Recommended Posts

Could there be a plausible argument to invalidate lengthy prep times for each challenge?

For reference, from the Deed of Gift:

"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."

I would guess "ten months’ notice may be waived" would imply it could be shortened (i.e. when you "waive notice.")

Any New York Supreme Court justices lurking on SA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee Azure, that's an interesting question.

So you're suggesting that if someone were to sue that they're taking too long, then it could reopen the challenge to anyone else who wanted to race sooner, and therefore, remove this stranglehold on the Amerca's Cup?  Wow, I wonder if there's any plausibility in that.

Share this post


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

Gee Azure, that's an interesting question.

So you're suggesting that if someone were to sue that they're taking too long, then it could reopen the challenge to anyone else who wanted to race sooner, and therefore, remove this stranglehold on the Amerca's Cup?  Wow, I wonder if there's any plausibility in that.

Yeah, that Azure guy certainly has some great insights huh? :D

Given that there is established precedent for a 5 year gap between defences plus there is mutual consent between the CoR and defender, this would have roughly a snowball's chance IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the deed's revision was written immediately after 3 consecutive years of challenges, though.

Who do I need to talk to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure there is a NYSC ruling on it that forces a defense at least every four years or the defender has to accept a DOG. But I can't point to the court case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we learned during the AC33 court rulings is that the 4 corners of the DoG must nor lead to absurd results. Hence, a veeeryyyy long hold-up by the defender and challenger will certainly and successfully contested in court by any other possible challenger.
That does not mean that a multi chall AC with a SCC needs to take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll chip in....

If Azure's contention is that a few years (or even 10 months?) is 'too long' before a Challenge is settled and may be contestable in court he is wrong/dreaming&ignoring historical precedent.

At 5 years plus it might start to get interesting - if there were a queue

 

Share this post


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

I'll chip in....

If Azure's contention is that a few years (or even 10 months?) is 'too long' before a Challenge is settled and may be contestable in court he is wrong/dreaming&ignoring historical precedent.

At 5 years plus it might start to get interesting - if there were a queue

 

If it really came to that, I can foresee LR & ETNZ getting out on the gulf in optis for a "DoG match" where ETNZ magically wins and a new challenge is accepted from LR. :D

Either way, I don't think any prospective challengers would bother doing this as it would take a bad relationship and make it totally fucked, leading to them being unlikely to compete in the next AC at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETNZ needs to make make AC36 a competitive proposition or else nobody besides LR will bother. 

And if only LR shows up, why bother with much of anything preparation-wise in Auckland? Let P$B and de Noro just fund whatever all it takes to throw some bouys out and be done with it until a rethink and another 4 years later. Spare the NZ taxpayers the hype and rate hikes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 Years works in most top sporting events. World cups, Olympics

Especially where there is hemispheric change in location. A repeat defence in the same waters could be shorter as we saw in 1995, 2000 and 2003. 

Part of the 5 year gap in 2000 was seasons (it was actually 4.5 years) and partly because the NZ infrastructure was so unprepared. You might argue it still is given the changes that have been made, but in 1995 there was no harbour/city interface at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a practical matter, the Match needs to be held in odd numbered years.  The reason is on the even numbered years, there's either the Summer Olympics (N. Hemisphere Match), Winter Olympics (S. Hemisphere Match) or the Soccer World Cup, and they soak up all the global sports TV coverage.  

If you want to develop a completely new kind of boat, two years is not enough time.  You need to hire the team, experiment with subscale surrogates, design the boat, test and develop it, then do race prep at the venue.  It's certainly possible to design and build a new class in the Deed minimum of 10 months, but it's not the way to go if you want multiple challengers.  If you are going with an existing class of boat, then two years is enough to design an improved version and campaign it.

Six years is too long to go between matches, so that's why it's tended to be 4 year intervals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/06/2017 at 10:28 AM, Azure said:

Could there be a plausible argument to invalidate lengthy prep times for each challenge?

For reference, from the Deed of Gift:

"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."

I would guess "ten months’ notice may be waived" would imply it could be shortened (i.e. when you "waive notice.")

Any New York Supreme Court justices lurking on SA?

Hey sorry for not immediately giving this the attention it deserved. 

 

No. You're wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ex-yachtie said:

Hey sorry for not immediately giving this the attention it deserved. 

No. You're wrong. 

Hysterical. You practice this?

I can't tell if you're referring to me or George Schuyler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, if both Challenger & Defender mutually consent then they can race tomorrow, or in 5 years or whatever :)

But if they don't agree then "Mark your fucking calendar!" its 10mths :wub:

 

If they mutually consent to wait something silly like 10yrs without a good reason for it I think there is possibility for NYSC to vacate the Challenge & force 10mths for the new Challenge.

There was a 5 year gap for AC2000 because major construction work was required to create the Viaduct venue for all the Challengers but the extra year was averaged out with only a 3 year gap to AC2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC has had a variety of gaps, the 10 months notice is for the defender to be able to prepare, not have a challenger show-up in a week or two with a boat and call you out. (sorta like the Kiwis did in '87) 10 months had to be a time the Schuyler and the NYYC determined was a fair notice to be able to design and build a boat ready to defend. But, like a number of things in the DoG it could be negotiated.

You have had 2,3,4,5 year gaps with regular challenges, 20 +/- years from the gifting, the WWII break, it was 4 years for Shamrock IV to wait in a NY dry dock for WWI and then a match in 1920, she came over in 1916 so the challenge was probably issued in 1915. I have read where Lipton and the club had haggled over the Universal Rule since 1908.

edit: Shamrock was towed in 1914 by the Erin and was met in Bermuda by a boat Vanderbilt sent over to warn them of the start of WWI. Erin returned to Britain and Shamrock IV was towed to NY and laid-up. So over 17 years from the 1903 defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

not have a challenger show-up in a week or two with a boat and call you out. (sorta like the Kiwis did in '87)

In '87 5 months after SDYC won from Perth & no Challenger had been announced Fay said '10mths. Mark your fucking calendar!" which was 100% legit, DoG valid.

The boat wasn't launched till 9mths later, 4mths after NYSC decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 11:13 PM, ~HHN92~ said:

The AC has had a variety of gaps, the 10 months notice is for the defender to be able to prepare, not have a challenger show-up in a week or two with a boat and call you out. (sorta like the Kiwis did in '87)

 

Quote

On December 20th, 1884, the New York Yacht Club received notice from Mr. J. Beavor Webb, designer of the cutters Genesta and Galatea, that a challenge would be sent the club on behalf of both those vessels. On February 26th, 1885, the challenge was sent by Mr. Beavor Webb, acting in behalf of Sir Richard Sutton, owner of the Genesta, representing the Royal Yacht Squadron, and Lieut. William Henn, R. N., representing the Royal Northern Yacht Club. The challenger asked that the races with the Genesta be sailed between August 20th and September 1st, 1885, and, if that boat was unsuccessful, those with the Galatea before September 17th...

https://archive.org/stream/lawsonhistoryofa00thomrich#page/92/mode/1up/search/1884

Also from that same link:

Quote

“...the New York Yacht Club took up the challenge of Lieut. William Henn of the Galatea, and at a meeting held October 22d, 1885, definitely accepted it, fixing the races for the following year.

“A challenge on behalf of Thistle had been sent to the New York Yacht Club in March, 1887, from the Royal Clyde Yacht Club, and was accepted on the 29th of that month. The challengers asked that there be five races instead of three, and that they be sailed in October. “

The dates between races aren't necessarily the same as the length of time between challenge and race. Not all challenges happened at the previous regatta.

The final revisions in 1887 to the deed were only a few years before George Schuyler died. At that time, the races WERE about every year or two.

So, yeah, I do think there might be some truth to just grab a boat and race. You know, I'll meet you after school at the drag strip.  https://youtu.be/wK63eUyk-iM?t=8s

Share this post


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

 

Also from that same link:

The dates between races aren't necessarily the same as the length of time between challenge and race. Not all challenges happened at the previous regatta.

The final revisions in 1887 to the deed were only a few years before George Schuyler died. At that time, the races WERE about every year or two.

So, yeah, I do think there might be some truth to just grab a boat and race. You know, I'll meet you after school at the drag strip.  https://youtu.be/wK63eUyk-iM?t=8s

Looking at these examples the races could not be held at the time of the 10 month notice because they would fall between November and May, no racing allowed at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now