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest. Either way that's within the rights of the defender, as it has always been. Otherwise there's no reason to become the Defender/ Cor, as the majority may vote against you the entire time, and your "vision" may suddenly become someone elses vision. There is nothing hypocritical about anything. Thats your point right? You're trying to point out some kind of hypocrisy from the defender/ CoR point of view, and you're trying to twist the wording of the protocol to suit your narrative. But in reality, you're over reaching

Haven't been following this discussion, and dont plan to moving forward, but any time I see a ETNZ fan preaching about the rights of the Defender to veto anything challenger related in order to protect the Defenders vision I take notice for a variety of reasons.  But mainly to have a good laugh.  Thanks.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ezyb said:

I don't really follow your argument, but I think something is being lost in translation as that clause is to ensure that a hostile COR doesn't prevail and de-rail the competition.

No, a CoR cannot be hostile as any challenger has to sign this entry form, not sure if it's a point lost in reading or translation ;)

(1)    The Challenger by this Notice hereby challenges for the 36th America's Cup (including its constituent events) in accordance with the Protocol Governing the 36th America's Cup (the "Protocol"). The Challenger hereby agrees to be bound by and undertakes to comply with, and hereby agrees to procure that all of its Team Members (as such term is defined in the Protocol) shall comply with, the terms of the Protocol and all other rules referred to therein.

 

Facts are:

- challengers have no right unless CoR

- the only time they can vote the defender can veto the result

- there is no defined competitor forum

- in last ACs the new CoR were established by date of entry, this time chosen by the defender

 

So the only point I agree with you is that RNZYS want to chose a "friend" and control the succession process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WetHog said:

Haven't been following this discussion, and dont plan to moving forward, but any time I see a ETNZ fan preaching about the rights of the Defender to veto anything challenger related in order to protect the Defenders vision I take notice for a variety of reasons.  But mainly to have a good laugh.  Thanks.

WetHog  :ph34r:

One word...Trustee.

Share this post


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

Haven't been following this discussion, and dont plan to moving forward, but any time I see a ETNZ fan preaching about the rights of the Defender to veto anything challenger related in order to protect the Defenders vision I take notice for a variety of reasons.  But mainly to have a good laugh.  Thanks.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Nice sweeping statement that deliberately excludes important words like CoR and replaces them with baseless hyperbole... your president would be proud...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

You really don't get it. Your version of democracy is no democracy because the may vote against you :)

TC I *think* you might be based in the UK, but I could be wrong...

Do you not think the UK is a democracy? Or the US? or the likes of AU or NZ?

Share this post


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

TC I *think* you might be based in the UK, but I could be wrong...

Do you not think the UK is a democracy? Or the US? or the likes of AU or NZ?

Ah ah, I love sclarke, and perhaps yours (?), definition of democracy (not Theresa May) :)

"The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest".

I have to say it sums up pretty well our discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Ah ah, I love sclarke, and perhaps yours (?), definition of democracy (not Theresa May) :)

"The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest".

I have to say it sums up pretty well our discussion.

Hmmm right, so again, I'm right in thinking that you are UK-based? which I'm sure you'd (as do I) regard as a democracy?

In which case can I suggest you read up on a little thing known as a Constitutional Monarchy? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Ah ah, I love sclarke, and perhaps yours (?), definition of democracy (not Theresa May) :)

"The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest".

I have to say it sums up pretty well our discussion.

Yep, sums it up... sour grapes on your part.

Share this post


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

Hmmm right, so again, I'm right in thinking that you are UK-based? which I'm sure you'd (as do I) regard as a democracy?

In which case can I suggest you read up on a little thing known as a Constitutional Monarchy? ;-)

I am not based in UK but will be pretty close soon !

My conception of democracy does not include an executive that vetoes the result of an election if they lose it. Leave it to sclarke who, I am sure, hates Trump :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Protocol is heavily favored to ETNZ and LR and TC has a right to point this out even if he focuses on the trees instead of the forest.

Hopefully we will see changes coming that give the other two syndicates some power but I’m not holding my breath..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to design a boat when NoR and match conditions are published after the boat is finished, while the defender and the CoR probably already know them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

I am not based in UK but will be pretty close soon !

My conception of democracy does not include an executive that vetoes the result of an election if they lose it. Leave it to sclarke who, I am sure, hates Trump :)

 

Nice dodge, but to be clear *every* democracy has some figure able to veto decisions made by participants... to be clear, like in those democracies, that power is typically not wielded unless necessary, and furthermore, your assertion that the DoR can lose this election is not accurate, they are not up for election so they cannot lose it - they are the president / head of state / governor general presiding over the election of another party, just like what happens in a general election in democratic nations...

You're worried about what ETNZ might do with that power, I get it, but the power itself is not abnormal nor evil, nor does it deviate from any functional democratic structure in governments today. As far as the AC goes well... as I said at the beginning... play out some scenarios that ETNZ and their legal teams would forced them to consider and see if you would be comfortable as the DoR having a CoR bail and then whoever is left amongst the defenders having automatic rights to determine the new CoR.That could be *very* messy, and the DoR should have the ability to clean it up - bearing in mind that if they decide to do something unpopular with the defenders then they might not have any left for a regatta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

I am not based in UK but will be pretty close soon !

My conception of democracy does not include an executive that vetoes the result of an election if they lose it. Leave it to sclarke who, I am sure, hates Trump :)

 

So by your version of "democracy" what stops someone buying off voters? Bribery would be rampant if all that is required is a majority vote.

Share this post


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

Nice sweeping statement that deliberately excludes important words like CoR and replaces them with baseless hyperbole... your president would be proud...

Funny you bring up “my president” like it’s an insult.  No hyper partisan here.  Both sides of the US political debate are equally full of shit.  Just like any “democracy” on this planet.  The current Jerkoff in the Oval Office will give way to another in time.  

This place isn’t much different.  Those once up in arms over the previous Defenders vision are now preaching the current Defenders similar vision like it’s a revelation from God himself.  Truly inspirational.

Anyway, Defenders of The Vision UNITE!!!  :lol:

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Nice dodge, but to be clear *every* democracy has some figure able to veto decisions made by participants... to be clear, like in those democracies, that power is typically not wielded unless necessary, and furthermore, your assertion that the DoR can lose this election is not accurate, they are not up for election so they cannot lose it - they are the president / head of state / governor general presiding over the election of another party, just like what happens in a general election in democratic nations...

You're worried about what ETNZ might do with that power, I get it, but the power itself is not abnormal nor evil, nor does it deviate from any functional democratic structure in governments today. As far as the AC goes well... as I said at the beginning... play out some scenarios that ETNZ and their legal teams would forced them to consider and see if you would be comfortable as the DoR having a CoR bail and then whoever is left amongst the defenders having automatic rights to determine the new CoR.That could be *very* messy, and the DoR should have the ability to clean it up - bearing in mind that if they decide to do something unpopular with the defenders then they might not have any left for a regatta.

I am not afraid because the scenario won't happen. I am more concerned about competitors being able to design the right boat without knowing the race track and the NoR.

I am just pointing at the hypocrisy of the protocol.

It is as if Trump  was telling that the democrats could elect their leader but could veto the result until the best suited candidate but....... that it's democracy because he may not exerce his veto right. Trump could not, and would not even do that.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WetHog said:

Funny you bring up “my president” like it’s an insult.  No hyper partisan here.  Both sides of the US political debate are equally full of shit.  Just like any “democracy” on this planet.  The current Jerkoff in the Oval Office will give way to another in time.  

This place isn’t much different.  Those once up in arms over the previous Defenders vision are now preaching the current Defenders similar vision like it’s a revelation from God himself.  Truly inspirational.

Anyway, Defenders of The Vision UNITE!!!  :lol:

WetHog  :ph34r:

Why would referencing your president be an insult? Projecting much? The current US president is simply someone that does indeed make "sweeping statement(s) that deliberately excludes important words... and replaces them with baseless hyperbole" and as a result I'm sure he'd be proud of anyone else that does the same. That was my point.

"similar vision"

giphy.gif

BTW FTR I am partisan when it comes to Trump - he is a clueless fuckwit and whilst all main contenders across the aisles were all pretty much flawed, he was by fucking miles the worst option!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

It is as if Trump  was telling that the democrats could elect their leader but could veto the result until the best suited candidate but....... that it's democracy because he may not exerce his veto right. Trump could not, and would not even do that.

I get the metaphor, but I'm still not sure it's that accurate... not that I can think of a better one :-/

what is NoR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WetHog said:

This place isn’t much different.  Those once up in arms over the previous Defenders vision are now preaching the current Defenders similar vision like it’s a revelation from God himself.  Truly inspirational.

 

Some are and they tend to be the more prolific posters. Some aren't. Not everyone is blinded by allegiance and that includes some of the Kiwis.

Share this post


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

Funny you bring up “my president” like it’s an insult.  No hyper partisan here.  Both sides of the US political debate are equally full of shit.  Just like any “democracy” on this planet.  The current Jerkoff in the Oval Office will give way to another in time.  

This place isn’t much different.  Those once up in arms over the previous Defenders vision are now preaching the current Defenders similar vision like it’s a revelation from God himself.  Truly inspirational.

Anyway, Defenders of The Vision UNITE!!!  :lol:

WetHog  :ph34r:

Difference is...Oracle had so-called "Challengers" that had no intent of actually wanting to win the Americas Cup, but rather were there to help the defender retain the Cup, ad/ or further their vision. This time all challengers are intent on winning the trophy from the defender.

Share this post


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

Some are and they tend to be the more prolific posters. Some aren't. Not everyone is blinded by allegiance and that includes some of the Kiwis.

Yes yes the silence is tacit agreement with the pet paranoid tin foilers that ETNZ are devil spawn looking to fuck other challengers. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 9:18 PM, rh2600 said:

My statement was localised to the sailing industry, and to Hoggie's own commentary...

But having said that, your own suggestion that the USA is the most innovative country the world has seen is frankly also an amazing statement - I'd be keen to determine by which dimension you are measuring that by?

Your country been to the moon yet?

get back to us when you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

I am not afraid because the scenario won't happen. I am more concerned about competitors being able to design the right boat without knowing the race track and the NoR.

I am just pointing at the hypocrisy of the protocol.

It is as if Trump  was telling that the democrats could elect their leader but could veto the result until the best suited candidate but....... that it's democracy because he may not exerce his veto right. Trump could not, and would not even do that.

Waal, TC, you deserve some kind of prize for heating up debate around here.

Can't say I share your concerns.

Of course you're aware that The Protocol was a joint project, worked out and agreed to by the Defender plus the Challenger.

We have yet to discuss how much LR's actions were affected this time by the insulting actions of their fellow northern competitors when they relinquished their COR role last time. 

Share this post


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

I get the metaphor, but I'm still not sure it's that accurate... not that I can think of a better one :-/

what is NoR?

I get yours too, and I know a (small) bit about your constition. But RNZYS is not the Queen, neither Trump, we will agree on that !

I'll come back on the NoR and conditions of the match, which will be prensented by the defender and CoR to the competitors after the construction of their yachts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KiwiJoker said:

Waal, TC, you deserve some kind of prize for heating up debate around here.

Can't say I share your concerns.

Of course you're aware that The Protocol was a joint project, worked out and agreed to by the Defender plus the Challenger.

We have yet to discuss how much LR's actions were affected this time by the insulting actions of their fellow northern competitors when they relinquished their COR role last time. 

Well KJ, you may be right about the reasons, but let's not forget it was Mutual Consent !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Well KJ, you may be right about the reasons, but let's not forget it was Mutual Consent !

Touche, mate.  

But, it's clear LR learned their lesson.  Trust but verify!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sunseeker said:

Your country been to the moon yet?

get back to us when you have.

The trip to the moon requires lots of money rather than innovation,  especially when there are no competitors.  When you have a low budget and the competition has lots of money, innovation is pretty well a necessity.

Share this post


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

The trip to the moon requires lots of money rather than innovation,  especially when there are no competitors.  When you have a low budget and the competition has lots of money, innovation is pretty well a necessity.

IIRC, there was a competitor (USSR);they started well but faded in the finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nasa says we are not able to go to the moon these days.   All the old data was lost.

The old footage on youtube looks pretty fake, and the nazi scientist in charge back then has a bible quote on his headstone that refers to the firmament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sunseeker said:

Your country been to the moon yet?

get back to us when you have.

Seriously? It's no wonder then... ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, david r said:

 

The old footage on youtube looks pretty fake, and the nazi scientist in charge back then has a bible quote on his headstone that refers to the firmament.

It was arguably German innovation and American money that put a man on the moon. Helluva long time ago anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2018 at 7:42 AM, KiwiJoker said:

heating up debate around here.

 

KJ, it's always good to know that we have open minded kiwis on this forum, not stuck on one position.

So if we want to heat up the debate, some can try to answer the following questions. Again, it won't t happen, so it's purely theoretical.

Is it deed compliant to :

- consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference ?

- ask challengers to vote a new challenger ?

- have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oracle got into a bit of a habit of losing challengers of record but I will be very surprised if that happens in this cycle. Consequently sorry but I don't find how the protocol handles that eventuality very interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

Oracle got into a bit of a habit of losing challengers of record but I will be very surprised if that happens in this cycle. Consequently sorry but I don't find how the protocol handles that eventuality very interesting. 

I agree that this eventuality won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

KJ, it's always good to know that we have open minded kiwis on this forum, not stuck on one position.

So if we want to heat up the debate, some can try to answer the following questions. Again, it won't t happen, so it's purely theoretical.

Is it deed compliant to :

- consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference ?

- ask challengers to vote a new challenger ?

- have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one ?

 

 

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be waived. 

In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

KJ, it's always good to know that we have open minded kiwis on this forum, not stuck on one position.

So if we want to heat up the debate, some can try to answer the following questions. Again, it won't t happen, so it's purely theoretical.

Is it deed compliant to :

- consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference ?

- ask challengers to vote a new challenger ?

- have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one ?

Well, our mate clarke has already provided the Deed's safety valve escape clause that answers all your questions!

But, dealing with your theoretical points:

Is it deed compliant to - consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference? 

Hard numbers are hard numbers. Is it considered fair to award first place for a marathon based on a split-second difference?

Is it deed compliant to :- ask challengers to vote a new challenger?  

We know that challengers can vote en bloc so I'd tend to prefer next challenger in line. That said, the Defender should have right of veto for demonstrable cause, ie, stuff like Challenger team and club financial health, etc.

 Is it deed compliant to :- have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The challenger chooses itself.

ETNZ/RNZYS is concerned with who partners them (COR/D) in carrying through the Protocol for AC36 negotiated with Luna Rossa/CdVS.

While ready to meet any team on the course - they, for good reasons, no longer assume that all parties share common sporting ideals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it now likely that there will be more than three challengers?

Just can't see Sardinia or the second US challenge fronting up the cash at the end of the month.

Certainly would reduce the govt costs in Auckland building bases.

Are there any serious contenders out there from China, Russia? 

Share this post


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

1) Well, our mate clarke has already provided the Deed's safety valve escape clause that answers all your questions!

But, dealing with your theoretical points:

2) Is it deed compliant to - consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference? 

Hard numbers are hard numbers. Is it considered fair to award first place for a marathon based on a split-second difference?

3) Is it deed compliant to :- ask challengers to vote a new challenger?  

We know that challengers can vote en bloc so I'd tend to prefer next challenger in line. That said, the Defender should have right of veto for demonstrable cause, ie, stuff like Challenger team and club financial health, etc.

 4) Is it deed compliant to :- have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one?

No.

1) Our mate sclarke has the quick fix for anything relating to AC, politics, life...

2) Agreed

3) Agreed, however we speak here of already accepted challenger who fulfilled their financial duties

4) Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winchfodder said:

Is it now likely that there will be more than three challengers?

Just can't see Sardinia or the second US challenge fronting up the cash at the end of the month.

Certainly would reduce the govt costs in Auckland building bases.

Are there any serious contenders out there from China, Russia? 

End of the month is too soon to be sure. Late entries accepted up to 30th Nov. It is however hard to see how anyone who isn't already far into the design process would be doing anything except wasting their time and money starting now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

1) Our mate sclarke has the quick fix for anything relating to AC, politics, life...

2) Agreed

3) Agreed, however we speak here of already accepted challenger who fulfilled their financial duties

4) Agreed.

You need to separate what is "Deed Compliant" from what is "Protocol compliant". The Deed makes no provision for anything to do with multiple challengers. It only makes provision for "Mutual consent" between "The Defender" and "The Challenger". 

What you speak about is what YOU think is "Fair". 

It is completely fair and understandable for RNZYS and its CoR to maintain Veto rights over nomination as a replacement CoR.

As long as LR and ETNZ (or the RNZYS) agree to that particular clause in the protocol - as per the deed, mutual consent has been achieved between the Defender and its CoR, therefor is deed compliant is it not? 

As for considering (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference, the entry window closes in November, not June, therefor can Challenges really be deemed received before then?

 

Share this post


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

End of the month is too soon to be sure. Late entries accepted up to 30th Nov. It is however hard to see how anyone who isn't already far into the design process would be doing anything except wasting their time and money starting now.

Would it be so dumb for a lower budget team considering an entry to keep low profile until Nov 30th?

I mean they could do with a team of engineers and run plenty of simulation until then, it leaves plenty of time to evaluate the concept in details and eventually find some 'out of the box' ideas which might provide a good shot at the cup (if not, at least have better confidence if this will work or not). With the potential good idea in hand and an advanced design, it should be easier to convince some extra sponsors to join in (making up for penalty fees). Late challenge also allows to recruit the crew later and spare some $$$.

For a small structure not yet fully convinced by the foiling monohull, it might be strategically interesting to wait until Nov 30th to apply. Lower risk and higher rewards for them than committing now (without bad publicity to draw back in case they realize they won't make it).

The drawback is late start to build the boat and less time testing it but such team would only build one boat and won't have the budget to develop it a lot anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lakrass said:

Would it be so dumb for a lower budget team considering an entry to keep low profile until Nov 30th?

I mean they could do with a team of engineers and run plenty of simulation until then, it leaves plenty of time to evaluate the concept in details and eventually find some 'out of the box' ideas which might provide a good shot at the cup (if not, at least have better confidence if this will work or not). With the potential good idea in hand and an advanced design, it should be easier to convince some extraoat  sponsors to join in (making up for penalty fees). Late challenge also allows to recruit the crew later and spare some $$$.

For a small structure not yet fully convinced by the foiling monohull, it might be strategically interesting to wait until Nov 30th to apply. Lower risk and higher rewards for them than committing now (without bad publicity to draw back in case they realize they won't make it).

The drawback is late start to build the boat and less time testing it but such team would only build one boat and won't have the budget to develop it a lot anyway...

When we had the AC72's ETNZ claimed that the design cost exceeded the cost of building the boat.

I suspect in this case the design cost of the AC75 may be even greater than the AC72's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lakrass said:

Would it be so dumb for a lower budget team considering an entry to keep low profile until Nov 30th?

I mean they could do with a team of engineers and run plenty of simulation until then, it leaves plenty of time to evaluate the concept in details and eventually find some 'out of the box' ideas which might provide a good shot at the cup (if not, at least have better confidence if this will work or not). With the potential good idea in hand and an advanced design, it should be easier to convince some extra sponsors to join in (making up for penalty fees). Late challenge also allows to recruit the crew later and spare some $$$.

 

Maybe but it's a small world of designers familiar with such work, gossip as to who is working for whom tends to spread, yet there's no evidence that any of the putative additional challengers have in fact started design work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2018 at 3:51 AM, dogwatch said:

Maybe but it's a small world of designers familiar with such work, gossip as to who is working for whom tends to spread, yet there's no evidence that any of the putative additional challengers have in fact started design work.

Consider the number of "additional challengers" that could be playing the long game. Float your name out there in June 2018 as a team that "will" enter, but then don't. Or maybe even do enter but be willing to walk away from the entrance fee. Then watch to see whether this new boat works as an AC race boat, howsoever you as the team sponsor or owner define "works." And then come in strong for AC37 right after the finish of AC36. Grab as much talent as you can as fast as you can and build a super competitive team with the maximum amount of time to build it. That could be a better strategy than putting together a late-to-enter, losing effort for AC36 and trying to attract top talent for AC37.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/sports/sailing/volvo-ocean-race-donfeng.html#click=https://t.co/U224gRi1xi

Growing up in Brittany, Caudrelier was serious about golf before becoming a professional sailboat racer. He spoke with The New York Times on Wednesday. This conversation has been condensed and edited.

....

Does the 2021 America’s Cup really interest you? Franck Cammas challenged in 2017 with a French team.

I sent a text to Franck yesterday: ‘What do we do now?’ And he said, ‘Obviously we are going to search for the money for the Cup.’ And he told me it’s going to be complicated because in a month or two it’s over. We have to be entered by then. I hope we can succeed in making it happen, but the odds are against us.

People always said the French were not meant for crewed races, but we’ve now proven it twice by winning the Volvo. In the America’s Cup, it’s just a problem of means, and everyone knows it. We can’t go up against Team New Zealand or Oracle or BAR if we don’t have the same means.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we need these extremely wealthy egos to set the bar unbelievably high.

Next tier VOR, TP52s F50s etc

then foiling moths and A class, etc etc

But sailors surely like one design regattas, where the boats are not expensive and are perfectly equal it is the sailors that make the difference, and that is where they have their wealth (not in dollars though in skill) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as was required by June 30 2018.. 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/sport/2018/07/america-s-cup-team-new-zealand-confirm-first-three-challengers.html

Team New Zealand has accepted three potential challengers for their America's Cup title in Auckland in 2021.

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron on Friday announced entries from Italy's Luna Rossa, American Magic and Ineos Team UK had been received and accepted for the next regatta.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

officially...

RNZYS CONFIRMS CHALLENGERS ACCEPTED FOR 36th AMERICA’S CUP

30th June 2018 marks the end of the initial challenging period for the 36th America’s Cup presented by Prada, which commenced on the 1st of January 2018.

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron confirms three Challenges have been received and accepted within the terms of the Protocol of the 36th America’s Cup.  The entries are in accordance with the America’s Cup Deed of Gift to challenge the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and its representative team, Emirates Team New Zealand.

The confirmed entries in order of receipt are as follows:

 

  • Circolo della vela Sicilia (Italy), represented by Luna Rossa Challenge, the Challenger of Record

 

  • New York Yacht Club (USA), represented by American Magic

 

  • Royal Yacht Squadron Racing (UK), represented by INEOS TEAM UK

 

Interest continues from other potential challengers around the world who have until 30th November 2018 to enter, as per the Late Entry period defined in the Protocol.

“We are thrilled to have three very high quality challengers confirmed for the 36th America’s Cup in Auckland. It is going to be a fantastic spectacle with this calibre of teams and the cutting edge yachts that the world has never seen. We welcome any further challengers from the teams that we are currently in talks with.” said Steve Mair, Commodore of the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron.

“It is a great honour to welcome the best teams in the world to challenge for the Prada Cup. To win the America’s Cup, one will first need to win the Prada Cup. said Laurent Esquier, CEO of COR 36, the organisers of the America’s Cup World Series and challenger selection series. (!?)

 

https://www.americascup.com/en/news/25_ENTRIES-REMAIN-OPEN-WHILE-INITIAL-36th-AMERICAS-CUP-ENTRY-PERIOD-PASSES.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure the entered teams don’t mind the lack of competition, but by any other measure this has to be viewed as a failure for the Cup and the sport.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Audio

Grant Dalton: There will be more teams

Emirates team New Zealand boss Grant Dalton talks to Martin Devlin on the DRS about the deadlines for entering the next Americas Cup here in New Zealand and how his syndicate will help smaller teams get over the line and entered. 

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/the-devlin-radio-show/audio/grant-dalton-there-will-be-more-teams/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch..

Grant Dalton always seems to be firing up, promising heaps for the 2021 America's Cup, delivering not quite so much.

The Team New Zealand boss was at it again this weekend, as he tried to give just three official challengers for the 2021 regatta serious wow factor.

...

Bottom line: for a lot of us, the Dalton we see is difficult to warm to. This makes selling a vacuum cleaner, let alone a very expensive regatta, difficult.

The regatta is on, it could be fantastic, but it has a lot to prove. Who knows? Long term, the America's Cup may need a lot of friends for survival.

In this regard, TNZ is not always helped by their indefatigable front man.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12081224

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Ouch..

Grant Dalton always seems to be firing up, promising heaps for the 2021 America's Cup, delivering not quite so much.

The Team New Zealand boss was at it again this weekend, as he tried to give just three official challengers for the 2021 regatta serious wow factor.

...

Bottom line: for a lot of us, the Dalton we see is difficult to warm to. This makes selling a vacuum cleaner, let alone a very expensive regatta, difficult.

The regatta is on, it could be fantastic, but it has a lot to prove. Who knows? Long term, the America's Cup may need a lot of friends for survival.

In this regard, TNZ is not always helped by their indefatigable front man.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12081224

Not sure why Ratt-shit-ue has an axe to grind over Dalts, but he does seem to have it in for any Kiwi sports people. He does get down and out personal. Guessing he has an ego problem as he always rights like that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was some luck during AC34 and AC35 in that none of the boats were wrecked during the racing (though some were wrecked before the racing). So there were actually 4 boats racing in AC34 (sort of racing in the case of Artemis) and there were 6 boats racing in AC35.

They need the same good fortune for AC36 where none of the boats are destroyed in capsizes or collisions. 4 boats racing  is a lot better than 2 or 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kia Ora said:

Not sure why Ratt-shit-ue has an axe to grind over Dalts, but he does seem to have it in for any Kiwi sports people. He does get down and out personal. Guessing he has an ego problem as he always rights like that.

 

That may be true, but it’s worth remembering the ‘hard sell’ to Auckland Council and to the Govt back when negotiating their financial support, bases, event fee, etc. He seems to be arguing that GD’s personality “ makes selling a vacuum cleaner, let alone a very expensive regatta, difficult. “

A few on the Council asked pointed questions around what would happen if Challenger numbers didn’t eventuate, rightly pointing at the Economic Impact report’s strong reliance on X number of teams residing in Auckland for Y number of months producing Z amount of $Hundreds of millions of impact. It happened while headlines like this one were running in NZ:

Prospect of more teams than bases for 2021 America's Cup in Auckland

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/100027801/prospect-of-more-teams-than-bases-for-2021-americas-cup-in-auckland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

That may be true, but it’s worth remembering the ‘hard sell’ to Auckland Council and to the Govt back when negotiating their financial support, bases, event fee, etc. He seems to be arguing that GD’s personality “ makes selling a vacuum cleaner, let alone a very expensive regatta, difficult. “

A few on the Council asked pointed questions around what would happen if Challenger numbers didn’t eventuate, rightly pointing at the Economic Impact report’s strong reliance on X number of teams residing in Auckland for Y number of months producing Z amount of $Hundreds of millions of impact. It happened while headlines like this one were running in NZ:

Prospect of more teams than bases for 2021 America's Cup in Auckland

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/100027801/prospect-of-more-teams-than-bases-for-2021-americas-cup-in-auckland

Rattues job is to write click bait hit pieces on popular and highly regarded NZ sportspeople in an attempt to stave off death for a shit tabloid...

GD didn't do the sell to the council shoebridge and tindall did... But why let the facts get in the way of a good story...

Share this post


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

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story...

The fact is that as of June 30 there are just 3 Challengers. There’s a story in there somewhere but yes, I will agree that a comparison of GD to Blake was a weak attempt at writing a decent one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.

So no real surprises. RZNYS, RYS, NYYC and Luna Rossa as CoR. 4 heavy weights of the AC that'll do for me, although an entry from RPYC would be nice as well.

 

Just don't let EB or LE in, at any cost. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is that in 2007 the Louis Vuitton Cup (in Spain) had 11 boats in the challenger series and 9 in 2003 (in New Zealand),....  That does not in include the defender.  Back further, 13 in 1987 and 9 in 1992....  We have a weak looking Cup event with 3 challengers -  complain about EB all you want, at least he had 12 teams registered....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Ellison that wrecked the Cup. The litigation of 2009/2010 and the lies that Oracle, Ellison and Coutts told to win the cup by taking the easy road was what ruined the AC.

Ellison made himself look the white knight of the challengers fighting the good fight against an evil Ernesto Berterelli and his Alinghi team, when in reality Ellison knew he couldn't win by going through a challenger series, so he eliminated the challengers so he could win it by doing what he does best...spending money.

Now their trail of destruction has meant the Cup is in the state it is now. Make no mistake, it was Ellison and Coutts that have wrecked the reputation of the AC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take the whole cup history 3 challenges is a lot.  I think we are heading back to the good old days of 1 challenger.

But it will always be cutting edge sailing and there has always been trickle down the F50s prove it....  IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mfluder said:

It was Ellison that wrecked the Cup. The litigation of 2009/2010 and the lies that Oracle, Ellison and Coutts told to win the cup by taking the easy road was what ruined the AC.

Ellison made himself look the white knight of the challengers fighting the good fight against an evil Ernesto Berterelli and his Alinghi team, when in reality Ellison knew he couldn't win by going through a challenger series, so he eliminated the challengers so he could win it by doing what he does best...spending money.

Now their trail of destruction has meant the Cup is in the state it is now. Make no mistake, it was Ellison and Coutts that have wrecked the reputation of the AC.

 

Kind of like Michael Fay... And after the fuck up of 1988 we had 9 challengers in 1992 when we returned to a real design committee focused on sailboat racing.  My point was that when we are sailing boats rather than contraptions (and I been sailing cats since 87), if you look at the AC between 1980 and 2007, over 20 years, we had over 9 challengers in each of those cycles... And before you label me as anti NZ, I built sails for a NZ firm for many years and was a supporter of TNZL through many cycles - i just thought they would have the common sense to use a platform that would promote global competition....

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DHFiend said:

Reality is that in 2007 the Louis Vuitton Cup (in Spain) had 11 boats in the challenger series and 9 in 2003 (in New Zealand),....  That does not in include the defender.  Back further, 13 in 1987 and 9 in 1992....  We have a weak looking Cup event with 3 challengers -  complain about EB all you want, at least he had 12 teams registered....

The gains and losses of interest in things like the AC happen over a long, long time... much like an incoming president claiming responsibility for the outcomes generated by the previous administrations efforts, and vice-versa, having to inherit someone else's fuck-up.

FWIW EB could have had 12,000 teams registered, but that still wouldn't have taken away the fact he was a classless pile of garbage who pissed on and in the cup for years for his own egomania (and to think people accuse Dalts of being ego-led). Day and fucking night...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mfluder said:

Make no mistake, it was Ellison and Coutts that have wrecked the reputation of the AC.

Bullshit ;) Who the F are you, BalmyB or Smalarky, or some other dumbass? Sheesh! :D 

There being only 3 Challengers has nothing to do with that unless you believe that one small part of it is, as GD likes to bring up, that AC35 was not free to air everywhere. Guess what? In the USA, AC35 absolutely was, on national broadcaster NBC.

Truth is, there’s just not much compelling about the AC except for in NZ where the public get hard-sold on David vs Goliath, NZ vs the World, messaging. Nobody else actually cares about that narrative. This event is and will be marketed primarily to the prime target audience - the NZ public. Italian, British and US interest will add something, but my guess is less than 10% of what rabid NZers will spend on it in emotion, time and maybe money. And maybe that’s fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Bullshit ;) Who the F are you, Bal