Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rh2600 said:

@sailbydate I think she thinks that is your real photo. You know - an old timer that doesn't understand capitalisation, the difference between revenue and marketing spend, and that distance is not the same as time-zones... ;-)

I've met @sailbydate and it IS a pretty close representation of the salty dog :D

Share this post


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

Thanks for the marketing tips - how can I buy shares in your company?

He doesn't have a company. I've just checked and www.ImADumbArse.com is still available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Alinghi4ever said:

Compared to Emirates it's small.

Alternative reality?

Tata Group has almost 5 times the turnover of Fly Emirates and about 10 times the staff.

But since I'm happy to learn, please provide some evidence, links would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the entire "Emirates Group" consists of .....?

 

I will help... the Emirates Group is an "aviation holding company" with $2.31 Billion, annual (Emirates, dnata, Emirates cargo, ....).

 

Tata Group?:  $100+ Billion, annually.

 

Sooooo, who is small compared to the other?

 

Google is sooo hard to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t know or care too much about sponsorship but Prada is for sure looking to China as their largest growth opportunity. Ex-VOR boss Mark Turner may well be enticed by a Chinese Challenger with similar focus, I guess time will tell what his plan really is.

Share this post


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

I've met @sailbydate and it IS a pretty close representation of the salty dog :D

Thanks, mate. ;) 

Comparing me on any level with Robin McLaurin Williams is an honour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 7:49 AM, ~Stingray~ said:

In spite of technical and financial means inferior to their rivals, Franck Cammas and Groupama Team France proved that they could compete with the best teams of the world.

I don't understand this. Shirley he proved he couldn't compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, DayTripper said:

I don't understand this. Shirley he proved he couldn't compete.

Well technically he competed the same way I could compete against usain bolt in the 100m.

But there's a fuckload of a difference between compete and competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many teams do we think will end up competing for the next AC?

NZ. defender 

USA - NYYC

Italy

BAR?

OTUSA?

Artemis?

 

Share this post


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

Thanks, mate. ;) 

Comparing me on any level with Robin McLaurin Williams is an honour. 

Pretty sure he meant .....

tumblr_nooqlmPalw1rgs59qo1_1280.png

 

Share this post


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

How many teams do we think will end up competing for the next AC?

NZ. defender 

USA - NYYC

Italy

BAR?

OTUSA?

Artemis?

 

I'm still the pessimist saying 4 total make the line. 

I understand the Cammas comments correctly, he's saying that Groupama is out but that he's still trying to find alternative funding. It appears he wants to be in. And he might have a good reason for it. The rationale goes something like this: we believe that LR will win, that the next event will be in Italy, and an event in Italy will be HUGE for a France-based sponsor who sells throughout Europe, and if we want to be competitive in that one we need to at least show up for this one. That could be his pitch and how he gets a French company to sponsor for an event that takes place in winter in the middle of the night. It's actually the same rationale for Land Rover to stay in, though of course Land Rover does sell into NZ and Aus, who will be watching live during the day during the summer, plus the coverage they get in the UK, so they get some legitimate return on their investment on this cycle.

If the money can be found, an Aussie challenge is totally logical, but so far it's been crickets from down under. 

I still can't see China stepping in. Plenty of money, but not enough premier sailors who will meet the residency requirements. 

I still can't see Artemis stepping in.

I'd love to see Oracle back but this last backtrack from JS sure seems to indicate they are more interested in the AC45/AC50 professional circuit.

I think that PB will support (or possibly even fund) a second Italian entry if it's needed for appearances, or if it he needs a sparring partner* and neither Frank nor Ben are willing to play that role. 

So at this point there are four teams in addition to the defender and challenger who could materialize: NYYC, LRBAR, Cammas, Italy#2. Apply probabilities and I say two of those make the line. 

* Two-boat testing for any team is prohibited. Are teams allowed to spar against each other?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Alinghi4ever said:

Absolutely...for an European it's crap and I doubt Dalts is that smart enough putting Full Replays of the Races on YT as OTUSA did with AC 34 in San Francisco.

TNZ got incredibly lucky that they managed shortly after losing the AC in 2003 to sign up Emirates as their Main Sponsor, an already emerging Global Airline. Without Emirates they would be done and dusted.

Also, stop teaching me anything about Sponsors when you absolutely have no clue at all about Sponsorship & the Financial World these Days.

The Revenue for example for Emirates Airline is about 10-20 Times higher compared to Land Rover.

Dalts has already promised full, free replays without georestriction.  It's in the podcast we did last month.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I think that PB will support (or possibly even fund) a second Italian entry if it's needed for appearances, or if it he needs a sparring partner*

 

 

I'm told there is very little probability that Azzurra will challenge (it's entirely funded by an Argentino anyway), but I fully expect Onorato to challenge with a small to medium budget.  And there is zero probability that Bertelli will be helping Vincenzo with anything!

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm disappointed in all of you. My community reputation was skyrocketing for a while, up to like 145.  What's the little red circle with the line in it mean?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I'm told there is very little probability that Azzurra will challenge (it's entirely funded by an Argentino anyway)

Oh, so now you say Azzurra / Costa Smeralda / Bonadeo won't be involved, something even the Sardinian sheep knew all along. Let's see how long it takes you to reverse your "full expectation" about Onorato - hope he'll do well in the StoHo, though

(and you're lucky I don't know how to opine on your community reputation ... :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nav said:

Pretty sure he meant .....

tumblr_nooqlmPalw1rgs59qo1_1280.png

 

:D

Share this post


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

How many teams do we think will end up competing for the next AC?

NZ. defender 

USA - NYYC

Italy

BAR?

OTUSA?

Artemis?

 

I think 8, but 2 of those listed are looking pretty fucking unlikely.

Orifice and Artemis look like they are history, but I reckon we will get at least one more yank challenger and another 3 from elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

And I'm disappointed in all of you. My community reputation was skyrocketing for a while, up to like 145.  What's the little red circle with the line in it mean?

Cheers Clean, until you complained about being down voted I had absolutely no reason to figure out how the buttons work!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh, so now you say Azzurra / Costa Smeralda / Bonadeo won't be involved, something even the Sardinian sheep knew all along. Let's see how long it takes you to reverse your "full expectation" about Onorato - hope he'll do well in the StoHo, though

(and you're lucky I don't know how to opine on your community reputation ... :D )

The people telling me about Azzurra were not the principals of Azzurra, and while they were confident, they were probably just wrong.

 

  Onorato may skip it, but that's not what he told me on his back porch ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Cheers Clean, until you complained about being down voted I had absolutely no reason to figure out how the buttons work!

Well shit please downvote me.  I lost my lead!

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Well shit please downvote me.  I lost my lead!

Your wish is my command!

But seriously, having a popularity contest in SA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The people telling me about Azzurra were not the principals of Azzurra, and while they were confident, they were probably just wrong.

 

  Onorato may skip it, but that's not what he told me on his back porch ;)

Good old Clean. Willing to do anything for a lead. Now riding Onorato's back porch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/10/2017 at 10:09 AM, Tornado-Cat said:

- he understands that the secret agreement between TNZ and LR was part of the AC game, however he dislike the fact that they gave morale lessons to Oracle while they were doing the same. The forum was open, it was transparent, they were invited, refused to come (me: probably because they were already engaged with P$B)

 

On 31/10/2017 at 6:29 AM, Team_GBR said:

This. As much as the NZ deniers like to say otherwise, it is totally hypocritical to criticise the London Framework yet ignore the deal between TNZ and LR.

 

On 31/10/2017 at 6:45 AM, rh2600 said:

If you and the likes of Hog choose not to see any of the plethora of total differences then there is zero point discussing it...

I like the way you go after Hog and myself, but ignore that the comment came from an insider, Frank Cammas who will know a lot more than any of us about differences or not. I will take his view over anything you might say and reiterate his points. The London Agreement was made in an open forum where everybody in the AC community was invited and had no secrecy at all. The agreement between LR and TNZ was private, and it did not engage the AC community in any way. You also don't get the point Cammas made that they attacked Oracle for something they had already done themselves. You can argue with Hog and me all day long, but Cammas is in the game and is trying to find a way of competing. He has more credibility than any of us on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Well shit please downvote me.  I lost my lead!

I think you are still leading, I went from 2nd to 3rd, passed by A4E. Too nice perhaps...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

I like the way you go after Hog and myself, but ignore that the comment came from an insider, Frank Cammas who will know a lot more than any of us about differences or not. I will take his view over anything you might say and reiterate his points. The London Agreement was made in an open forum where everybody in the AC community was invited and had no secrecy at all. The agreement between LR and TNZ was private, and it did not engage the AC community in any way. You also don't get the point Cammas made that they attacked Oracle for something they had already done themselves. You can argue with Hog and me all day long, but Cammas is in the game and is trying to find a way of competing. He has more credibility than any of us on this forum.

Good dance, but still confusing yourself...

Why would Cammas (good guy btw) know more than us? Given that you state that a) the LA has "no secrecy at all" - hence he knows as much as we do, and b) LR/ETNZ agreement "was private", hence he knows as little as we do. Your own arguments defeat your own point - we know as much or as little as him outside of rumour and scuttlebutt.

You also still continue to not get the point that what they/others criticised Oracle for is not the same thing as their agreement with LR.

Cammas might be an insider, but he's been in the pocket of LE for years (nothing wrong with that btw it just makes him a non-neutral AC participant in this argument), and was a late ring-in to keep up the numbers (he's admitted they couldn't even sail the boat with full hydro like the rest FFS) So again, you convincing yourself that Cammas conflating the two agreements is somehow validation that ETNZ is as morally corrupt as OTUSA is just pure nonsense.

Share this post


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

 

Cammas might be an insider, but he's been in the pocket of LE for years

Funny how you talk about Cammas being in the pocket of LE for years but don't seem to understand that ETNZ were in the pocket of PB! Things you see as different because you are an ETNZ fan seem the same to neutrals.

Share this post


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

Funny how you talk about Cammas being in the pocket of LE for years but don't seem to understand that ETNZ were in the pocket of PB! Things you see as different because you are an ETNZ fan seem the same to neutrals.

Nah they just seem the same to those unwilling or incapable of discerning the multitude of differences... I'm not even talking about right or wrong, or better or worse, just whether or not two things are actually the same...

False equivalency and conflation are tired and tiring forms of argument beneath even the most rum-soaked SAer... trying something else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Team_GBR said:

 

 

I like the way you go after Hog and myself, but ignore that the comment came from an insider, Frank Cammas who will know a lot more than any of us about differences or not. I will take his view over anything you might say and reiterate his points. The London Agreement was made in an open forum where everybody in the AC community was invited and had no secrecy at all. The agreement between LR and TNZ was private, and it did not engage the AC community in any way. You also don't get the point Cammas made that they attacked Oracle for something they had already done themselves. You can argue with Hog and me all day long, but Cammas is in the game and is trying to find a way of competing. He has more credibility than any of us on this forum.

Both Luna Rosa and GD deny that they had an agreement .. they agree that they shared ideas as far back as AC34 but that does not mean an agreement.

As for Cammas how would he know what has been agreed between the challenger and the defender that has not been made public. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Both Luna Rosa and GD deny that they had an agreement ..

Huh? PB has made press statements confirming an agreement and I don't recall GD denying it.

Share this post


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

Why would Cammas (good guy btw) know more than us?

Seriously, you are arguing that the leader of a team knows no more than those of us who waste their lives posting on SAAC?

Share this post


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

Seriously, you are arguing that the leader of a team knows no more than those of us who waste their lives posting on SAAC?

Read the full post mate... More than once of needs be, or get mum to help...

If the devils pact between LR and ETNZ is real and a secret as TGBR claims then both Cammas and us are equally in the dark as to wether it is the same as the LA

Comprende amigo?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Huh? PB has made press statements confirming an agreement and I don't recall GD denying it.

P$B does not speak English .. do you speak Italian?

Share this post


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

Good dance, but still confusing yourself...

Why would Cammas (good guy btw) know more than us? Given that you state that a) the LA has "no secrecy at all" - hence he knows as much as we do, and b) LR/ETNZ agreement "was private", hence he knows as little as we do. Your own arguments defeat your own point - we know as much or as little as him outside of rumour and scuttlebutt.

You also still continue to not get the point that what they/others criticised Oracle for is not the same thing as their agreement with LR.

Cammas might be an insider, but he's been in the pocket of LE for years (nothing wrong with that btw it just makes him a non-neutral AC participant in this argument), and was a late ring-in to keep up the numbers (he's admitted they couldn't even sail the boat with full hydro like the rest FFS) So again, you convincing yourself that Cammas conflating the two agreements is somehow validation that ETNZ is as morally corrupt as OTUSA is just pure nonsense.

I'll jump in since I was mentioned by you in a previous post.

I won't get into what Cammas knows and what he doesn't.  The bottom line is the guy ran his own AC35 team.  None of us on this site has done the same.  So he knows more than us, by a lot.

As far as Cammas being in LE's pocket, I am reading JS's thin on details book right now.  I am up to the Dogzilla chapter and in that chapter JS talks about how none of the OR guys knew how to handle multi-hulls so Cammas and Glenn Ashby were hired as coaches.  So if Cammas is in LE's pocket than so is Ashby.  

WetHog  :ph34r: 

Share this post


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

^ Haven't gotten there yet, does JS use the name Dogzilla in the book?

Yes.  He credits Fans and the media for the name.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

P$B does not speak English .. do you speak Italian?

Si.

Ma Grant Dalton parla italiano?

It would not be the first time that two cultures had a different understanding of the same agreement. Italians enforce handshake agreements the old fashioned way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mambo Kings said:

Si.

Ma Grant Dalton parla italiano?

 

Grant Dalton's Mum speaks italian!  Now that is breaking news.

 

Share this post


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

I'll jump in since I was mentioned by you in a previous post.

I won't get into what Cammas knows and what he doesn't.  The bottom line is the guy ran his own AC35 team.  None of us on this site has done the same.  So he knows more than us, by a lot.

As far as Cammas being in LE's pocket, I am reading JS's thin on details book right now.  I am up to the Dogzilla chapter and in that chapter JS talks about how none of the OR guys knew how to handle multi-hulls so Cammas and Glenn Ashby were hired as coaches.  So if Cammas is in LE's pocket than so is Ashby.  

WetHog  :ph34r: 

Jesus fucking Christ you guys are hilarious - you just provided a text book example of false equivalency!

In order to defend your position you are now arguing that Cammas and Ashby are the same in regards to their relationship with LE.

Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh2600 said:

Jesus fucking Christ you guys are hilarious - you just provided a text book example of false equivalency!

In order to defend your position you are now arguing that Cammas and Ashby are the same in regards to their relationship with LE.

Good luck with that.

My previous post was cut short because of a work obligation.  Having said that, it would be a waste of time to explain my comment further.  You think Cammas is a payed hack who is not capable of standing on his own without the help of Larry Ellison.  That is a pretty ignorant opinion.

WetHog  :ph34r:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the NZ fanboys are as bad as Spinbot when it comes to trying to justify what has happened and are trying to rewrite history.

Let's get some things straight.

  • There was an agreement between PB and ETNZ that in exchange for certain help (technology, staff and cash or cash equivalent), the next boat would be a monohull. We know this for a number of reasons. First, PB said as much in an interview and while it was in Italian, I trust google to translate it close enough. If you don't get the significance of PB and LR making the announcement of the type of boat in Italy without GD and without the protocol being released you are pretty dumb.
  • The agreement was secret, right up until the point it was made public by PB. That is how everybody knows about it.
  • There is no benefit to Cammas making the comment about ETNZ being hypocritical. Oracle are out and if he was ever a puppet of theirs (which I do not believe) he is now well out from under their influence. If anything, he would want to curry favour with the new defender and challenger. There is no way he would make that comment without genuinely believing it and having evidence to back it up.
  • The biggest reason why GD couldn't get involved with the London Agreement was that he already had an agreement with PB. I never understood why GD didn't go to what was an open meeting which wouldn't have committed him to anything at all. It seemed like a missed opportunity even if he later decided not to sign the agreement. GD's view would have been so much stronger if he had been there and rejected what came out of the meeting having tried to argue his case before an agreement.  The reason why he didn't even attend, listen and debate what was being proposed was that he couldn't because of the agreement with PB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Team_GBR said:

Some of the NZ fanboys are as bad as Spinbot when it comes to trying to justify what has happened and are trying to rewrite history.

Let's get some things straight.

  • There was an agreement between PB and ETNZ that in exchange for certain help (technology, staff and cash or cash equivalent), the next boat would be a monohull. We know this for a number of reasons. First, PB said as much in an interview and while it was in Italian, I trust google to translate it close enough. If you don't get the significance of PB and LR making the announcement of the type of boat in Italy without GD and without the protocol being released you are pretty dumb.
  • The agreement was secret, right up until the point it was made public by PB. That is how everybody knows about it.
  • There is no benefit to Cammas making the comment about ETNZ being hypocritical. Oracle are out and if he was ever a puppet of theirs (which I do not believe) he is now well out from under their influence. If anything, he would want to curry favour with the new defender and challenger. There is no way he would make that comment without genuinely believing it and having evidence to back it up.
  • The biggest reason why GD couldn't get involved with the London Agreement was that he already had an agreement with PB. I never understood why GD didn't go to what was an open meeting which wouldn't have committed him to anything at all. It seemed like a missed opportunity even if he later decided not to sign the agreement. GD's view would have been so much stronger if he had been there and rejected what came out of the meeting having tried to argue his case before an agreement.  The reason why he didn't even attend, listen and debate what was being proposed was that he couldn't because of the agreement with PB.

 

1: Cammas is still trying to get over the shame of their attempted extortion of EURO300k from ETNZ when asked for assistance. Cammas is yesterday's news and has made the right choice not to challenge in AC36. Potential sponsors would not have wasted their money on a team who came last out of 5 Challengers in AC35.

2: Dalton & ETNZ had nothing to gain from the London Agreement so didn't bother attending: what part of that can't you understand??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Team_GBR said:

Some of the NZ fanboys are as bad as Spinbot when it comes to trying to justify what has happened and are trying to rewrite history.

Let's get some things straight.

  • There was an agreement between PB and ETNZ that in exchange for certain help (technology, staff and cash or cash equivalent), the next boat would be a monohull. We know this for a number of reasons. First, PB said as much in an interview and while it was in Italian, I trust google to translate it close enough. If you don't get the significance of PB and LR making the announcement of the type of boat in Italy without GD and without the protocol being released you are pretty dumb.
  • The agreement was secret, right up until the point it was made public by PB. That is how everybody knows about it.
  • There is no benefit to Cammas making the comment about ETNZ being hypocritical. Oracle are out and if he was ever a puppet of theirs (which I do not believe) he is now well out from under their influence. If anything, he would want to curry favour with the new defender and challenger. There is no way he would make that comment without genuinely believing it and having evidence to back it up.
  • The biggest reason why GD couldn't get involved with the London Agreement was that he already had an agreement with PB. I never understood why GD didn't go to what was an open meeting which wouldn't have committed him to anything at all. It seemed like a missed opportunity even if he later decided not to sign the agreement. GD's view would have been so much stronger if he had been there and rejected what came out of the meeting having tried to argue his case before an agreement.  The reason why he didn't even attend, listen and debate what was being proposed was that he couldn't because of the agreement with PB.

 

Ok, so I'll chime in here.

Firstly, although not 100% confirmed that there was a prior agreement between Luna Rossa and ETNZ, I happen to believe it is most likely tru.

Secondly, I have no particular problem with that agreement, nor do I have a problem with other peeps having a problem with it.

However, we have seen people on here adopting the stance that somehow Luna Rossa "owns" ETNZ and conversely others adopting the opposite that ETNZ "owns" Luna Rossa.

Both are total fucking bullshit.

Thirdly, I had a problem with the "tight five's" agreement for a number of reasons, most prominent of those being that it was going to result in the continued use of boats that I didn't like. However, I also had a problem with it because it was an all too cozy relationship with the CURRENT Defender and practically all the Challengers.

Contrast this with the ETNZ/Luna Rossa agreement that between two challengers, albeit one of the challengers having previously withdrawn from the cup in protest.

 

In the end however, the agreement was small potatoes compared to all the other shit that Orifice pulled in this cup cycle so my answer to this whole thing is *shrug*.

Share this post


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

My previous post was cut short because of a work obligation.  Having said that, it would be a waste of time to explain my comment further.  You think Cammas is a payed hack who is not capable of standing on his own without the help of Larry Ellison.  That is a pretty ignorant opinion.

WetHog  :ph34r:  

Thanks for telling me what I think despite me telling you otherwise. That's like suggesting kneelers are anti-armed forces. You've got all the modern tactics.

I am simply saying Cammas is not a neutral party when it comes to judging the LA is the same as the LR agreement and calling ETNZ hypocrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing got ‘lost in translation’ by the La Sampa interview with P$B when P$B revealed the deal. The interview was published by La Stampa in English even before the literal Italian  version and as it turned out the Googletran is a very close match.

The LA was perfectly transparent, promoted with a video of the announcement, the list of objectives itemized, and very widely promoted and reported.

None of that was true of the hidden Italian Job deal already done.

Cammas is correct. He’s also correct in his suggestion that ETNZ trashed the LA, resulting NZ media trashed it, one-eyed fanboys here therefore also went apoplectic in their criticism of the LA, when all the while an older and secret bought-off deal had been done - with no support at all from any of the active Challengers solicited, or even explained. A master stroke of deviousness done?

Share this post


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

ETNZ trashed the LA

Yeah true... but we all know why...

Share this post


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

Yeah true... but we all know why...

Two main reasons, both due to the already Italian Job done:

- The LA was about foiling multihulls, that P$B had already conditioned his No to.

- The 2 year ‘continuity’ cycle. If GD was going to get $millions then the obvious source was NZ taxpayers; through accomplishing it in Auckland which would take more than that amount of time.

GD has himself said that many of the LA goals were good. That’s why you see more of ACWS events and a lot else still reflected in the next Protocol.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Two main reasons, both due to the already Italian Job done:

- The LA was about foiling multihulls, that P$B had already conditioned his No to.

- The 2 year ‘continuity’ cycle. If GD was going to get $millions then the obvious source was NZ taxpayers; through accomplishing it in Auckland which would take more than that amount of time.

GD has himself said that many of the LA goals were good. That’s why you see more of ACWS events and a lot else still reflected in the next Protocol.

 

 

 

These are not the reasons...

Share this post


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

Jesus fucking Christ you guys are hilarious - you just provided a text book example of false equivalency!

In order to defend your position you are now arguing that Cammas and Ashby are the same in regards to their relationship with LE.

Good luck with that.

 

4 hours ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Nothing got ‘lost in translation’ by the La Sampa interview with P$B when P$B revealed the deal. The interview was published by La Stampa in English even before the literal Italian  version and as it turned out the Googletran is a very close match.

The LA was perfectly transparent, promoted with a video of the announcement, the list of objectives itemized, and very widely promoted and reported.

None of that was true of the hidden Italian Job deal already done.

Cammas is correct. He’s also correct in his suggestion that ETNZ trashed the LA, resulting NZ media trashed it, one-eyed fanboys here therefore also went apoplectic in their criticism of the LA, when all the while an older and secret bought-off deal had been done - with no support at all from any of the active Challengers solicited, or even explained. A master stroke of deviousness done?

The Pinot kicked in again..a master stroke of deviousness indeed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jaysper said:

Ok, so I'll chime in here.

Firstly, although not 100% confirmed that there was a prior agreement between Luna Rossa and ETNZ, I happen to believe it is most likely tru.

Secondly, I have no particular problem with that agreement, nor do I have a problem with other peeps having a problem with it.

However, we have seen people on here adopting the stance that somehow Luna Rossa "owns" ETNZ and conversely others adopting the opposite that ETNZ "owns" Luna Rossa.

Both are total fucking bullshit.

Thirdly, I had a problem with the "tight five's" agreement for a number of reasons, most prominent of those being that it was going to result in the continued use of boats that I didn't like. However, I also had a problem with it because it was an all too cozy relationship with the CURRENT Defender and practically all the Challengers.

Contrast this with the ETNZ/Luna Rossa agreement that between two challengers, albeit one of the challengers having previously withdrawn from the cup in protest.

 

In the end however, the agreement was small potatoes compared to all the other shit that Orifice pulled in this cup cycle so my answer to this whole thing is *shrug*.

As usual, a well measured response and i agree with most of what you say. in particular the whole "who owns who" and "poodle" arguments have never been that convincing both in relation to ETNZ/LR and the "tight 5". While I agree that at least one member of the tight 5 would do whatever OR wanted, i cannot support that view when you look at both LRBAR and Artemis. They would both only act in their own interest.

I think your distinction regarding agreements between challengers and challenger plus the defender is rather too fine. To start with, LR was not a challenger and then the only way in which the agreement had any meaning was if ETNZ became the defender. I never saw the London Agreement as an agreement with the defender  but more as an agreement with whoever was going to be the defender, which is exactly what the ETNZ/LR agreement was. 

To some extent, none of this matters. We are where we are, but I argue the point because among some, ETNZ is perfect in everything it does, so is Dalton and everybody else is a c#*t. Maybe as i get old I get more cynical, but I don't think there is any such thing as a snow white, perfect defender and I certainly don't see ETNZ as that. In a murky world they might be a lighter shade of grey than some, but Dalton's little games and de Nora's digs tell us that they are far from perfect. 

In the end, all that matters is that the challengers have a chance of beating the defender. For all the criticism of Oracle, they passed that test twice, even if ETNZ failed to take advantage of it the first time. Every defender games the system to their advantage in some way (legally), but I say bring it on and let the best team win.

Share this post


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

As usual, a well measured response and i agree with most of what you say. in particular the whole "who owns who" and "poodle" arguments have never been that convincing both in relation to ETNZ/LR and the "tight 5". While I agree that at least one member of the tight 5 would do whatever OR wanted, i cannot support that view when you look at both LRBAR and Artemis. They would both only act in their own interest.

I think your distinction regarding agreements between challengers and challenger plus the defender is rather too fine. To start with, LR was not a challenger and then the only way in which the agreement had any meaning was if ETNZ became the defender. I never saw the London Agreement as an agreement with the defender  but more as an agreement with whoever was going to be the defender, which is exactly what the ETNZ/LR agreement was. 

To some extent, none of this matters. We are where we are, but I argue the point because among some, ETNZ is perfect in everything it does, so is Dalton and everybody else is a c#*t. Maybe as i get old I get more cynical, but I don't think there is any such thing as a snow white, perfect defender and I certainly don't see ETNZ as that. In a murky world they might be a lighter shade of grey than some, but Dalton's little games and de Nora's digs tell us that they are far from perfect. 

In the end, all that matters is that the challengers have a chance of beating the defender. For all the criticism of Oracle, they passed that test twice, even if ETNZ failed to take advantage of it the first time. Every defender games the system to their advantage in some way (legally), but I say bring it on and let the best team win.

FFS, things must have changed around here - I agree with almost all of what you and Jaysper are saying....

Share this post


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

1: Cammas is still trying to get over the shame of their attempted extortion of EURO300k from ETNZ when asked for assistance. Cammas is yesterday's news and has made the right choice not to challenge in AC36. Potential sponsors would not have wasted their money on a team who came last out of 5 Challengers in AC35.

2: Dalton & ETNZ had nothing to gain from the London Agreement so didn't bother attending: what part of that can't you understand??

I'll miss them. Still can't understand why the french, despite having most winning america's cup designers, can't manage to get their sponsors right.
http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2017/10/30/groupama-exits-americas-cup-challenge/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So much self-serving revisionism from the usual anti-Kiwi brigade..."Let's scrape some of this sticky brown stuff off ourselves and see if we can get it to stick to them instead!"

 

ETNZ/RNZYS was always going to pick LR/CVS as COR if they won...

- so without agreement on a class with Patrizio and CVS - it would be a DOG Match and there would be no other Challengers

 

The Trustee has no rights to negotiate with potential Challengers and certainly no right to sign agreements - until the the current Challenge is decided

- but even ignoring the non DOG legal timing, virtually every aspect of 'La Coup' was as much of a way around critical DOG provisions as Berterelli's fictional COR or OTUSA negotiating a Protocol with their own employee.

A Challenger and a non-competing 'potential COR' making a hand-shake deal? Not even in the same ballpark - give it up, you are just going to stay sticky

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Thanks for telling me what I think despite me telling you otherwise. That's like suggesting kneelers are anti-armed forces. You've got all the modern tactics.

I am simply saying Cammas is not a neutral party when it comes to judging the LA is the same as the LR agreement and calling ETNZ hypocrites.

All the talk during AC35 was that Soft Dick Team Japan was OR's B team.  Team Principal was a LE associate and the team got their design information from OR, shit like that.  I don't recall Team France mentioned in the same way.  No help with sponsorship from a LE BFF and no sharing of technical information.  So why is Cammas all of a sudden in the pocket of Larry Ellison?  Because he was on OR's payroll for AC33 to help teach JS and friends how to handle a large multihull and, because he is a multihull expert, he wanted to see the AC continue in multihulls?  By your logic, rh2600, then Glenn Ashby has been in Larry Ellison's pocket.  He was on OR's payroll for AC33 to help teach JS and friends how to handle a large multihull with a wing and he wanted to see the AC continue in multihulls.  Makes sense right?  No, it makes no sense at all.

I've been following Cammas for a while now and from all i've read and seen of him he comes across as a stand up, honest, guy who is a damn good sailor.  That you can take what he says at face value.  Maybe I am misguided in this opinion of Cammas and if you, rh2600, have proof that shows Cammas to be a dishonest guy please feel free to share it.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I guess you either missed the memo or chose to ignore it, but he was given a boat to get started and the rules were changed to allow him to slide in under the bar late and at it's lowest setting.

The simple fact is he is partisan as far as 'La Coup' goes - it's not a question of his knowledge as a insider, or his sailing skills for that matter.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Alinghi4ever said:

Grant Simmer going to LRBAR is going to put a huge dent in a possible Australian Challenge. OTUSA is done for as well and I wouldn't be surprised if some OTUSA Design folks join Simmer.

It also dramatically increases the chances of LRBAR sticking with it through to the challenger elimination regatta. So in terms of just counting the # of teams likely to make the starting line, this is a net plus. It puts a dent in an Aussie challenge that hadn't materialized anyways, and shores up one that has been saying all the right things but has had some significant holes to fill. 

Teams-on-the-starting-line count, as of now, is:

DEFINITE: ENTZ and LR

PROBABLE: NYYC and LRBAR

POSSIBLE: Cammas, Onorato

UNLIKEY BUT NOT OFFICIALLY OUT: Oracle, Artemis, Azzura

CRICKETS BUT RUMORS ON SA: Australia, second USA, China

Share this post


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

^ I guess you either missed the memo or chose to ignore it, but he was given a boat to get started and the rules were changed to allow him to slide in under the bar late and at it's lowest setting.

The simple fact is he is partisan as far as 'La Coup' goes - it's not a question of his knowledge as a insider, or his sailing skills for that matter.....

 

I wasn't fully engaged in the process during the AC35 cycle so I missed what you described above.  Having said that, was there a suggestion the starter boat and late entry were benefits that only available to Cammas?  Or if someone in addition to Cammas, and of the same caliber of sailor as Cammas, had expressed interest of joining late with Cammas they would of gotten the same treatment?  Regardless, is the late entry that big a deal?  ETNZ/Prada don't think so.  They feel so strongly about it they wrote it into their protocol.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pontificating about something you paid no attention to, when corrected, twist and 're-pontificate'...

 

Determined, facts be damned - way to go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight aside: the Frogs were given free accommodation for the whole team and families in BDA for the entire duration as part of them agreeing to join the tight five. 

Share this post


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

All the talk during AC35 was that Soft Dick Team Japan was OR's B team.  Team Principal was a LE associate and the team got their design information from OR, shit like that.  I don't recall Team France mentioned in the same way.  No help with sponsorship from a LE BFF and no sharing of technical information.  So why is Cammas all of a sudden in the pocket of Larry Ellison?  Because he was on OR's payroll for AC33 to help teach JS and friends how to handle a large multihull and, because he is a multihull expert, he wanted to see the AC continue in multihulls?  By your logic, rh2600, then Glenn Ashby has been in Larry Ellison's pocket.  He was on OR's payroll for AC33 to help teach JS and friends how to handle a large multihull with a wing and he wanted to see the AC continue in multihulls.  Makes sense right?  No, it makes no sense at all.

I've been following Cammas for a while now and from all i've read and seen of him he comes across as a stand up, honest, guy who is a damn good sailor.  That you can take what he says at face value.  Maybe I am misguided in this opinion of Cammas and if you, rh2600, have proof that shows Cammas to be a dishonest guy please feel free to share it.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Hoggie I'm genuinely surprised - first off again, putting words in my mouth despite be declaring the opposite. My only assessment on Cammas is that he's simply not neutral when it comes to judging the LA vs LR - nothing about him being dishonest.

Secondly my real surprise is at your lack of awareness of GTF situation in the cup. You could just reread what I've already written, but let's just distill it for you again.

In order to keep up the numbers, LE put in a call to old friend Cammas (actually design consultant for DogZilla, Ashby was a coach) to see if he could pull a team together.

Who in Franck's position would say no? No one! Of course not - even though he knew they would not have a snowballs chance of getting anywhere near the cup - he wanted to join the regatta. So he hurriedly pulled together a team and despite being greased through he knew they were never going to be a genuine competitor this cycle.

So why was Oracle so accomodating to a team they knew weren't really a viable challenger?
And so here's the rub, that you (and others) appear to fundamentally miss.

The wonderful beautiful LA had 5 signatories

  • OTUSA - Defender
  • SBTJ - OTUSA 2 as challenger
  • GTF - non-competitive participant
  • LBAR - genuine competitive challenger
  • ART - genuine competitive challenger

Notice anything about the first three, that also make up a *majority*? Thats right, they were either the challenger, or their proxy, or their friend who wasn't even going to be able to compete properly.

ETNZ identified that this configuration was as much a farce as CNEV, where the challenger had stacked the decks with dubious challengers in the LA so that their own vote would ultimately be the deciding factor in LA discussions.

Cammas wasn't there to win the cup, he was there to be a professional sailor. Fair enough, but it makes him a pawn in a much bigger game, and a non-neutral and arguably invalid judge of right and wrong when it comes to genuine America's Cup challengers. 

Share this post


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

Hoggie I'm genuinely surprised - first off again, putting words in my mouth despite be declaring the opposite. My only assessment on Cammas is that he's simply not neutral when it comes to judging the LA vs LR - nothing about him being dishonest.

Secondly my real surprise is at your lack of awareness of GTF situation in the cup. You could just reread what I've already written, but let's just distill it for you again.

In order to keep up the numbers, LE put in a call to old friend Cammas (actually design consultant for DogZilla, Ashby was a coach) to see if he could pull a team together.

Who in Franck's position would say no? No one! Of course not - even though he knew they would not have a snowballs chance of getting anywhere near the cup - he wanted to join the regatta. So he hurriedly pulled together a team and despite being greased through he knew they were never going to be a genuine competitor this cycle.

So why was Oracle so accomodating to a team they knew weren't really a viable challenger?
And so here's the rub, that you (and others) appear to fundamentally miss.

The wonderful beautiful LA had 5 signatories

  • OTUSA - Defender
  • SBTJ - OTUSA 2 as challenger
  • GTF - non-competitive participant
  • LBAR - genuine competitive challenger
  • ART - genuine competitive challenger

Notice anything about the first three, that also make up a *majority*? Thats right, they were either the challenger, or their proxy, or their friend who wasn't even going to be able to compete properly.

ETNZ identified that this configuration was as much a farce as CNEV, where the challenger had stacked the decks with dubious challengers in the LA so that their own vote would ultimately be the deciding factor in LA discussions.

Cammas wasn't there to win the cup, he was there to be a professional sailor. Fair enough, but it makes him a pawn in a much bigger game, and a non-neutral and arguably invalid judge of right and wrong when it comes to genuine America's Cup challengers. 

This argument is completely fallacious because it ignores a major factor. Artemis and LRBAR were the biggest supporters of the London Agreement. Both of them had been driving forces in wanting to see the AC "reformed". You can dismiss the other teams as puppets if you want, but those 2 wanted the London Agreement because it was in their interests. Therefore if you take the 3 "independent" teams who only acted in their own interests -  OR, LRBAR and Artemis - you had a majority in favour. OR didn't need puppets.

Share this post


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

This argument is completely fallacious because it ignores a major factor. Artemis and LRBAR were the biggest supporters of the London Agreement. Both of them had been driving forces in wanting to see the AC "reformed". You can dismiss the other teams as puppets if you want, but those 2 wanted the London Agreement because it was in their interests. Therefore if you take the 3 "independent" teams who only acted in their own interests -  OR, LRBAR and Artemis - you had a majority in favour. OR didn't need puppets.

Nah... Art and LBAR had their own reasons for wanting to signing, and ETNZ and LR had their reasons for not... 

Oracle still wanted to "protect" LA, and of course they were in favour of it!

Of the independent challengers, it was actually 50%/50% in regards to a pretty imposing agreement - LBAR + ART in vs LR + ETNZ out. - Excluding the "several other challengers" that Oracle proudly trumpeted that never eventuated - certainly the LA scared at least of them off.

Share this post


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

Nah... Art and LBAR had their own reasons for wanting to signing, and ETNZ and LR had their reasons for not... 

Oracle still wanted to "protect" LA, and of course they were in favour of it!

Of the independent challengers, it was actually 50%/50% in regards to a pretty imposing agreement - LBAR + ART in vs LR + ETNZ out. - Excluding the "several other challengers" that Oracle proudly trumpeted that never eventuated - certainly the LA scared at least of them off.

^ This is the height of historical revisionism. At the time of the London meeting, there were THREE viable serious challengers in terms of budget/design resources: BAR*, ART, and ETNZ since LR were already out, so that makes it 66%/33% if you choose to ignore FRA and SBJ, 75%/25% including the defender, and 83%/17% in reality. I would also note that there is zero evidence to support your assertion that the LA 'scared teams off'. 

From my understanding of the timeline, LR had already made their agreement to supply tech support to ETNZ conditional on LR being the COR should ETNZ win. The only logical reason for ETNZ to not attend a meeting that directly involved them and the future of their 150 million dollar program was that their hands were tied by that secret, tertiary agreement - in any other scenario, the London meeting would have been the ideal time and place to advocate for their vision for the future of the cup, and at  the very least negotiate a compromise. But of course their agreement with LR precluded that, hence no reason to even attend.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ This is the height of historical revisionism. At the time of the London meeting, there were THREE viable serious challengers in terms of budget/design resources: BAR*, ART, and ETNZ since LR were already out, so that makes it 66%/33% if you choose to ignore FRA and SBJ, 75%/25% including the defender, and 83%/17% in reality. I would also note that there is zero evidence to support your assertion that the LA 'scared teams off'. 

From my understanding of the timeline, LR had already made their agreement to supply tech support to ETNZ conditional on LR being the COR should ETNZ win. The only logical reason for ETNZ to not attend a meeting that directly involved them and the future of their 150 million dollar program was that their hands were tied by that secret, tertiary agreement - in any other scenario, the London meeting would have been the ideal time and place to advocate for their vision for the future of the cup, and at  the very least negotiate a compromise. But of course their agreement with LR precluded that, hence no reason to even attend.

 

:D come on - surely you can think of a few more??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, nav said:

:D come on - surely you can think of a few more??

As someone who routinely negotiates for outcomes, I can assure you that participation is almost invariably the better solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That assumes the subject under discussion had some legitimacy.

Under George's DOG this had zero.

And if LE and EB do set up some faux AC series it will be 100% confirmation of that

 

Share this post


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

^ This is the height of historical revisionism. At the time of the London meeting, there were THREE viable serious challengers in terms of budget/design resources: BAR*, ART, and ETNZ since LR were already out, so that makes it 66%/33% if you choose to ignore FRA and SBJ, 75%/25% including the defender, and 83%/17% in reality. I would also note that there is zero evidence to support your assertion that the LA 'scared teams off'. 

From my understanding of the timeline, LR had already made their agreement to supply tech support to ETNZ conditional on LR being the COR should ETNZ win. The only logical reason for ETNZ to not attend a meeting that directly involved them and the future of their 150 million dollar program was that their hands were tied by that secret, tertiary agreement - in any other scenario, the London meeting would have been the ideal time and place to advocate for their vision for the future of the cup, and at  the very least negotiate a compromise. But of course their agreement with LR precluded that, hence no reason to even attend.

 

Nailed it.

But I still have no ‘legal’ issues with either preagreement, since mutual consent could only be legally formalized by the next Defender and Challenger, ~after~ a new Challenge was at hand. Comparing the two comes down to other things and IMO the older, financially-coerced, ‘secret’ one was the more ‘devious.’

Share this post


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

Slight aside: the Frogs were given free accommodation for the whole team and families in BDA for the entire duration as part of them agreeing to join the tight five. 

Please elaborate!

Share this post


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

Please elaborate!

I'd be looking for actual proof before accepting this.

AKL Wino makes a lot of claims that imply insider knowledge. You will pardon me if I reserve judgement until such time as the veracity of this status is verified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I have no documentation to share but tbh, it was only the Grand Atlantic condos for the majority of the team so nothing five star. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AKL wino said:

Fair enough. I have no documentation to share but tbh, it was only the Grand Atlantic condos for the majority of the team so nothing five star. 

Cheers Wino.

Not tryingto stick the boot in. I just like proof of shit which is why I can't be bothered with Indio and his Herbie claims.

Not stating he is wrong but he sure as shit has no proof he is right.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

^ This is the height of historical revisionism. At the time of the London meeting, there were THREE viable serious challengers in terms of budget/design resources: BAR*, ART, and ETNZ since LR were already out, so that makes it 66%/33% if you choose to ignore FRA and SBJ, 75%/25% including the defender, and 83%/17% in reality. I would also note that there is zero evidence to support your assertion that the LA 'scared teams off'. 

From my understanding of the timeline, LR had already made their agreement to supply tech support to ETNZ conditional on LR being the COR should ETNZ win. The only logical reason for ETNZ to not attend a meeting that directly involved them and the future of their 150 million dollar program was that their hands were tied by that secret, tertiary agreement - in any other scenario, the London meeting would have been the ideal time and place to advocate for their vision for the future of the cup, and at  the very least negotiate a compromise. But of course their agreement with LR precluded that, hence no reason to even attend.

 

Here's the history I'm proposing - granted if you pardon me conflating the official signing of the LA with the general conduct and agreement of the challenger + defender cabal the preceded the actual ceremony then refer Sefton's book

On 2 December 2014, fiction became fact when Bermuda was announced as the ‘Home of the 35th America’s Cup’. There were already five challengers: Artemis Racing – representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS) – the Royal Swedish Yacht Club; BAR (Ben Ainslie Racing) – representing Britain’s Royal Yacht Squadron; Emirates Team New Zealand (ETNZ) – representing the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron; Luna Rossa – representing Circolo della Vela Sicilia from Italy; and Team France – representing Le Yacht Club de France. Japan was touted as another entry, representing the Kansai Yacht Club.

It was this group that by majority decision thanks to Oracle being included along with SBTJ and GTF started screwing the scrum, which resulted in LR bailing - at this point you could argue that they began discussions with ETNZ - which yes, is still before the ceremony in London, but after the majority vote tactic was deployed.

On 2 April 2015, some 10 months after the new class had been announced and by which time ETNZ had confirmed its participation, it was revealed that, by a majority vote of defender and challengers, the intended new 62-footer was to be dumped and replaced by a 48ft version of the wing-sailed flyers.

...

The Reuters piece went on to say that Emirates Team New Zealand had joined with Luna Rossa in protesting the decision (to reduce the size of the boats) without unanimous agreement, the Italian challenger warning it would have to withdraw if the change was made – which it was by four votes to two. The Italian syndicate considered the procedure adopted to be: ‘illegitimate ... and founded on an evident abuse of process … this is an attempt to introduce boats that are substantially monotypes [one-designs] and in total contrast with the ultra-centennial tradition of the America’s Cup,’ adding that the change, at this juncture, was a ‘waste of important resources already invested based on the rules that were sanctioned last June’.

In fact it was ETNZ and LR's shared view that the process was flawed that eventually resulted in them being brought them together, not the other way around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It was this group that by majority decision thanks to Oracle being included along with SBTJ and GTF started screwing the scrum, which resulted in LR bailing - at this point you could argue that they began discussions with ETNZ - which yes, is still before the ceremony in London, but after the majority vote tactic was deployed.

In fact it was ETNZ and LR's shared view that the process was flawed that eventually resulted in them being brought them together, not the other way around.

^^ What do you imply ? that Oracle could change the prot thanks to STBJ or GTF ? BS

LR thought that they it would need the unanimity to change the boat, confusing the rule and the protocol.

If you read article 20, "the protocol can only be amended by GGYC and the challenger committee". And the challenger committee decisions are made by vote. They just did not read the protocol properly before signing it or simply should have read SA before.

It is even more silly is to say that is was a tactic, is was written plain and clear in the protocol.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

In fact it was ETNZ and LR's shared view that the process was flawed that eventually resulted in them being brought them together, not the other way around.

Yet they were together in 2013, sharing technology. Go figure. 

It's always a bummer to not get your way, but even without SBTJ and GTF, LR/ETNZ lost the vote on the boats. That's what sometimes happens - when you open something up to try to make it more inclusive, as OR did in AC35, that newfound democratic process can produce an unexpected outcome. I would've personally liked to see the 62s - but the majority of the teams thought differently, and who is to say they were wrong? 

What you interpret as a 'ganging up of the other teams to pick on poor little ETNZ', I interpret as a clash of nearly diametrically opposite visions of how the cup should be competed for, both in boat choice and event cycles. LR certainly had the budget to mount a legal challenge against OR if they really thought they had a case. Instead, they chose a path that was a little more circumspect, but as it turned out, very successful in terms of recalibrating the AC on their terms - they will get their monohulls, a longer cup cycle, etc. Now we will all get the see their vision realized, and time will tell if they check all (or any) of the boxes that the anti-OR claque has been barking about for years, including but not limited to:

Crew nationality (I think they have a point, but designed and built in country would be more historically correct, and we know that at least the design part aint gonna happen)

Too few maneuvers (really? Cause I saw cats whipping around like dinghies except at 40 plus kts)

One design elements are 'bad' (hardly seemed to stifle innovation when you consider the boats were able to foil 100% around the course in 6-20 plus kts))

Costs too high (lol)

Small number of teams (5 challengers seemed pretty good to me)

Limited size of viewing audience 

Lack of traditional starting box action

No tacking duels

Etc ad nauseam.

From my perspective, I couldn't care less about much of the above - the foiling cats were the coolest thing I've seen in a while, and completely sucked me back into the AC after years of ambivalence. I'd also posit that they were far more in keeping with the original spirit of the cup (which was all about a technological race) than the 12ms, or the pointy slugs that followed them -  but I recognise that's just my opinion, and I'm looking forward to seeing what ETNZ/LR come up with for a new boat.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, surfsailor said:

t - in any other scenario, the London meeting would have been the ideal time and place to advocate for their vision for the future of the cup, and at  the very least negotiate a compromise. 

1

Still pushing shit uphill!! Please explain this: why would ETNZ "advocate their vision for the future of the cup" which they had no way of knowing they'd win with all the BS the cheaters were throwing in their way, against  the 5 poodles set to vote collectively??

But of course their agreement with LR precluded that, hence no reason to even attend.

You can't even construct a conspiracy theory with any semblance of credibility.

Share this post


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

Still pushing shit uphill!! Please explain this: why would ETNZ "advocate their vision for the future of the cup" which they had no way of knowing they'd win with all the BS the cheaters were throwing in their way, against  the 5 poodles set to vote collectively??

Because that's why the meeting was held in the first place - to determine a path forward for future events. But of course, if you don't attend - because you made a secret, backroom deal with LR that would preclude you from being part of the discussion - you can't contribute.

It's amazing how bitter you are - your team won, did you somehow miss that?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

Because that's why the meeting was held in the first place - to determine a path forward for future events. But of course, if you don't attend - because you made a secret, backroom deal with LR that would preclude you from being part of the discussion - you can't contribute.

It's amazing how bitter you are - your team won, did you somehow miss that?

 

 

The only ones bitter are the cheater's supporters bent on trying to rewrite history with illogical storylines - like yours. Take the time to think about your claim - it'll all become very clear to you:lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you insist on revisiting this sad episode, try to keep things straight...

 

So, bottom line, does the substitution of the new boat violate the Protocol and AC62 Class Rule? The answer is yes, it violates the Protocol and AC62 Class Rule. Is the result legitimate? The answer is no, it is not legitimate. Is the event that’s going forward legitimate? Good question. It may turn out that some future challenger may claim that AC35 should be thrown out, just as GGYC got Alinghi’s version of AC33 thrown out.

http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/04/05/americas-cup-a-review-of-the-rules-to-change-boats/

 

“However, in sports, as in life, one cannot always go for compromise, after compromise, after compromise; sometimes it is necessary to make decisions that are painful but must be clear cut, as only these can make everybody aware of the drifts of the system and therefore set the basis for the future: respect of legality and sportsmanship”.

http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/04/02/team-luna-rossa-challenge-announces-its-withdrawal-from-the-35th-americas-cup/

Share this post


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

If you insist on revisiting this sad episode, try to keep things straight...

 

So, bottom line, does the substitution of the new boat violate the Protocol and AC62 Class Rule? The answer is yes, it violates the Protocol and AC62 Class Rule. Is the result legitimate? The answer is no, it is not legitimate. Is the event that’s going forward legitimate? Good question. It may turn out that some future challenger may claim that AC35 should be thrown out, just as GGYC got Alinghi’s version of AC33 thrown out.

http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/04/05/americas-cup-a-review-of-the-rules-to-change-boats/

 

“However, in sports, as in life, one cannot always go for compromise, after compromise, after compromise; sometimes it is necessary to make decisions that are painful but must be clear cut, as only these can make everybody aware of the drifts of the system and therefore set the basis for the future: respect of legality and sportsmanship”.

http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/04/02/team-luna-rossa-challenge-announces-its-withdrawal-from-the-35th-americas-cup/

IIRC, at the time you had agreed that LR had not read the protocol and the rule, why do you revisit history ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope not me, and after all this time you still misunderstand the situation and think LR did something wrong...

 

hint...the problem lies here - with OTUSA and the poodles pushing through and illegitimate change

.... does the substitution of the new boat violate the Protocol and AC62 Class Rule? The answer is yes, it violates the Protocol and AC62 Class Rule. Is the result legitimate? The answer is no, it is not legitimate.

 

but look who's laughing now!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nav, why do you forget so quickly, this is Protocol 1, before any further amendment, the one LR signed.

The prot defines a 62 ft boat and the following:

20.1. Subject to Article 20.2, this Protocol may only be amended with the agreement of GGYC, the Challenger of Record and a majority of the Competitor Forum.

At the time most here agreed agreed LR did not understand properly, but there is now some revisionism to justify what neither EB or LE did to challengers.

Share this post


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

nav, why do you forget so quickly, this is Protocol 1, before any further amendment, the one LR signed.

The prot defines a 62 ft boat and the following:

20.1. Subject to Article 20.2, this Protocol may only be amended with the agreement of GGYC, the Challenger of Record and a majority of the Competitor Forum.

At the time most here agreed agreed LR did not understand properly, but there is now some revisionism to justify what neither EB or LE did to challengers.

Sorry, who was the Challenger of Record that agreed in this case?

Share this post


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

Yeah sorry children it is about 'legalities' at this point and obviously over your heads, read the article  http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/04/05/americas-cup-a-review-of-the-rules-to-change-boats/

or just let it whoosh over you - as you did at the time.

 

Off to bed with you now

Got to laugh when people start quoting online journalists as legal opinion. Based on their track record during the AC33 legal fight, you would probably say that their opinion is highly unreliable an probably wrong.

The other funny thing about the whole rule change is that contrary to claims, it did not give any advantage at all to the defender and did not disadvantage any challenger. The claimed design work that LR said was wasted was actually what won ETNZ the cup. The chances are that if LR had stayed in, they would have won the cup instead of becoming known for one of the biggest dummy spits in the AC history.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for giving us your online opinion - again

It is so 'legally enlightening'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Team_GBR said:

The claimed design work that LR said was wasted was actually what won ETNZ the cup. 

Please do enlighten us