Ex-yachtie

AC36 - The Venue

Recommended Posts

The vote to approve HHW was strongly carried, just a few abstentions and a few no’s. So, it moves towards Resource Consent by Jan 15 unless Govt throws a wrench into it next week and threatens to withhold funding in order to get some Wynyard Pt variance done instead.

Pretty decent set of Councillors, a lot of good discussion today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11959621

Auckland Council has today voted to locate the America's Cup bases at Wynyard Basin on the Auckland waterfront.

The decision - by 12 votes to three and with three abstensions - will form the basis of negotiations with the Government and Team New Zealand.

The decision is not binding on the Government, which is still investigating an alternative land-based option to base the syndicates at Wynyard Point, the old Tank Farm site to the west of Wynyard Basin.

...

Share this post


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

This part makes me think Goff’s insistence he won’t pay any ‘venue fee’ is simply political cover, since instead of agreeing to (example) $10M for it he can simply up his AKL’s share of the contribution, a figure not even discussed today, and basically to the same effect:

Council and the government are still to agree on how the costs will be shared.

Mayor Goff has indicated that there is no funding available for a hosting agreement still to be presented by Team New Zealand and said that investment in necessary infrastructure is the extent of the council's contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A marina deal today in Seattle, remarkably cheap: http://www.myballard.com/2017/12/13/port-of-seattle-buys-salmon-bay-marina/

Port of Seattle buys Salmon Bay Marina

A study found commercial fishing activity at Fishermen’s Terminal generates $450 million in business revenue and nearly $40 million in state and local taxes every year, according to the Port of Seattle. The Port says it plans to take over operations at Salmon Bay Marina when the deal closes in 45 to 180 days.

Share this post


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

Auckland shows government decisive thinking needed to make America's Cup a reality

DUNCAN JOHNSTONE 13:36, December 14 2017

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/99858004/auckland-shows-government-decisive-thinking-needed-to-make-americas-cup-a-reality

Duncan Johnstone noted in this story: "There have been pleasing signs about the maturity with with Auckland Council and Team New Zealand have approached the initial process."

At first sight that's at odds with the headline some editor hurriedly slapped on his story. It's accurate but sloppy. At first read it suggests Auckland needs to get off the pot. In fact the Council has moved with admirable haste in managing local competing interests. I didn't have a chance to view the Council meeting but the briefing paper Stinger referred to is a good read and sets out all the issues with considerable clarity. http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/12/GB_20171214_AGN_6766_AT_SUP_57225.PDFle 

The Council planning makes the best of limited options. Ya gotta admire the way in which it leaves the door open for the Minister to pursue his messy Wynyard Point option.  It lays out the objections, including the problem of Cup bases on the weather side of the Point and the costs and problems associated with breaking the leases of the remaining Tank Farm tenants.  It adds that the Council has neither the time and manpower nor the funds to undertake this work and makes clear that those costs would fall on the national government.

Now the Minister needs to fall into line.

Share this post


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

Duncan Johnstone noted in this story: "There have been pleasing signs about the maturity with with Auckland Council and Team New Zealand have approached the initial process."

At first sight that's at odds with the headline some editor hurriedly slapped on his story. It's accurate but sloppy. At first read it suggests Auckland needs to get off the pot. In fact the Council has moved with admirable haste in managing local competing interests. I didn't have a chance to view the Council meeting but the briefing paper Stinger referred to is a good read and sets out all the issues with considerable clarity. http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/12/GB_20171214_AGN_6766_AT_SUP_57225.PDFle 

The Council planning makes the best of limited options

Now the Minister needs to fall into line.

Mike Lee is a fucking liar and should be tossed out of Council for trying to mislead the Councillors...Claimed a "high-level official" called him the previous night asking for BOTH options to be advanced, and moved a motion accordingly. When pressed by one Councillor, he admitted that the "high-level" official was David Parker who called him at 11 Tuesday morning from Argentina. Goff commented that that was the first time an elected MP had been called a "high-level" official...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Perhaps we should REMOVE the same amount of area from other wharfs?

Interesting thing: The Viaduct work for AC2000 actually did remove a chunk of land at the South end of the basin & the West end of the old enclosing wharf/barrier to create Te Wero Island.

Probably still a net water loss though.

899.jpg

 

Meeting was pretty weird in parts.

Above referenced 'double bases on Wynyard' option is apparently a no-go since it would use the carpark -> lease break/remediation/public hazard risk.

I find the remediation/public hazard argument a bit odd, I mean these bases are gonna be asphalted over, the buildings full of carbon dust, plastic chairs & other boatbuilding related hazards anyway...

Don't really understand why Parker is soo keen on the Wynyard Point, relocation/lease break stuff pretty clearly makes it a no-go.

 

Share this post


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

 

I find the remediation/public hazard argument a bit odd, I mean these bases are gonna be asphalted over, the buildings full of carbon dust, plastic chairs & other boatbuilding related hazards anyway...

:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was some concern expressed during the meeting about effectively shutting out the Govt (from whom they will be asking a contribution) but my guess is that the Wynyard Pt options, primarily for environmental reasons, really are too big an obstacle under the given schedule.

From here by RG and elsewhere,

Minister calls Councillor
A few minutes later Cr Mike Lee advised that he had "taken a call from a high official who makes the plea that we include both options in the Resource Consent process because there is no point in investigating two options when one of them has technically been ruled out by a bureaucratic mechanism of this Council. The pleas is, from a high official, that we include both options", he repeated.

After being questioned later in the meeting as to the identity of the "high official", Cr Lee said that he had "received a call at 11.17am [7.17pm in Argentina] from the Hon David Parker from Buenos Aires. He made the pleas to include both options in the Resource Consent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar at http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/sport/americas-cup-base-row-flares-up/

America's Cup base row flares up

The Government is seriously at odds with Auckland Council's decision today to build the America's Cup bases at Wynyard Basin, expressing strong concerns about wharf extensions into the harbour and pursuing a land-based solution.

Share this post


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

GD is on right now

(basically):

Event fee? We've got costs, but want free-to-air TV and want free admission. Somebody's got to pay.

Major step made yesterday, good job by Marler (Panuku)

Tension is sensationalized and part of the negotiation. Making good progress. Engaged with Govt and Council.

Offshore? No, but we have to reach a point where we've got a deal ultimately.

Edit, here: 

Grant Dalton: 'We're making good progress'

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/grant-dalton-were-making-good-progress/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 8:51 PM, hoom said:

 

My view is that Wellington are acting the way they are because Cindy does not want to take more Harbour. So they are wanting an option that is less than optimal because Cindy is a Greenie and she has spoken and the fools in Wgtn blindly follow other fools.

Council and TNZ however, have looked at it more logically and tried to asses the actual best option.

 

Share this post


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

My view is that Wellington are acting the way they are because Cindy does not want to take more Harbour. So they are wanting an option that is less than optimal because Cindy is a Greenie and she has spoken and the fools in Wgtn blindly follow other fools.

Council and TNZ however, have looked at it more logically and tried to asses the actual best option.

 

In the ideal world Wynyard Point would be the site for everything AC36 - Bases, Village, Concerts, Media, restaurants, public park etc. 

It’s simply too big a job to get it cleared, cleaned up properly, and then built out in time. The environmental issues surrounding the removal and disposal of all the hazardous materials alone must surely be nightmarish. 

The choice process has been a bit ham-fisted by the Mayor and Panuku, they chose to only spend time getting the Basin choice figured out while (probably intentionally) not fully studying the Point option too.

But it’s likely Govt will come to the same conclusion even if they do first flesh out the Pt option to the satisfaction of the greenies. Maybe whatever they learn can be used, but later for W Pt cleanup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some legitimate concern was expressed by Councillors yesterday about if the plans and costs might be rather overblown, with not knowing the number of syndicates. The response given was to ask for the full meal deal in the Resource Consent and then scale back if possible.

RG keeps positing that (first-choice by the Prot) ETNZ would choose d7 although he has given no reason for why he thinks that has to be so. But it may be smart, given that so far only 4 syndicates appear likely to be there, to build and also allocate them in the numbered order in this chart, maybe with the potential s5 as a d5 (double) if a 5 does become necessary. 5, 6 and 7 are the most problematic sites when taking waterfront/harbor extensions and waterfront/harbor view sightlines/obstructions into account.

4451B140-B660-4576-B623-58651060411B.thumb.jpeg.0e67f31a972050cd4ed7f10757f3e635.jpeg

from http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/12/GB_20171214_AGN_6766_AT_SUP_57225_WEB.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Reuters article is running all over the place.

Team New Zealand boss endorses America's Cup preferred base venue

Reuters Staff

  •  
  •  

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - The choice of venue for the next America’s Cup regatta in Auckland has been endorsed by Team New Zealand boss Grant Dalton.

example, at https://ca.reuters.com/article/canadaSportsNews/idCAKBN1E836K-OCASP

GD may be the ‘boss’ but it’s far from clear he or ETNZ has any power at all over what actually goes down once the City and Govt hopefully agree something. Where’s the GD leverage?  In the absence of a ‘disaster’ he has zero evident veto power as long as dirt gets allocated. It makes the headline’s ‘endorsement’ and therefore the whole article a bit, umm, meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing with the interesting power-play theme, from RG at http://www.sail-world.com/news/200275/Decision-made-on-Am-Cup-bases-in-rowdy-meeting :

The point was also made that if the Wynyard Point option was pushed on the Council by the Government, then it was the Government that should be paying for that option.

Surely that goes both ways? There was no upper-limit given to Goff by the Council, so maybe he’s already willing and enabled to have AKL foot the whole thing to build the Basin arrangement and Govt is powerless?

Share this post


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

Some legitimate concern was expressed by Councillors yesterday about if the plans and costs might be rather overblown, with not knowing the number of syndicates. The response given was to ask for the full meal deal in the Resource Consent and then scale back if possible.

RG keeps positing that (first-choice by the Prot) ETNZ would choose d7 although he has given no reason for why he thinks that has to be so. But it may be smart, given that so far only 4 syndicates appear likely to be there, to build and also allocate them in the numbered order in this chart, maybe with the potential s5 as a d5 (double) if a 5 does become necessary. 5, 6 and 7 are the most problematic sites when taking waterfront/harbor extensions and waterfront/harbor view sightlines/obstructions into account.

4451B140-B660-4576-B623-58651060411B.thumb.jpeg.0e67f31a972050cd4ed7f10757f3e635.jpeg

from http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/12/GB_20171214_AGN_6766_AT_SUP_57225_WEB.htm

S5 and D6 will also be great places to view the boats coming in and out if they are left empty due to lack of competitors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

S5 and D6 will also be great places to view the boats coming in and out if they are left empty due to lack of competitors.

Agreed, great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That variant was specifically ruled out because of S2/D3/D4 being on the carpark/between tanks.

Share this post


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

That variant was specifically ruled out because of S2/D3/D4 being on the carpark/between tanks.

And somehow, I doubt Prada and the NYYC lot would gladly accept being marooned in a Kiwi Love Canal wasteland, with the shore teams turning into mutants. Also, I wonder if that site is deemed fit for permanent occupation prior to soil reclamation by the local OSHA equivalent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yes, according to RG at http://www.sail-world.com/news/200275/Tryanny-of-time-forces-decision-on-Americas-Cup

Large_Wynyard%20Basin1.jpg

Wynyard Basin which isthe preferred option. It involves the closing of half of Brigham Street and for bases to be built across the closed street and hard against the silos. ETNZ is expected to take Site 8, all the other sites launching into the basis are for single boat teams, meaning the two-boat challengers will have Site 4 and the other sites on Brigham Street(eastern side of the Wynyard Viaduct).

http://www.sail-world.com/photo/-388641

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ so if that’s correct, they could potentially assign s1 through s4 (all doubles) as first/highest priority, before also doing the more ‘problematic’ remaining sites if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, hoom said:

Do people not have eyes? S4 - S8 are the doubles, S1-3 are single.

Yep, RG may have that wrong.

Related: I wonder if any teams will rock up late to Auckland, the way ETNZ did in Bermuda, and both ETNZ and LR did in SF? Because if they choose to do the same then they may bring one boat even if they did build two. B1 could be just the ACWS boat that gets sailed in Europe during ‘19 and ‘20, and then perhaps cannibalized for a B2 starting Dec ‘20 in Auckland. The in-country crew restrictions could play into timing decisions around where the test sailing happens too - and maybe most of the boat-building beyond just the hulls.

A team could even take the path Artemis took in both SF and Bermuda, build an operation across the water somewhere with just a pop up presence in the village.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since LR, QR and BAR already have TP52 campaigns announced, I wonder why ETNZ does not? Surely they have to have some kind of sailing plan for ‘18? Maybe they will be gifted probable JC75 Design-partner LR’s first boat once LR gets their second, new delivery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear GD publicly & clearly endorsing this Wynyard Basin & clearly stating they aren't seeking huge a Hosting Fee 'just because', rather a fairly small Event cost funding :)

I wonder how long its going to take Lester, Gladwell etc. to get on the bandwagon <_<

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank farm America's Cup option worth another look: PM

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says it's worth getting another cost estimate on one of the location options for the America's Cup – despite Auckland Council saying it will cost too much to move hazardous materials offsite.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11961681

Share this post


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

She doesn't seem to understand that there are a lot of different tanks with different owners who will need to find somewhere else to have their facility and each one will need a separate Resource Consent and on top of that all of the contaminated soil has to be moved to somewhere else that also needs Resource Consent .. it could take fore ever.

If they leave it the it will be the owners problem when their contract expires in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, and what is with....

The Government's decision for the America's Cup base may not meet the tight deadlines imposed by Auckland Council, as Economic Development Minister David Parker seeks advice on an option that the council has voted down.

are they just going to pretend timing is not a factor?

"We really fancy that option better so despite it not meeting at least one critical requirement we'll play around with it a bit more - which may then screw the timing for the  least worst option the council has already identified...."  :(

Or can Central Government still click their fingers and 'just make it happen'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yuch...i was getting a warm feeling that a decision might be made in a timely manner...but all thinking stops now until end of Jan. 

bummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless ... I don't see how a final determination can be made until late January at the earliest, with entries for Challengers opening on Jan 1st and a clearer picture on number of teams emerging. Meaning that, if at least Alinghi :) and/or AR do not show up, the proverbial s**t is going to hit the fan ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

similar at http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/5/300529

---

Time is running out for the coalition Government to get the America’s Cup bases up and running for the Cup Defence in Auckland, National’s Economic Development Spokesperson Simon Bridges says.

"Economic Development Minister David Parker needs to get his act together pronto," Mr Bridges says.

"Council and Government officials seem to be in a stand-off with the Prime Minister and Mr Parker and it is not difficult to see why.

"Mr Parker has said on these matters that he ‘doesn’t want to be dictatorial’ but it seems his high handed approach in the face of both Council and Government officials who have differing views to him is causing delays that may well jeopardise the running of a successful Cup event in Auckland.

"It’s also very surprising that no estimate of costs to Government of the America’s Cup are included in the Treasury’s Half-Yearly update. Does the Government really not have any idea yet what it is up for?

"While it may feel like there is plenty of time, the reality is that with planning, designing, consenting and building infrastructure we are well into the eleventh hour before midnight. There will come a point when decisions will be too late and that would be unforgivable.

"I was conscious as Economic Development Minister in the previous Government how tight the timeline was and this was going to be the top priority for me to sort prior to Christmas.

"Now we are heading for decisions in all likelihood a couple of months into the New Year. Officials are obviously tearing their hair out with all the time delays. It’s time for the Government to make a decision."

---

Share this post


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

Regardless ... I don't see how a final determination can be made until late January at the earliest, with entries for Challengers opening on Jan 1st and a clearer picture on number of teams emerging. Meaning that, if at least Alinghi :) and/or AR do not show up, the proverbial s**t is going to hit the fan ...

 

Don't follow the logic^..

Sure, if they got 10 confirmed entries on day one it would lead decisions in a certain direction, but if they have say 4 after a few weeks but with still 12 months to go before entries finally close - how does that help the process?

Plus the way things have been done so far does not inspire great confidence that other deadlines will necessarily be met - even once a basic plan is eventually agreed upon :huh:

Share this post


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

Don't follow the logic^.. if they have say 4 after a few weeks ...

... they don't revise the economic impact assessment and keep merrily budgeting, designing and constructing eight bases ... really?

 

Share this post


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

... they don't revise the economic impact assessment and keep merrily budgeting, designing and constructing eight bases ... really?

Regardless the ultimate bases arrangement agreed to, it must be in Auckland's best interests to crusade for the Full Meal Deal, and to get Govt to pay for much of it.

A cynic may suggest that the above is why the Govt is being a little 'wary' about things - including about the Council's estimate of an extra $100M cost to get the Point option done; the suggestion appears to be that Council intentionally over-estimated that part in order to strong-arm the arrangement that Auckland (and Panuku) want.

In Panuku's case, extending into the harbor creates additional/new real estate (ala Bermuda's newly reclaimed Cross Island) - which could be a big part of why Panuku are pressing the case to go that direction. Govt may not share that want or need.

Auckland and Panuku will be hesitant to 'retreat' on the budget and the build-out unless or until forced to acknowledge a lower than advertised turnout and economic impact - possibly too far down the construction track to get re-visited. They have a big opportunity here to dip deep into public funds.

from here, bold mine: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11961681

The basin option carries a price tag of $128 million plus $18m to relocate tenants and landowners. Wynyard Pt, which is known as the "tank farm" because it houses hazardous materials in liquid storage tanks, is expected to cost $112m - but this estimate includes a $100m cost for a relocation that Parker says might be unnecessary.

Share this post


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

She doesn't seem to understand that there are a lot of different tanks with different owners who will need to find somewhere else to have their facility and each one will need a separate Resource Consent and on top of that all of the contaminated soil has to be moved to somewhere else that also needs Resource Consent .. it could take fore ever.

If they leave it the it will be the owners problem when their contract expires in a few years.

 

Unfortunately, the recent court case against Mobil as to whether they were liable for the multi-million dollar cost of remediating the tank site determined they were not liable... 

The main issue is their ground lease just has a "clean & tidy" clause, not an environmental remediation one. 

- obligation on the tenant to keep and deliver up the land in ‘good order and clean and tidy and free from rubbish, weeds and growth, to the reasonable satisfaction of [the lessor]’ (the ‘clean and tidy clause’). 

As many of the leases were established in the 1980's where environmental awareness was not great, and have had successive polluting tenants on the same site, the tenancy agreements are not written with a safe public end use in mind. 

Likely, the Council and therefore the people of Auckland will bare the cost of clearing this toxic soup. 

https://www.kensingtonswan.com/news-updates-and-events/mobil-wins-tank-farm-contamination-appeal/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMG_20171215_132014-3-958x362.png.a2407afc9b12d5767bfebaa4691f381d.png

Bledisloe Wharf Option?

It may well have been considered and discounted, but so far I've seen no debate on Bledisloe Wharf (or missed it..) 

Currently a Car Park (for imported vehicles), it has approximately the same footprint as the whole of the Wynyard Point / Tank Farm area, and far more than the current Cup Village area as currently projected.

There is no pressing reason I can see car import shipping can't be split between North Port and Port of Tauranga. Having our most publicly accessible Wharf in the heart of the CBD used as a car park has got to be low priority when alternatives are available. 

The current Government and the Auckland Mayor have both had removal of POAL (Ports of Auckland Ltd) from the CBD as central to their campaigns, what better way to kick off getting the Cargo Ports out of the CBD. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, waterboy42 said:

IMG_20171215_132014-3-958x362.png.a2407afc9b12d5767bfebaa4691f381d.png

Bledisloe Wharf Option?

It may well have been considered and discounted, but so far I've seen no debate on Bledisloe Wharf (or missed it..) 

Currently a Car Park (for imported vehicles), it has approximately the same footprint as the whole of the Wynyard Point / Tank Farm area, and far more than the current Cup Village area as currently projected.

There is no pressing reason I can see car import shipping can't be split between North Port and Port of Tauranga. Having our most publicly accessible Wharf in the heart of the CBD used as a car park has got to be low priority when alternatives are available. 

The current Government and the Auckland Mayor have both had removal of POAL (Ports of Auckland Ltd) from the CBD as central to their campaigns, what better way to kick off getting the Cargo Ports out of the CBD. 

 

there is no way they can move the Port of Auckland anywhere, re establish it in another location and build a cup village on Bledisloe wharf before 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, waterboy42 said:

 

Unfortunately, the recent court case against Mobil as to whether they were liable for the multi-million dollar cost of remediating the tank site determined they were not liable... 

The main issue is their ground lease just has a "clean & tidy" clause, not an environmental remediation one. 

- obligation on the tenant to keep and deliver up the land in ‘good order and clean and tidy and free from rubbish, weeds and growth, to the reasonable satisfaction of [the lessor]’ (the ‘clean and tidy clause’). 

As many of the leases were established in the 1980's where environmental awareness was not great, and have had successive polluting tenants on the same site, the tenancy agreements are not written with a safe public end use in mind. 

Likely, the Council and therefore the people of Auckland will bare the cost of clearing this toxic soup. 

https://www.kensingtonswan.com/news-updates-and-events/mobil-wins-tank-farm-contamination-appeal/

Fair point but the existing tank site is only a part of the problem .. from your reference ..

"In our current age of heightened awareness of environmental issues, it would be unusual for a lease negotiated today to fail to expressly set out the tenant’s liability for contamination. These issues should, however, be dealt with in lease transactions in clear and unambiguous terms; and particular care is needed in the case of a new lease for an ‘in situ’ tenant to ensure that liability is brought forward."

So the various owners of existing facilities are faced with getting a Resource Consent somewhere else with much more stringent terms than before and this will be where the time goes because they can't move until they have organised a new site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/346573/corporate-boss-called-in-for-america-s-cup-talks

Corporate boss called in for America's Cup talks

The government has called in one of the country's top business figures to lead its negotiations over cost-sharing for the America's Cup sailing regatta in 2021.

Michael Stiassny is the opposite number to Team New Zealand's London-based commercial advisor in talks over how to fund the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team New Zealand’s quality problem

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/12/19/70096/team-new-zealands-quality-problem

Ten challengers – both tangible and potential – are being taken seriously by Emirates Team New Zealand on the eve of entries opening for the 2021 America’s Cup. But team boss Grant Dalton won’t be disappointed if not all “pony up”.

...

“There are another six or seven teams we’ve heard from that we are treating seriously. Some are from outside the normal sphere that we know, one in particular,” he says without naming names. “We treat everyone seriously because you don’t know whether they are or not, and you don’t want to miss one because of it. Out of those seven, we might get five. Because in the end, they’ve got to pony up.”

...

(good article)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Color me skeptical about there being too many teams for 8 bases, given all the hopes being pinned on the oft-cited wannabe’s like the sponsorless second Italian team and the sponsorless Cammas, but I’m sure the speculation helps with the case being made to Auckland and Govt.

Best of luck that another team or two does somehow emerge past the 3 Challs who are so far the only definites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Entries for the regatta open on January 1, closing six months later. Dalton doesn’t expect a rush of entries next month: “Some teams don’t enter early, because they think it might give them more leverage"

 

When straight-talking Dalton starts "doing a Stingray" (as in ACs 34 & 35, expecting an unreasonable number of teams against all evidence up to the very end), I begin to get worried ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Xlot said:

"Entries for the regatta open on January 1, closing six months later. Dalton doesn’t expect a rush of entries next month: “Some teams don’t enter early, because they think it might give them more leverage"

 

When straight-talking Dalton starts "doing a Stingray" (as in ACs 34 & 35, expecting an unreasonable number of teams against all evidence up to the very end), I begin to get worried ...

 

Hard to know who-all he’s getting some interest from (Artemis, Alinghi?) but in my defense there were 12 or more teams racing AC45’s early in the AC34 cycle. Yes, they did mostly turn out to be racing free boats on Larry’s dime.

AC34/SF with just 3 eventual Challs, 2 of them far off the pace, was very disappointing as a CSS. But AC35 was pretty competitive and so there being just 6 teams, 4 plenty-decent Challs, was actually enough.

There is for sure a full-court-press happening right now on a number of fronts including the possible Chall numbers being promoted, as part of the effort to get deep into the public money-jar while the opportunity window is open. The Superyacht numbers being jazzed are over the top (any SY there will be spending most of their budget simply pumping gas for the return trip) but over-hype is to be expected. Follow the money.

I think that even if it comes down to just the hard 4, that it will be well attended, well followed, and get huge attention on TV .... in New Zealand!

Share this post


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

Teams entering later are not subject to the protocol requirements regarding tests, we may have no team entering before May -June.

?

edit, add:


6. ACCEPTANCE OF FURTHER CHALLENGES.

6.1 As from the 1st of January 2018 ("Start of the Challenging Period") RNZYS shall accept every bona fide notice of challenge (as per the template in Appendix ) for the CSS and the Match from an organised yacht club from a foreign Country ("Yacht Club”) as more particularly required by the Deed of Gift, which is either:
a ) Received by RNZYS no later than 17:00 hours NZT on the 30th of June 2018 ("End of the Challenging Period"), together with a declaration in writing by Such Yacht Club that it accepts, and will be bound by, the Deed of Gift, this Protocol, the Rules and all Subsequent decisions pertaining thereto including but not limited to insurance requirements Set out in Appendix 3;or
b ) Received by RNZYS, no later than 17:00 hours NZT on the 30th of November 2018 ("Late Entry") provided RNZYS (i) is Satisfied that the Deed of Gift, and the Spirit and intent of this Protocol has been complied with by Such Yacht Club until the date that the notice of challenge is received, and (ii) has received from Such Yacht Club a declaration in writing that it has, from the Final Race 2017 until the date its notice of challenge is received, complied with the Deed of Gift, the Spirit and intent of this Protocol and that it accepts, and will be bound by, this Protocol, the Rules and all Subsequent decisions pertaining thereto, including but not limited to insurance requirements set out in Appendix 3.
c ) When Submitting its challenge, each yacht club shall nominate a challenge representative who will be the Sole person authorized to receive and issue official Communications from and to COR/D for the entire duration of the 36 America's Cup and asSOciated eventS (the 'Challenge Representative'). A yacht club may replace at any time itS Challenge Representative by giving prior written notice to COR/D.

6.2 RNZYS shall not accept a challenge from a Yacht Club that does not meet the requirements of the Deed of Gift Such as it is incorporated and has its annual regatta and meets each of the following criteria by the Final Race 2017:
a ) it must have been in existence for a minimum of five years;
b ) it must maintain a membership of at least 200 members;
c ) it must be financially Supported by a majority of its membership on a pro-rata basis,
d ) it must operate as a yacht club and have objectives consistent with the furtherance of yachting activities, and
e ) it must be a member of the National Sailing Authority of its Country.

6.3 For the purposes of the Deed of Gift, all challenges accepted by RNZYS ("Challenges") shall be deemed to have been received by the RNZYS at the same time, being the time of the Conclusion of the Final Race 2017.

6.4 The RNZYS will notify in writing the acceptance of the Notice of Challenge to each applicant Yacht Club and to COR, after having examined the documents presented together with the Notice of Challenge, or its refusal and reasons thereof.

6.5 Entry fees must be paid to RNZYS in cleared funds in US Dollars ("USD") and deposited into a bank account to be nominated by RNZYS, as Specified in Article 7.

6.6 The Notice of Challenge Template is attached hereto as Appendix 4.

 

Share this post


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

?

 

11.2: Competitors have no right to conduct fluid dynamic testing of designs

They will conduct the tests before being declared a competitor, so they will all apply end of June.

image.png

Share this post


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

They will conduct the tests before being declared a competitor, so they will all apply end of June.

Interesting loophole :huh:

Share this post


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

 but in my defense there were 12 or more teams racing AC45’s early in the AC34 cycle.

 

I don't think so. http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-world-series-2011-2012-standings-01.php

final standings for the 1st season shows 6 teams, some of which entered two boats.

 

 

Share this post


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

I don't think so. http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-world-series-2011-2012-standings-01.php

final standings for the 1st season shows 6 teams, some of which entered two boats.

Was remembering the Plymouth era. 9 teams in that one, two of which were Oracle http://www.sailing.org/news/7403.php#.WjpbHyuIaEc

More from CupInfo http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-world-series-2012-2013-standings-01.php

 

Share this post


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

Sorry, I could not copy and paste 11.2 correctly and can't delete it either...

This text is close to accurate

11. COST CONTAINMENT AND LIMITATIONS.

In order to attract the number of quality entries for the Event to be the world's premier
sailing event, meaningful and material cost containment measures to ensure campaigns are commercially viable, shall apply:

11.1. Limitation on the Number of Yachts:

a ) Each Competitor Shall be entitled to build a maximum of two hulls, which may be different between them;

b ) Each Competitor may only modify the exterior shape of one of its hulls as determined when the respective hull was launched ("Original Hull Surface"). The other hull shall not be altered in its Original Hull Surface. The modification of the Original Hull Surface shall be limited to a 25% of its area (the method for monitoring this restriction will be specified in the Class Rule);

c ) Each Competitor shall always be entitled to alter the structure of the hull and to repair such hull, including bringing it back to its Original Hull Surface after unintended damage;

d ) No Competitor shall acquire, sail or test any Surrogate Yacht as defined in this Protocol
and the AC75 Class Rule.

e ) The interpretation, calculation and enforcement of the above limitations on the modification of the Original Hull Surface and the determination as to whether a yacht is a Surrogate Yacht or not shall be the sole responsibility of the Measurement Committee whose decision shall be final.

f ) Each Competitor shall only sail one of its yachts at a time except the Defender who will be entitled to sail two yachts from the time of the first scheduled race in the CSS.

11.2 No Competitor shall carry out fluid dynamic testing of designs, at any scale, in any controlled environment such as a wind tunnel, cavitation tunnel, towing tank or manoeuvering basin. Any fluid dynamic testing of designs can only be undertaken in the open air and on open water, subject to the restrictions of 11.1 (d ).

 

Share this post


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

Interesting loophole :huh:

Yes ! they wrote a text preventing themselves, the defender and the challenger, to equal other competitors. On the other hand they have advantage of time, working with rule creators, and that is probably why the rule will be published as late as possible.

Share this post


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

Teams entering later are not subject to the protocol requirements regarding tests, we may have no team entering before May -June.

Wind tunnel and towing tank tests are aimed towards optimization, so I see them having only disadvantages vs. CFD in the initial (configuration) phase of design. 

Rather, reading the second para. of 11.2 - what testing is allowed, I'm fairly sure we're exactly where ETNZ was in the early phases of AC34, when they were exploring the full foiling quantum leap. As you'll recall, they carried out super-secret towed tests on a lake,  using a makeshift (or SL33?) platform.

The issue is the same now: foiling stability - and the investigating tool will be the same, a proforma hull at max. non-surrogate length (10m ?) mounting the foils mechanism, a rudder on a gantry (again, same as for ETNZ's AC45 T !) duplicating the AC75 geometry, and suitable towing points. Simple, quick and cheap, really

Share this post


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

Wind tunnel and towing tank tests are aimed towards optimization, so I see them having only disadvantages vs. CFD in the initial (configuration) phase of design. 

Rather, reading the second para. of 11.2 - what testing is allowed, I'm fairly sure we're exactly where ETNZ was in the early phases of AC34, when they were exploring the full foiling quantum leap. As you'll recall, they carried out super-secret towed tests on a lake,  using a makeshift (or SL33?) platform.

The issue is the same now: foiling stability - and the investigating tool will be the same, a proforma hull at max. non-surrogate length (10m ?) mounting the foils mechanism, a rudder on a gantry (again, same as for ETNZ's AC45 T !) duplicating the AC75 geometry, and suitable towing points. Simple, quick and cheap, really

Why ? They are not competitors yet, they can make an identical hull, they have no limitation :)

...and they can also use 11.2 for optimization. Their only limit now is budget now, so TF may not have the budget while Devos is already experimenting it.

Share this post


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

...

The issue is the same now: foiling stability - and the investigating tool will be the same, a proforma hull at max. non-surrogate length (10m ?) mounting the foils mechanism, a rudder on a gantry (again, same as for ETNZ's AC45 T !) duplicating the AC75 geometry, and suitable towing points. Simple, quick and cheap, really

^ 12m :

Surrogate Yacht means any monohull yacht exceeding 12m LOA which is capable of producing meaningful design or performance information for use either directly or indirectly in the design, construction or sailing of a AC75 yacht and as further provided in the AC75 Class Rule, but excluding existing class yachts such as TP 52s used only for the participation in and preparation for their class or other official regattas.

Share this post


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

Why ? They are not competitors yet, they can make an identical hull, they have no limitation :)

Funny. Here's another curve-ball: While we do know the Defender YC (the RNZYS) they have not yet appointed ETNZ as their Defender team. RNZYS will need to appoint one (almost certainly ETNZ) but I don't see anywhere in the Protocol that forces them to do so any sooner or later than accepting any other YC's team. There are at least two references to that appointment (italics mine):

 

32 ADVERTISING.

32.1 There will be no constraints on advertising except as specified in this Protocol and in the Brand Manual. However should the advertising of a specific product category significantly limit and/or jeopardize the TV and Media coverage of the Events - or be in breach with local applicable regulations - then COR/D shall have the authority at their sole discretion to require the relevant Competitor(s) to remove such advertising.

32.2 From the time of acceptance of a Challenger (or appointment of the Defender by RNZYS), advertising of, or other reference to, tobacco products by such Challenger or Defender is prohibited anywhere in the world. This prohibition shall apply in all Competitors' compounds, on their boats, sails and equipment, crew clothing, and any advertising material for all printed, electronic media and any other form of digital communication.

32.3 The term advertising of tobacco products as used in Article 32.2 includes, but is not limited to:

a ) the use or display of the name of any tobacco company and/or product;

b ) the use or display of the name of any company or other entity where such name is also, in whole or in part, the name under which a tobacco product is produced, sold, or otherwise distributed; and

c ) the use or display of a logo, trade mark, device or design that is commonly used or can be confused with those of tobacco products.

32.4 Advertising or any other graphic work shall, from the time of acceptance of a Challenger or appointment of the Defender, always comply with generally accepted moral and ethical standards and will not include any reference to political or ideological movements.

 

 

Share this post


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

Funny. Here's another curve-ball: While we do know the Defender (the RNZYS) they have not yet appointed ETNZ as the Competitor for their Defense. RNZYS will need to appoint one (almost certainly ETNZ) but I don't see anywhere in the Protocol that forces them to do so any sooner than any other Competitor. There are at least two references to that appointment (italics mine):

 

Do you mean that TNZ could proceed to unrestricted tests as not being considered a competitor yet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tornado-Cat said:

Do you mean that TNZ could proceed to unrestricted tests as not being considered a competitor yet ?

Yep, I don’t see why not :)

Share this post


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

Yep, I don’t see why not :)

You have a point, but following the same logic they could name the defending team the last day before the LV, and the ACWS for the challengers :)

Share this post


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

You have a point, but following the same logic they could name the defending team the last day before the LV, and the ACWS for the challengers :)

I suspect that legally RNZYS has to have a team competing in the ACWS, it is certainly mandatory for other Competitors. So maybe RNZYS needs to appoint a Defender team in time for that; even it they switch to ETNZ later :)

Here's another possibly-fun twist, when considering it addresses Challengers but not the Defender, and when considering that the DoG overrides the Protocol:

6.3 For the purposes of the Deed of Gift, all challenges accepted by RNZYS ("Challenges") shall be deemed to have been received by the RNZYS at the same time, being the time of the conclusion of the Final Race 2017.

 

Share this post


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

I suspect that legally RNZYS has to have a team competing in the ACWS, it is certainly mandatory for other Competitors. So maybe RNZYS needs to appoint a Defender team in time for that; even it they switch to ETNZ later :)

Here's another possibly-fun twist, when considering it addresses Challengers but not the Defender, and when considering that the DoG overrides the Protocol:

6.3 For the purposes of the Deed of Gift, all challenges accepted by RNZYS ("Challenges") shall be deemed to have been received by the RNZYS at the same time, being the time of the conclusion of the Final Race 2017.

 

But then you adress another point, how can all challengers be accepted at the same time with different criteria, some more restrictive than the Deed itself ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ These clauses are the only places in the Protocol that mention ETNZ. They may prevent RNZYS from allowing any other team to act as its appointed team, even if it does not constitute the appointment having already been made official.

58. INTERPRETATION.

....

Indemnified Parties means RNZYS, CVS, the Challenger of Record and its representative team Luna Rossa Challenge, Luna Rossa Challenge Srl, COR/D, Emirates Team New Zealand, Team New Zealand Limited, the Title Sponsor, any Regatta Official and/or the Venue Authorities and/ or their respective directors, officers, employees and/or contractors in each Case (as applicable);

....

RNZYS means the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and its representative team, Emirates Team New Zealand;

 

---

 

I suspect we will see ETNZ announced the first accepted team entry, on Jan 1. Luna Rossa Challenge, for whatever reason, was already named as the team representing CVS in the original Challenge:

1. INITIAL CHALLENGER OF RECORD AND MUTUAL CONSENT.

1.1 CVS, having submitted the first valid notice of Challenge to RNZYS, is appointed by RNZYS as the Initial Challenger of Record ("Initial Challenger of Record" or "COR"). CVS shall be represented by the sailing team 'Luna Rossa Challenge.'

Share this post


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

But then you address another point, how can all challengers be accepted at the same time with different criteria, some more restrictive than the Deed itself ? :D

You could almost argue that any team (except Defender team ETNZ) that has been using 'non-surrogates' since after June 26 2017 is now already ineligible as an AC36 Challenger/Competitor - since their Challenge will get backdated to then, by that superceding 'Deed' clause.

 

Share this post


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

You could almost argue that any team (except Defender team ETNZ) that has been using 'non-surrogates' since after June 26 2017 is now already ineligible as an AC36 Challenger/Competitor - since their Challenge will get backdated to then, by that superceding 'Deed' clause.

 

That is an easy one:

First:

11.2 No Competitor shall carry out fluid dynamic testing of designs, at any scale, in any controlled environment such as a wind tunnel, cavitation tunnel, towing tank or manoeuvering basin. Any fluid dynamic testing of designs can only be undertaken in the open air and on open water, subject to the restrictions of 11.1 (d ).

Second:

"Competitor means the Defender or a Challenger, as the context requires;"

"Challenger means a yacht club whose challenge for AC36 has been accepted by RNZYS in accordance with this Protocol, and the sailing team that represents such yacht club in AC36. For the avoidance of doubt, "Challenger" includes the Challenger of Record;"

So:

1) Challengers (excepted for LR) have no yacht and no team yet, so are not bound

2) For the case they would, they could change the name of the team.

 

Share this post


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

^ These clauses are the only places in the Protocol that mention ETNZ. They may prevent RNZYS from allowing any other team to act as its appointed team, even if it does not constitute the appointment having already been made official.

58. INTERPRETATION.

....

Indemnified Parties means RNZYS, CVS, the Challenger of Record and its representative team Luna Rossa Challenge, Luna Rossa Challenge Srl, COR/D, Emirates Team New Zealand, Team New Zealand Limited, the Title Sponsor, any Regatta Official and/or the Venue Authorities and/ or their respective directors, officers, employees and/or contractors in each Case (as applicable);

....

RNZYS means the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and its representative team, Emirates Team New Zealand;

 

Pretty clear that TNZ and LR are competitors and.... bound :)

Share this post


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

Do you mean that TNZ could proceed to unrestricted tests as not being considered a competitor yet ?

 

4 hours ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Yep, I don’t see why not :)

 

2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Pretty clear that TNZ and LR are competitors and.... bound :)

Yeah seems pretty clear to me too.

Maybe you missed it - but the emailed Challenges go straight to ETNZ's lawyer, while the written copies go by post to RNZYS

Share this post


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

Maybe you missed it - but the emailed Challenges go straight to ETNZ's lawyer, while the written copies go by post to RNZYS

Not that it's worth arguing but from http://www.rnzys.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AC-36-Trustee-Memorandum-No-1.pdf bold mine:

Submit the completed Notice of Challenge together with copies of all supporting documents to RNZYS at the following email addresses:
AC36Challenger@rnzys.org.nz
cc. Russell.Green@emiratesteamnz.com
and send the originals by courier to the following address ( for receipt within 14 days):
Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron, 181 Westhaven Drive, Westhaven Marina,
Auckland 1011, New Zealand.
Attention: Hayden Porter

edit: and again, 'appointment of the Defender' team is referred to at least twice as a coming point in time, even though ETNZ already got a mention in the Prot.

 

Share this post


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

'appointment of the Defender' team is referred to at least twice as a coming point in time, even though ETNZ already got a mention in the Prot.

 

Here they make a difference "Defender means RNZYS and the sailing team that represents RNZYS in AC36;"

But here they confuse the YC with the team "if the context so permits".

"All references to "RNZYS", where the context so permits, includes any syndicate or other entity or entities which undertake the defence of the Cup on its behalf;"

Share this post


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

Here they make a difference "Defender means RNZYS and the sailing team that represents RNZYS in AC36;"

But here they confuse the YC with the team "if the context so permits".

"All references to "RNZYS", where the context so permits, includes any syndicate or other entity or entities which undertake the defence of the Cup on its behalf;"

True, although any YC/Team inconstancies will likely be resolved well enough once ETNZ actually is entered, and apppointed :)

The financials are already a little complicated as they involve a bunch of parties that include (separately) Luna Rossa the Compeititor, and PRADA the ACWS and CSS Sponsor. And with the just as-of November-created America’s Cup Event authority (ACE) that new finances situation will surely be included in Prot V2.

There’s also an out-clause in there somewhere to possibly allow ACWS racing in yachts other than AC75’s. So that’s also TBD. Plus, there may be mention of additional Surrogate or other rules that will for some reason be included in the coming Class Rule? And the Class Rule can be changed for 3 months after its first publication without any consent from (non-CoR) Challs, which on this timeline towards B1 gets pretty late.

Don’t have the copy/paste text handy right now, may be misremembering it.

Share this post


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

Eww why would you post The New Zealand Initiative crap?

Precisely!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hoom said:

Eww why would you post The New Zealand Initiative crap?

Shrug, other people are - seems topical to this thread.

 

(Audio) Sam Warburton: Over-optimistic America's Cup estimates forces Ministry to change tack

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/larry-williams-drive/audio/sam-warburton-over-optimistic-americas-cup-estimates-forces-ministry-to-change-tack/

The America's Cup was touted as a boon for NZ, but MBIE mucked up the figures

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/100103275/revised-analysis-says-americas-cup-may-prove-net-loss-to-economy

MBIE error shows hosting America's Cup 'barely worth it': NZ Initiative

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11964121

Correction to Cost Benefit Analysis – America’s Cup

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/about/whats-happening/news/2017/correction-to-cost-benefit-analysis-americas-cup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites