• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Bill E Goat

Australian Challenge

83 posts in this topic

Apparently lots of enthusiasm during Hammo to get something happening. With the rumoured 80% nationality rule there should be a good pool of talent to draw from.

No doubt will be driven by the pittwater mafia

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have seen it all before. "Show me the money". It's all very well having lots of enthusiasm, but without big money, there is no point in talking about it and I do not think the few people who have the sort of money needed even for seed capital have any enthusiasm for it. My guess is you need $10-20m seed capital and the rest can come from sponsors. The Oatley's couldn't find the money and before them there were at least 2 attempts to raise money that I know of (one was a joke). Talk is cheap, but finding money is tough. What has changed that will make this to happen now?

Share this post


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

We have seen it all before. "Show me the money". It's all very well having lots of enthusiasm, but without big money, there is no point in talking about it and I do not think the few people who have the sort of money needed even for seed capital have any enthusiasm for it. My guess is you need $10-20m seed capital and the rest can come from sponsors. The Oatley's couldn't find the money and before them there were at least 2 attempts to raise money that I know of (one was a joke). Talk is cheap, but finding money is tough. What has changed that will make this to happen now?

Several things have changed.

- Nationality rule would make an Australian challenge significantly more attractive to local sponsors.

- Auckland based event, with Auckland based lead up events is way more attractive for both logistics and fans or corporate events for an Australian based team then any location for quite some time now.

- If they pick a new rdically different class then a lot of the head start other teams have will be reduced.

It pretty much isn't going to get much better than this to get an Aussie team off the ground.

Share this post


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

Several things have changed.

- Nationality rule would make an Australian challenge significantly more attractive to local sponsors.

- Auckland based event, with Auckland based lead up events is way more attractive for both logistics and fans or corporate events for an Australian based team then any location for quite some time now.

- If they pick a new rdically different class then a lot of the head start other teams have will be reduced.

It pretty much isn't going to get much better than this to get an Aussie team off the ground.

None of those things changes the financials. Costs don't change a great deal because Auckland is close. You still have to pay people for being away from home, house them and their families, pay for a base etc. Australia always had the ability to put together a team made up of nationals and there have been efforts to get sponsorship with that as a theme, so nothing has changed. A radical new design simply adds cost, and makes it more likely that the team with the biggest budget will win. Whenever there has been a new rule, it has vastly increased costs.

If you look what is going on over here, you will see that the economy is hanging on by its finger tips. The resources boom looks as if it is over and most are forecasting a correction in the property market. We have a minority government which is far from stable adding to the uncertainty. It's not a great time to be looking for big sponsorship in Australia.

Share this post


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

None of those things changes the financials. Costs don't change a great deal because Auckland is close. You still have to pay people for being away from home, house them and their families, pay for a base etc. Australia always had the ability to put together a team made up of nationals and there have been efforts to get sponsorship with that as a theme, so nothing has changed. A radical new design simply adds cost, and makes it more likely that the team with the biggest budget will win. Whenever there has been a new rule, it has vastly increased costs.

If you look what is going on over here, you will see that the economy is hanging on by its finger tips. The resources boom looks as if it is over and most are forecasting a correction in the property market. We have a minority government which is far from stable adding to the uncertainty. It's not a great time to be looking for big sponsorship in Australia.

Sadly,I tend to agree with you.

Australia might put together a "basic" campaign, but not the sort of campaign that could win this thing.

Although to be fair, BAR had stacks of money but still came nowhere close. But then, money alone is not enough to win the AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jaysper said:

Sadly,I tend to agree with you.

Australia might put together a "basic" campaign, but not the sort of campaign that could win this thing.

Although to be fair, BAR had stacks of money but still came nowhere close. But then, money alone is not enough to win the AC.

I personally think that it is too hard to win first time out, so any team coming in needs to be planning a 2 cycle campaign. Just getting a team set up and running seems to be a huge task and distracts from the important stuff such as boat design and sailing. For instance, no new team will do anything meaningful until we know the protocol and the type of boat. Then they can start building a team. Existing teams such as BAR and ETNZ can take the boat rule and protocol and dive straight in as soon as it is announced. That is between a 3 and 6 month head start. How long does it take for a new team to get the design team, who probably haven't worked together, to find how to work and begin to produce meaningful results. If the stories of who is in and out are correct, based on past history, the LV should end up being between BAR and LR because I don't think we will see an Alinghi type situation again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a coincidence that the Team AUS logo is VERY similar to the Oracle Team USA logo?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, all the same excuses as to why Australia can't mount another challenge, yada, yada, yada. It's time for us to get back in the game! I am sick to death of the excuses by the Australian sailing and corporate fraternities (typified by A Class Sailor's remarks) that it is too expensive to participate in the America's Cup. We have more than enough billionaires in this country who could (out of patriotism, if they even understand what that word is!) band together to fund an Australian Cup challenger.
I'm pleased the Kiwis will be introducing a much stricter nationality rule that will deter the richer teams (Oracle, Artemis, Luna Rossa, former Cup holder Alinghi) from continuing to raid Australia's sailing coffers and force them to start developing their own homegrown talent (it is ludicrous that the US, which has dominated the America's Cup for 88% of its 166 years,  claims it doesn't have the homegrown sailing stocks to win Olympic gold or crew its America's Cup yachts!). Australia has lost an entire generation of the most talented sailors and yacht designers to foreign contenders for going on two decades because no one in this country had the balls to back a Cup challenger.
It's unlikely the likes of Spithill, Ashby, Slingsby, Outteridge and the other sailors in AC35 will all get behind an Australian challenger but for the sake of our current and next generation of sailors (eg Matthew Belcher, Seve Jarvin, Will Ryan, David and Sam Gilmour), some of whom were originally part of the Hamilton Island challenge's abortive bid, Australia can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines and tolerate the raid on our sailing stocks. It has to stop - and the new Kiwi defender is our best hope for that! We should not be welcoming the barbarians at our sailing gate!
There has been enough talented Australian sailors and designers in the last couple of Cup cycles to have formed one of the most powerful Australian challengers in Cup history. Imagine how much more formidable such a team would be if it were led by John Bertrand - the Australian equivalent of New Zealand's Grant Dalton or the late Sir Peter Blake.
It's time for Australia to return to the fray. We didn't leverage off the opportunities that were afforded us when the Kiwis last held the Cup in the early 2000s. We cannot afford to let that rare opportunity slip again now that the Kiwis have reclaimed the Cup!
So yes A Class Sailor, money will be tight, and no, the economic climate in this country isn't ideal, but someone needs to step up to the plate. Ideally, I'd like that to be Bertrand - he would be able to raise the funds that are needed. Yes, it will be hard, yes, we would be starting behind the eight-ball (but when a country like ours has been out of the Cup game for as long as it has, that was always going to be the case). Realistically, we could not expect to win the Cup back at the first attempt - it took the Kiwis three attempts between 2003 and 2017 - but we have to lay the groundwork for future Cup cycles. Otherwise, the next generation of Aussie sailors and designers will continue to go offshore.
In fact, we already have the perfect role model - just look at what the Kiwis have done in the past 22 years. Ironically, they were inspired to enter the Cup game thanks to Australia II's 1983 triumph. The Kiwis have well and truly surpassed us - since we lost the Cup in 1987, they have won it three times, including winning, defending, losing and recapturing the trophy! They've also appeared in every edition of the Cup since 1995 (bar 2010) - it's a record that more than bests Australia's seven consecutive Cup appearances between 1967 and 1987. If ever there's a role model/benchmark for a potential "Team Australia" in 2021, it's Team New Zealand!
The rallying cry in 1983 was "Stand up Australia!" In 2017, the rallying cry in 2017 should be "Wake up Australia!" No more excuses, let's just get this done!

Share this post


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

Is it a coincidence that the Team AUS logo is VERY similar to the Oracle Team USA logo?

 

No, I don't believe it's a coincidence - at the beginning of the last Cup cycle, Oracle (with its posse of Aussie sailors) and the Oatley family's Team Australia did some trials on Sydney Harbour in AC45s. I believe the Team Australia logo was fashioned on Oracle Team USA's, and as Team Australia also encouraged its young sailors to sail on the GC32 and other multihull circuits, I suspect the Oatley family has continued to support those sailors in active competition. After all, a GC32 campaign is probably still cheaper for the Oatleys than an America's Cup tilt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

Blah, blah, all the same excuses as to why Australia can't mount another challenge, yada, yada, yada. It's time for us to get back in the game! I am sick to death of the excuses by the Australian sailing and corporate fraternities (typified by A Class Sailor's remarks) that it is too expensive to participate in the America's Cup. We have more than enough billionaires in this country who could (out of patriotism, if they even understand what that word is!) band together to fund an Australian Cup challenger.
I'm pleased the Kiwis will be introducing a much stricter nationality rule that will deter the richer teams (Oracle, Artemis, Luna Rossa, former Cup holder Alinghi) from continuing to raid Australia's sailing coffers and force them to start developing their own homegrown talent (it is ludicrous that the US, which has dominated the America's Cup for 88% of its 166 years,  claims it doesn't have the homegrown sailing stocks to win Olympic gold or crew its America's Cup yachts!). Australia has lost an entire generation of the most talented sailors and yacht designers to foreign contenders for going on two decades because no one in this country had the balls to back a Cup challenger.
It's unlikely the likes of Spithill, Ashby, Slingsby, Outteridge and the other sailors in AC35 will all get behind an Australian challenger but for the sake of our current and next generation of sailors (eg Matthew Belcher, Seve Jarvin, Will Ryan, David and Sam Gilmour), some of whom were originally part of the Hamilton Island challenge's abortive bid, Australia can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines and tolerate the raid on our sailing stocks. It has to stop - and the new Kiwi defender is our best hope for that! We should not be welcoming the barbarians at our sailing gate!
There has been enough talented Australian sailors and designers in the last couple of Cup cycles to have formed one of the most powerful Australian challengers in Cup history. Imagine how much more formidable such a team would be if it were led by John Bertrand - the Australian equivalent of New Zealand's Grant Dalton or the late Sir Peter Blake.
It's time for Australia to return to the fray. We didn't leverage off the opportunities that were afforded us when the Kiwis last held the Cup in the early 2000s. We cannot afford to let that rare opportunity slip again now that the Kiwis have reclaimed the Cup!
So yes A Class Sailor, money will be tight, and no, the economic climate in this country isn't ideal, but someone needs to step up to the plate. Ideally, I'd like that to be Bertrand - he would be able to raise the funds that are needed. Yes, it will be hard, yes, we would be starting behind the eight-ball (but when a country like ours has been out of the Cup game for as long as it has, that was always going to be the case). Realistically, we could not expect to win the Cup back at the first attempt - it took the Kiwis three attempts between 2003 and 2017 - but we have to lay the groundwork for future Cup cycles. Otherwise, the next generation of Aussie sailors and designers will continue to go offshore.
In fact, we already have the perfect role model - just look at what the Kiwis have done in the past 22 years. Ironically, they were inspired to enter the Cup game thanks to Australia II's 1983 triumph. The Kiwis have well and truly surpassed us - since we lost the Cup in 1987, they have won it three times, including winning, defending, losing and recapturing the trophy! They've also appeared in every edition of the Cup since 1995 (bar 2010) - it's a record that more than bests Australia's seven consecutive Cup appearances between 1967 and 1987. If ever there's a role model/benchmark for a potential "Team Australia" in 2021, it's Team New Zealand!
The rallying cry in 1983 was "Stand up Australia!" In 2017, the rallying cry in 2017 should be "Wake up Australia!" No more excuses, let's just get this done!

Sounds like you want to spend someone else's money.  Patriotism is not going to drive this, it will be hard economic pragmatic decisions and I don't see it happening.

Share this post


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

Sounds like you want to spend someone else's money.  Patriotism is not going to drive this, it will be hard economic pragmatic decisions and I don't see it happening.

If New Zealand can do it, so can Australia. All it takes is one guy who has the connections and the passion for the sport and the country and the sky is the limit. Look at what NZ achieved, after the last cup, the country had no desire, and no intention to get behind another cup challenge. All it took was Daltons dogged pursuit, his connection to Mateo De Nora, his ability to raise sponsorship, and his passion for what an Americas Cup win would mean for the country, and now we are at the top of the mountain. Australia could do the same if they all decided the Americas Cup was worth the effort. If you look at it, the reason the Americas Cup isn't high on the priority list is because the millionaires would rather spend their fortune on 100 foot supermaxi's to contest the Sydney to Hobart Race. The competition in Australia is to knock Wild Oats XI off her perch, not to win the Americas Cup. The money is there, the right people are there, the skill and level of build and sailing talent is most definitely there, the focus is not. The Hobart Race is the most important thing in Australian yachting. Perhaps if Comanche continues beating all other Australian teams, that focus might change, but for now, beating Wild Oats XI to Hobart is the focus.

Share this post


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

If New Zealand can do it, so can Australia. All it takes is one guy who has the connections and the passion for the sport and the country and the sky is the limit. Look at what NZ achieved, after the last cup, the country had no desire, and no intention to get behind another cup challenge. All it took was Daltons dogged pursuit, his connection to Mateo De Nora, his ability to raise sponsorship, and his passion for what an Americas Cup win would mean for the country, and now we are at the top of the mountain. Australia could do the same if they all decided the Americas Cup was worth the effort. If you look at it, the reason the Americas Cup isn't high on the priority list is because the millionaires would rather spend their fortune on 100 foot supermaxi's to contest the Sydney to Hobart Race. The competition in Australia is to knock Wild Oats XI off her perch, not to win the Americas Cup. The money is there, the right people are there, the skill and level of build and sailing talent is most definitely there, the focus is not. The Hobart Race is the most important thing in Australian yachting. Perhaps if Comanche continues beating all other Australian teams, that focus might change, but for now, beating Wild Oats XI to Hobart is the focus.

Same for the French, we are focused on the offshore sailing races. Mostly the solo Route du Rhum.

The focus has never been on the America's Cup and there is also the issue of bringing a lot of million $$ to sponsor it. 

 

DDA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There will be no Australian Challenge for the simple reason that once something gets going in one State, the others all do their best to pull it down. That is why their last serious challenge was 22 years ago - and there have been five Cups since then in which they could have competed. There's a reason for that and it will be the same in 2021.

(Sorry I don't count the 2000 Young Australia Challenge as being serious - turning up with an old boat which wasn't fast in 1995, and only came about because Sid had paid his entry fee but couldn't get a proper Challenge going so he put up Young Australia - and a good thing that he did that as it gave a lot of guys a break into the America's Cup world.)

You only have to look at the 1987 Defence Trials to see what happens with Australian entries in the America's Cup - two boats from West Australia, one from South Australia and one from NSW, according to Sid's book they jigged the rules and didn't pick the boat that was winning at the end of the selection series. Plus the in-fighting between even the West Australians was such that they took their eye off the ball completely.

Share this post


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

Sounds like you want to spend someone else's money.  Patriotism is not going to drive this, it will be hard economic pragmatic decisions and I don't see it happening.

If that were truely the case no one except ETNZ would ever challenge...  Even they have to ask the Government for a little seed money each time round.

Ego, boredom and patriotism (or at least the recognition that goes with appearing to have it) coupled with lots of cash is generally what gets an America's Cup challenge off the ground!

Share this post


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

If that were truely the case no one except ETNZ would ever challenge...  Even they have to ask the Government for a little seed money each time round.

Ego, boredom and patriotism (or at least the recognition that goes with appearing to have it) coupled with lots of cash is generally what gets an America's Cup challenge off the ground!

Lots of cash always helps in an Americas Cup campaign. But as has been stated many times before, NZ had no where near the budget of the other teams, and dominated. Yes, cash plays a big part, but its not the main component. BAR proved that this time around. Its not how much money you can spend, its about how you spend the money you do have. It costs around as much money to run a maxi program as it does to put together an Americas Cup program. Yet, those who are influential in the Australian yachting scene are glad to throw millions at a maxi program over the Americas Cup. Its not that Australia can't put together a decent Cup campaign, its that they chose not to because the Americas Cup just isn't important in Australia. Well, not as important as the annually run Sydney to Hobart Race. 

Share this post


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

 It costs around as much money to run a maxi program as it does to put together an Americas Cup program.

That is the biggest load of bollocks you have ever posted. Even on a tight budget, ETNZ probably spent something like $70m. Oracle and Artemis probably spent $100m. Comanche cost $15m to build and about $3m a year to run.

 

Share this post


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

That is the biggest load of bollocks you have ever posted. Even on a tight budget, ETNZ probably spent something like $70m. Oracle and Artemis probably spent $100m. Comanche cost $15m to build and about $3m a year to run.

 

So you've got a boat which on its own costs $15 million dollars to build and &3 million dollars a year to run.Comanche was built in 2014. You have one of the worlds top yacht designers in  Guillaume Verdier designing the boat who needs to be paid to design the boat. Its now 2017, so they've already spent $24 million dollars just to run the boat. On top of that you have shipping costs, because Comanche sure as hell doesn't sail to every regatta it races. So you have shipping costs, modification costs, repair costs, and 20+ professional sailors to employ, to retain (including guys like Stan Honey who is widely considered as the best navigator in the business) and guys like Jimmy Spithill, who is one of the most famous Americas Cup sailors in the world. These guys don't come cheap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last couple of tilts out of Australia were marked by immense greed and  self interest on behalf of syndicate management who bled their sponsors dry.

Corporate / Business sponsors and supporters have elephant-like long memories and a very rapid and effective network of communication between each other about such things.

Because of that sordid history, any future AC challenge out of Aus will likely need to be self funded, like Oracle was. That narrows the field here quite considerably.

Largely piss and wind at Hammo, and not for the first time either. History shows there is little hope of success at first tilt back in the game. Sponsors know that too so its a way less attractive long haul funding program that would be needed.

 

 

Share this post


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

If New Zealand can do it, so can Australia. All it takes is one guy who has the connections and the passion for the sport and the country and the sky is the limit. Look at what NZ achieved, after the last cup, the country had no desire, and no intention to get behind another cup challenge. All it took was Daltons dogged pursuit, his connection to Mateo De Nora, his ability to raise sponsorship, and his passion for what an Americas Cup win would mean for the country, and now we are at the top of the mountain. Australia could do the same if they all decided the Americas Cup was worth the effort. If you look at it, the reason the Americas Cup isn't high on the priority list is because the millionaires would rather spend their fortune on 100 foot supermaxi's to contest the Sydney to Hobart Race. The competition in Australia is to knock Wild Oats XI off her perch, not to win the Americas Cup. The money is there, the right people are there, the skill and level of build and sailing talent is most definitely there, the focus is not. The Hobart Race is the most important thing in Australian yachting. Perhaps if Comanche continues beating all other Australian teams, that focus might change, but for now, beating Wild Oats XI to Hobart is the focus.

I think you are way off the mark. Dalton's job was made so much easier because of the history of the team. Australia doesn't have that history any more. I don't think a clone of Dalton would stand any chance of getting a serious challenge off the ground in Oz. The family who spends the most on sailing weren't able to do it. The Oatley's were prepared to put up a decent chunk of money for their challenge but had 2 problems, that the amount they needed became more than they had anticipated and that they couldn't raise the amount needed above what they were prepared to put in through sponsorship. They had the name, reputation and contacts but still failed. 

If you look at who races the potential line honours winners for the S2H who are from Australia over the last 5 years or so, I cannot see anybody else who has the money needed. They have all been approached at least a couple of times and there was one of those times that was a pretty serious opportunity with the likes of Outteridge lined up. It would have been a great team, but there was no money.

I also see a big difference between the people who tend to back the AC and those who race the S2H. Most of the guys racing the S2H are also seen out every Wednesday and weekend racing. Sailing is their primary recreation. Even Ellison, who was a sailor, spent fairly limited time doing it. To put money up for the AC, you need to be happy to be "the money" rather than a full time participating team member. I don't see the Australians doing that. 

I would love to be proven wrong, but I think we need to be realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A Class Sailor said:

I think you are way off the mark. Dalton's job was made so much easier because of the history of the team. Australia doesn't have that history any more. I don't think a clone of Dalton would stand any chance of getting a serious challenge off the ground in Oz. The family who spends the most on sailing weren't able to do it. The Oatley's were prepared to put up a decent chunk of money for their challenge but had 2 problems, that the amount they needed became more than they had anticipated and that they couldn't raise the amount needed above what they were prepared to put in through sponsorship. They had the name, reputation and contacts but still failed. 

If you look at who races the potential line honours winners for the S2H who are from Australia over the last 5 years or so, I cannot see anybody else who has the money needed. They have all been approached at least a couple of times and there was one of those times that was a pretty serious opportunity with the likes of Outteridge lined up. It would have been a great team, but there was no money.

I also see a big difference between the people who tend to back the AC and those who race the S2H. Most of the guys racing the S2H are also seen out every Wednesday and weekend racing. Sailing is their primary recreation. Even Ellison, who was a sailor, spent fairly limited time doing it. To put money up for the AC, you need to be happy to be "the money" rather than a full time participating team member. I don't see the Australians doing that. 

I would love to be proven wrong, but I think we need to be realistic.

Whaaaaat?? "Daltons job was made easier because of the history of the team" Which history?? The one that saw them blow a huge, somewhat insurmountable lead only to lose the Cup in San Francisco?? The history that shows a mass exodus after 2000? A 5-0 whitewash by ex Team NZ members in 2003. A failed challenge in 2007? Or the history that shows the New Zealand public turning against the team and the Cup, and the government pulling their support for the team?? Daltons job was EXTREMELY DIFFICULT after San Francisco, especially given they had next to no public or government support. Dalton was basically tasked with keeping his team running in the face of potential closure, as well as employing and retaining top guys like Ashby, Burling and Tuke, retaining key design team members, building an Americas Cup Class boat, which is on the leading edge of technology, and trying to convince New Zealand that the Cup is worth competing for, and that ETNZ after multiple failures actually had a chance to win, even though the rules, numbers and odds were heavily stacked againsdt them. 

Share this post


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

I think you are way off the mark. Dalton's job was made so much easier because of the history of the team. Australia doesn't have that history any more. I don't think a clone of Dalton would stand any chance of getting a serious challenge off the ground in Oz. The family who spends the most on sailing weren't able to do it. The Oatley's were prepared to put up a decent chunk of money for their challenge but had 2 problems, that the amount they needed became more than they had anticipated and that they couldn't raise the amount needed above what they were prepared to put in through sponsorship. They had the name, reputation and contacts but still failed. 

If you look at who races the potential line honours winners for the S2H who are from Australia over the last 5 years or so, I cannot see anybody else who has the money needed. They have all been approached at least a couple of times and there was one of those times that was a pretty serious opportunity with the likes of Outteridge lined up. It would have been a great team, but there was no money.

I also see a big difference between the people who tend to back the AC and those who race the S2H. Most of the guys racing the S2H are also seen out every Wednesday and weekend racing. Sailing is their primary recreation. Even Ellison, who was a sailor, spent fairly limited time doing it. To put money up for the AC, you need to be happy to be "the money" rather than a full time participating team member. I don't see the Australians doing that. 

I would love to be proven wrong, but I think we need to be realistic.

There is absolutely plenty of money in Australia to run an Americas Cup campaign. There is just no desire to do so because the supermaxi's are more important.

Share this post


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

So you've got a boat which on its own costs $15 million dollars to build and &3 million dollars a year to run.Comanche was built in 2014. You have one of the worlds top yacht designers in  Guillaume Verdier designing the boat who needs to be paid to design the boat. Its now 2017, so they've already spent $24 million dollars just to run the boat. On top of that you have shipping costs, because Comanche sure as hell doesn't sail to every regatta it races. So you have shipping costs, modification costs, repair costs, and 20+ professional sailors to employ, to retain (including guys like Stan Honey who is widely considered as the best navigator in the business) and guys like Jimmy Spithill, who is one of the most famous Americas Cup sailors in the world. These guys don't come cheap. 

Stop trying to manipulate the figures. They spent a total of $24m in 3 years. The $3m included crew, new sails and shipping. Try checking your facts rather than making them up. The other thing you completely fail to understand is that at the end of their time with Comanche, they can sell her and get some money back. You cannot do that with an AC campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A Class Sailor said:

Stop trying to manipulate the figures. They spent a total of $24m in 3 years. The $3m included crew, new sails and shipping. Try checking your facts rather than making them up. The other thing you completely fail to understand is that at the end of their time with Comanche, they can sell her and get some money back. You cannot do that with an AC campaign.

Haha you're kidding right? So you're telling me Comanche costs an average of $8 million dollars a year to run including salaries, shipping and equipment? Going by those costs, not including equipment and shipping, those professional sailors including Stan Honey who is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest navigators in the world today are on a $400,000 dollar a year salary. 20 guys at $400,000 a year = $8000,000. On top of that, Comanche has been shipped around the world, including to Australia twice, repaired and modified in that time. And thats before any sails or extra equipment have been bought. So that tells me, according to your figures, these guys wouldn't even make $400,000 a year. more like say, $200 to $300,000 a year, if that. YEAH RIGHT!!!

Secondly, only since Oracle has introduced ridiculously advance, wing sailed multihulls, do teams not have the ability to sell the IACC boats. There have been many IACC boats sold at the end of past campaigns. It is only the AC72's and AC50's which are too complex to sell. 

Share this post


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

Haha you're kidding right? So you're telling me Comanche costs an average of $8 million dollars a year to run including salaries, shipping and equipment? Going by those costs, not including equipment and shipping, those professional sailors including Stan Honey who is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest navigators in the world today are on a $400,000 dollar a year salary. 20 guys at $400,000 a year = $8000,000. On top of that, Comanche has been shipped around the world, including to Australia twice, repaired and modified in that time. And thats before any sails or extra equipment have been bought. So that tells me, according to your figures, these guys wouldn't even make $400,000 a year. more like say, $200 to $300,000 a year, if that. YEAH RIGHT!!!

Secondly, only since Oracle has introduced ridiculously advance, wing sailed multihulls, do teams not have the ability to sell the IACC boats. There have been many IACC boats sold at the end of past campaigns. It is only the AC72's and AC50's which are too complex to sell. 

You and ACS really don't know what you are talking about. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

To start with the stupidity above, Stan Honey is not a full time paid member of the Comanche crew. He gets a per day rate just like all the big names. Even Kenny Read isn't on a full time salary and is paid a retainer and on a regatta by regatta basis. I am pretty sure that the only full time employee is Casey Smith, the boat captain. and he certainly isn't making $200-300k per year.

Rather than argue over build costs and how much a year is spent on crew, gear, shipping etc, you need to understand the ownership structures used for boats like Comanche and how that plays out in terms of tax. While I don't know Comanche's exact structure, it will be owned by a corporation, funded by lease finance or similar and its value will be aggressively written off (exact amount will depend on state of incorporation). The corporation will then make losses every year than the owner can use against profits elsewhere. The real cost to the owners is actually surprisingly low. The knack is having the financial wherewithal to put together such a deal in the first place as not only do you need to be very wealthy, but you need to have the profits to offset from somewhere. To equate a maxi campaign cost to the AC is so far off the mark.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2017 at 11:02 AM, A Class Sailor said:

We have a minority government…

Unless you know something about the current dual nationality issue that the High Court doesn't, the LNP coalition government has a one seat majority (currently it has 76 of 150 seats).

Share this post


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

There is absolutely plenty of money in Australia to run an Americas Cup campaign. There is just no desire to do so because the supermaxi's are more important.

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 hours ago, trt131 said:

Sounds like you want to spend someone else's money.  Patriotism is not going to drive this, it will be hard economic pragmatic decisions and I don't see it happening.

trt131, if you know anything about the history of the America's Cup, then you'll know that America's Cup campaigns always spend "someone else's money". Would Team New Zealand have won in June if Grant Dalton hadn't secured seed and other principal funding from a number of donors, including Swiss-Italian billionaire Matteo de Nora? Would Jimmy Spithill and the posse of Aussie sailors at Oracle ever have won the Cup if they hadn't enjoyed spending Larry Ellison's dollars, especially as they couldn't drum up even a modicum of interest in an America's Cup campaign in their homeland! Alan Bond made spending other people's money - both in the America's Cup and in his general business dealings - almost an art form! (Not that I condone Bond, what he did was 99 per cent of the time criminal.) In fact, most business ventures involve cash flows from "someone else's money" - usually via over-generous bank loans that are derived from grass roots bank accounts!

As much as you dismiss it, patriotism is a massive motivating factor in most America's Cup campaigns - Team New Zealand could never have won the America's Cup (in 1995 or 2017) if they weren't able to capture the imagination of ordinary New Zealanders. Dennis Conner wore patriotism on his sleeve in his America's Cup campaigns. The problem with Australians (unlike Kiwis) is that we're not really very passionate about anything - except when it comes to our local football clubs winning premierships or our swimmers winning gold medals at the Olympics - a rarity these days, even with John Bertrand at the helm of Swimming Australia! Better to invest in something - saiing - that we're actually quite good at! And we've shown we're good at it, given our best sailors and designers have been involved in successful America's Cup campaigns for non-Australian contenders going back to 1995.

I agree with sclarke - Australia has the funds, the resources, the professionalism and the skills to mount a very serious America's Cup challenge - we're just not very interested. And given our prior chapter in Cup history, it's a terrible shame! I can't see any reason though why we couldn't follow the Team New Zealand model - we just need a unifying figure in sailing - again I throw up John Bertrand - who can focus on the fundraising side of things, courting both private investors and potential sponsors alike, while leaving the sailing program to the likes of a Nathan Outteridge or a Tom Slingsby and the design program to someone like Grant Simmer who has enjoyed enormous success with the likes of Alinghi and Oracle. It's achievable - but it does require the will. If there's the will, then the cash will logically follow.

Which is why a lot of the comments in this feed simply reinforce the negativity that exists in Australia about the Cup - and will likely see nothing transpire. But hey, we can be proud of being non-entities, can't we?

 

Edited by Spirit of Australia II
Slight punctuation error.

Share this post


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

Whaaaaat?? "Daltons job was made easier because of the history of the team" Which history?? The one that saw them blow a huge, somewhat insurmountable lead only to lose the Cup in San Francisco?? The history that shows a mass exodus after 2000? A 5-0 whitewash by ex Team NZ members in 2003. A failed challenge in 2007? Or the history that shows the New Zealand public turning against the team and the Cup, and the government pulling their support for the team?? Daltons job was EXTREMELY DIFFICULT after San Francisco, especially given they had next to no public or government support. Dalton was basically tasked with keeping his team running in the face of potential closure, as well as employing and retaining top guys like Ashby, Burling and Tuke, retaining key design team members, building an Americas Cup Class boat, which is on the leading edge of technology, and trying to convince New Zealand that the Cup is worth competing for, and that ETNZ after multiple failures actually had a chance to win, even though the rules, numbers and odds were heavily stacked againsdt them. 

Bravo! It's not just about history, it's about determination and the will to win! If Australians had shown even half the spirit and tenacity that Dalton exhibited in the last Cup cycle, Australia would have won back the Cup years ago! Another reason why Team New Zealand is the benchmark for a "Team Australia" challenge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can hope all you want but it aint going to happen in Australia.  There is no will for the AC amoungst the very small number of likely candidates and I dont think JB could raise event one tenth of what is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2017 at 7:14 AM, robberzdog said:

 

 

There will be no Australian Challenge for the simple reason that once something gets going in one State, the others all do their best to pull it down. That is why their last serious challenge was 22 years ago - and there have been five Cups since then in which they could have competed. There's a reason for that and it will be the same in 2021.

(Sorry I don't count the 2000 Young Australia Challenge as being serious - turning up with an old boat which wasn't fast in 1995, and only came about because Sid had paid his entry fee but couldn't get a proper Challenge going so he put up Young Australia - and a good thing that he did that as it gave a lot of guys a break into the America's Cup world.)

You only have to look at the 1987 Defence Trials to see what happens with Australian entries in the America's Cup - two boats from West Australia, one from South Australia and one from NSW, according to Sid's book they jigged the rules and didn't pick the boat that was winning at the end of the selection series. Plus the in-fighting between even the West Australians was such that they took their eye off the ball completely.

There's no doubt that in the 1987 defence trials the Aussie teams were more intent on beating each other than actually thinking about how to beat the eventual challenger. However, Syd Fischer to this day continues to kid himself that he would have won the Cup if his Steak'n'Kidney had been allowed through to the defender final and the America's Cup match. Like all of his campaigns prior to and after 1987, Steak'n'Kidney was (in true Syd fashion) an incompetent, underfunded disaster. The boat was a dog in the early trials because the designer put the keel onto the boat upside down! Once they worked out their mistake and the boat actually started winning races and showing bursts of speed, Steak'n'Kidney had accumulated so few points that it wasn't eligible to sail in the defender final. Syd then started campaigning for the Royal Perth Yacht Club to tear up the rulebook and reinstate his boat on the pretence it would get faster.

In some respects, Syd was right, perhaps the Royal Perth Yacht Club should have been more ruthless and substituted the best, fastest boat for the one that eventually won the defender series - if only to give itself the best chance of defending the Cup. However, I'm not convinced Steak'n'Kidney would have been any more of a match for eventual Cup winner Stars & Stripes than Kookaburra III was.

Given it's been almost next to impossible for Australia to even mount one challenge in the last two decades, let alone as many as four in the one Cup cycle (as occurred in '87), it's unlikely there will be the same sort of state in-fighting that occurred in the '80s if a credible challenger is formed. That's why the Team New Zealand model is the only way to go - an Aussie challenger would have to unify talent from all over Australia, as well as potential foreign talent that can't get gigs in their own homelands. The old Aussie syndicate models of the '80s just won't work in the modern America's Cup.

Share this post


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

You can hope all you want but it aint going to happen in Australia.  There is no will for the AC amoungst the very small number of likely candidates and I dont think JB could raise event one tenth of what is required.

Look, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it - and I don't totally disagree with you. There has been no will in Australia for the AC for nigh on two decades - yet Team New Zealand, against the odds, after the disaster of San Francisco, has shown the task isn't impossible! I'm sick of Australians making excuses. The money is here, the leadership and the talent is also here - despite the exodus from our shores of a whole generation of talented Aussie sailors, designers and engineers. What the hell is stopping us apart from our own pessimism? I'd say we've lost our mongrel as a country - the very same mongrel that won the America's Cup in the first place! It's not money or will that we need for an America's Cup challenge - we need to get our mongrel back! Australia, stop making excuses and get on with it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

Look, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it - and I don't totally disagree with you. There has been no will in Australia for the AC for nigh on two decades - yet Team New Zealand, against the odds, after the disaster of San Francisco, has shown the task isn't impossible! I'm sick of Australians making excuses. The money is here, the leadership and the talent is also here - despite the exodus from our shores of a whole generation of talented Aussie sailors, designers and engineers. What the hell is stopping us apart from our own pessimism? I'd say we've lost our mongrel as a country - the very same mongrel that won the America's Cup in the first place! It's not money or will that we need for an America's Cup challenge - we need to get our mongrel back! Australia, stop making excuses and get on with it!

Trouble is that ETNZ is a total outlier.

No other syndicate operates the way they do with mainly corporate sponsorship from such a tiny country.

If ETNZ were to fold it would not take a great deal of imagination to believe that NZ would never compete in another cup again, such is the difficulty of establishing a team under such constraints. 

Last real Ozzie challenger was in 95 so Oz no longer has any pedigree in this game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

 yet Team New Zealand, against the odds, after the disaster of San Francisco, has shown the task isn't impossible!

Is it against the odds? A team that has been part of the AC for so long, that has been in every AC match since 1995, has won the LV every time they have been a challenger since 1995 makes them the most bankable team in the AC. San Fran was not a disaster in terms of sponsorship. Emirates probably got more sponsorship return from them losing than they would have done from a 9-1 win. It was non stop news exposure in a way an easy win would never have been. Emirates would have looked pretty poor in the eyes of many if TNZ had tried again and they had abandoned them.

Quote

I'm sick of Australians making excuses. The money is here, the leadership and the talent is also here - despite the exodus from our shores of a whole generation of talented Aussie sailors, designers and engineers. What the hell is stopping us apart from our own pessimism? I'd say we've lost our mongrel as a country - the very same mongrel that won the America's Cup in the first place! It's not money or will that we need for an America's Cup challenge - we need to get our mongrel back! Australia, stop making excuses and get on with it!

It's nothing about pessimism or not having "mongrel" any more. I think it is really very simple. It isn't important to people and it isn't important to the people who could make it happen. I was at a sailing club function while the cup was underway this time and not one person I spoke to even knew what the score was. They were not interested. Even though I am one who would love to see an Australian team, I know I am in a minority who are really interested and that was only because of the foiling cats and Glenn Ashby being at ETNZ. You make it sound like it is a national imperative. It is not and even if we do get a team, it really isn't going to change anything. There night be a moment of pride if they won, but that is it. If some wealthy individual wants to spend the time and money, good on them, because that is the only way it will happen and I cannot see anybody in Australia who fits the bill as all the super wealthy sailing types would rather play than pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2017 at 2:06 PM, A Class Sailor said:

I think you are way off the mark. Dalton's job was made so much easier because of the history of the team. Australia doesn't have that history any more. I don't think a clone of Dalton would stand any chance of getting a serious challenge off the ground in Oz. The family who spends the most on sailing weren't able to do it. The Oatley's were prepared to put up a decent chunk of money for their challenge but had 2 problems, that the amount they needed became more than they had anticipated and that they couldn't raise the amount needed above what they were prepared to put in through sponsorship. They had the name, reputation and contacts but still failed. 

If you look at who races the potential line honours winners for the S2H who are from Australia over the last 5 years or so, I cannot see anybody else who has the money needed. They have all been approached at least a couple of times and there was one of those times that was a pretty serious opportunity with the likes of Outteridge lined up. It would have been a great team, but there was no money.

I also see a big difference between the people who tend to back the AC and those who race the S2H. Most of the guys racing the S2H are also seen out every Wednesday and weekend racing. Sailing is their primary recreation. Even Ellison, who was a sailor, spent fairly limited time doing it. To put money up for the AC, you need to be happy to be "the money" rather than a full time participating team member. I don't see the Australians doing that. 

I would love to be proven wrong, but I think we need to be realistic.

The billionaire from Perth Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest has tried to bribe ARU with AUD50-mil to keep the Rebels in SR - he might be persuaded to put his AUD50-mil towards a strong Aussie Challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Andrew Forrest would be even remotely interested in a dick measuring contest that is the America's Cup. The guy just dontated something like $400 million to various charities and research departments. Would you rather be remembered for helping to eradicate cancer or winning the Cup? Especially in this current economic climate I just don't see anyone in Aus who would be willing to hang their nuts on the line for little in return.

Who in Aus has that raging ego like Bond and actually has the will to go balls deep into it? James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch come to mind as maybe having that sailing & patriotic link, but even then I think they are smart enough to realise the Cup is just a big pissing contest, what would they get out of it? 

The 70's & 80's were a perfect Cup storm for Australia, we were starting to grow on the world business stage, Bond saw it as an opportunity to show the rest of the world that Australia was ready to do business with the big kids. It opened doors for him, he could get something out of it, stroke my ego and show me the money, he thrived off that shit.

It's a different world now, those who have the money to play with spend it much more wisely. Without the big ego players and a general public who give zero fucks about a yacht race I don't see it happening unfortunately.

Share this post


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

The billionaire from Perth Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest has tried to bribe ARU with AUD50-mil to keep the Rebels in SR - he might be persuaded to put his AUD50-mil towards a strong Aussie Challenge.

The details of the deal were never released, it was reported as an offer to underwrite the Force and may have been worth about $6 million per year, which is what the ARU expects to save by cutting the Force. If he'd been able to increase income for the Force through sponsorships, merchandise, ticket sales, etc. then his cost would reduce.

You can bet it wasn't a lump sum with no strings attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutting the force wasn't about ARU saving money it was about keeping the South Africans happy.  An added bonus is it means the limited Australian pool of genuine super rugby level players will now be split amoungst 4 teams not 5 and they might actually manage to win a game against kiwi and SA teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2017 at 6:06 AM, E63sccb said:

+1

 

Awesome profile pic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, E63sccb said:

I teach her right! She now puts her new skills to use after duck dodge in the lake:wub:

Has she got a sister? I'm asking for a friend....

 

lol

 

Share this post


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

Trouble is that ETNZ is a total outlier.

No other syndicate operates the way they do with mainly corporate sponsorship from such a tiny country.

If ETNZ were to fold it would not take a great deal of imagination to believe that NZ would never compete in another cup again, such is the difficulty of establishing a team under such constraints. 

Last real Ozzie challenger was in 95 so Oz no longer has any pedigree in this game. 

I disagree that Australia no longer has pedigree in the game. Yes, there hasn't been a genuine contender since oneAustralia in 1995 - but Australians have been very visibly successful in the Cup for ETNZ, Alinghi and Oracle since 1995. Do I need to remind you just how many Aussie sailors have been involved in both Oracle and Team New Zealand? Grant Simmer, Bertrand's navigator on Australia II, has played integral design co-ordination roles in winning campaigns for Alinghi and Oracle. Ian Burns has also had design input into Oracle's campaigns. We do have the pedigree to win the damn thing - we just haven't had anyone willing to step up and carry the spear.

The ETNZ model is the only way I think there could be an Australian challenger - it would have to comprise of funding from not just Australian and international corporates (of the likes of Emirates; perhaps Air Asia might like to compete for the NZ route?) but also private investment from a collective of wealthy individuals, yachties and non-yachties alike, the type of people who wouldn't invest money in a Cup campaign on their own but would be prepared to provide the necessary seed and infrastructure funding (in return they'd get a place on the board of directors of the syndicate - or whatever). Like ETNZ, an Australian team would also have to look to overseas donors as well - two that come to mind are Comanche owner Jim Clark (who's married to an Australian, but I doubt would ever bother funding a US Cup challenge of his own) and Scallywag owner Seng Huang Lee (who grew up in Sydney, now resides in his native Hong Kong and has an entry in the VOR). The days of Australian syndicates being funded by sole proprietors is well and truly over.

The challenge is to appoint a unifying figure with history in the Cup who could sell the Cup to these individuals and sceptical corporate boardrooms in Australia and abroad. To my mind, there's only one - John Bertrand - and to my mind he's the one person still with passion for the Cup who could do it. He's also the one person who could potentially woo home sailors and designers without a home following the Oracle debacle, eg Tom Slingsby, Kyle Langford, Sam Newton, Simmer, Burns, etc, and persuade young Aussie sailors with America's Cup aspirations (eg Seve Jarvin, David and Sam Gilmour, Matthew Belcher, Will Ryan) to turn down offers from other Cup challengers.

The ETNZ model has been very successful in enabling such a small country like New Zealand to be competitive in the America's Cup. It's not even that new or innovative an arrangement. Dennis Conner ran his America's Cup campaigns along similar lines (Conner even trumped Syd Fischer's Young Australia back in Auckland in 2000 and got Qantas US to sponsor his Cup challenger!). Ben Ainslie Racing, like ETNZ, works to a similar model. There's no reason why such a model couldn't be adopted for an Australian Cup challenge - provided there are individuals that are willing to make the investment. What an Aussie challenger needs is a 'Grant Dalton' or a 'Peter Blake' to run the show - and as a result, Bertrand is the only one to my mind who could do it - and do it well.

 

 

Share this post


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

Is it against the odds? A team that has been part of the AC for so long, that has been in every AC match since 1995, has won the LV every time they have been a challenger since 1995 makes them the most bankable team in the AC. San Fran was not a disaster in terms of sponsorship. Emirates probably got more sponsorship return from them losing than they would have done from a 9-1 win. It was non stop news exposure in a way an easy win would never have been. Emirates would have looked pretty poor in the eyes of many if TNZ had tried again and they had abandoned them.

It's nothing about pessimism or not having "mongrel" any more. I think it is really very simple. It isn't important to people and it isn't important to the people who could make it happen. I was at a sailing club function while the cup was underway this time and not one person I spoke to even knew what the score was. They were not interested. Even though I am one who would love to see an Australian team, I know I am in a minority who are really interested and that was only because of the foiling cats and Glenn Ashby being at ETNZ. You make it sound like it is a national imperative. It is not and even if we do get a team, it really isn't going to change anything. There night be a moment of pride if they won, but that is it. If some wealthy individual wants to spend the time and money, good on them, because that is the only way it will happen and I cannot see anybody in Australia who fits the bill as all the super wealthy sailing types would rather play than pay.

See my response to Jaysper - which should answer some of your points! :D

Share this post


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

I don't think Andrew Forrest would be even remotely interested in a dick measuring contest that is the America's Cup. The guy just dontated something like $400 million to various charities and research departments. Would you rather be remembered for helping to eradicate cancer or winning the Cup? Especially in this current economic climate I just don't see anyone in Aus who would be willing to hang their nuts on the line for little in return.

Who in Aus has that raging ego like Bond and actually has the will to go balls deep into it? James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch come to mind as maybe having that sailing & patriotic link, but even then I think they are smart enough to realise the Cup is just a big pissing contest, what would they get out of it? 

The 70's & 80's were a perfect Cup storm for Australia, we were starting to grow on the world business stage, Bond saw it as an opportunity to show the rest of the world that Australia was ready to do business with the big kids. It opened doors for him, he could get something out of it, stroke my ego and show me the money, he thrived off that shit.

It's a different world now, those who have the money to play with spend it much more wisely. Without the big ego players and a general public who give zero fucks about a yacht race I don't see it happening unfortunately.

See my response to Jaysper - which should answer some of your points! :D I agree that Packer and Murdoch wouldn't pay alone - but they might if an Australian challenger follows the ETNZ model of local and international sponsorship and donors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire your enthusiasm but it is based on some fantasy world that does not exist.

2 hours ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

To my mind, there's only one - John Bertrand - and to my mind he's the one person still with passion for the Cup who could do it.

You do know that John has turned down a number of approaches and is now the chairman of Swimming Australia. He has no interest in getting involved with sailing at an administrative level. Why on earth would he want to, given his position and legacy with the AC.

2 hours ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

Ben Ainslie Racing, like ETNZ, works to a similar model.

BAR works on a completely different model to ETNZ, one that also could not be replicated here in Australia.

The biggest problem is getting a credible challenge together, never mind then getting the sponsors. This is why you need a wealthy individual to kick it off, with a significant sum of money. For instance, you go on about John Bertrand, but who is going to pay his wages while he goes around cap in hand both in Australia and overseas. To be credible, you need to sign up sailors and the other key people like designers. Why would they join unless there was some money in place? Then you have the problem of time. If the designers cannot start work until money is raised, they will be too far behind. 

For all the reasons above, until you identify an Australian who is willing to put up something like $20m to get the thing off the ground, forget it. And seeing that people have been looking for such an individual for some time, what's changed that will it to happen now?

Share this post


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

I admire your enthusiasm but it is based on some fantasy world that does not exist.

You do know that John has turned down a number of approaches and is now the chairman of Swimming Australia. He has no interest in getting involved with sailing at an administrative level. Why on earth would he want to, given his position and legacy with the AC.

BAR works on a completely different model to ETNZ, one that also could not be replicated here in Australia.

The biggest problem is getting a credible challenge together, never mind then getting the sponsors. This is why you need a wealthy individual to kick it off, with a significant sum of money. For instance, you go on about John Bertrand, but who is going to pay his wages while he goes around cap in hand both in Australia and overseas. To be credible, you need to sign up sailors and the other key people like designers. Why would they join unless there was some money in place? Then you have the problem of time. If the designers cannot start work until money is raised, they will be too far behind. 

For all the reasons above, until you identify an Australian who is willing to put up something like $20m to get the thing off the ground, forget it. And seeing that people have been looking for such an individual for some time, what's changed that will it to happen now?

What's changed is that you have a number of unemployed Australian sailors around who can't get a job in the AC because of the new rules about nationality so they might just accept a job for less money than they have been accustomed to.

Team Australia needs to set up a trust or syndicate made up of some of the Sydney Hobart investors and they can provide enough seed money to get the team started .. it won't succeed but if they can survive that will be enough for the next AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twiggy couldn't give two shits about the ego game of the cup. He is heavily involved in working with remote aboriginal communities to stop them raping babies and implementing cashless welfare so families don't blow their dole payment on booze and ciggies rather than food and rent, well that and suing the ARU for dumping the force. He is a rugby man and business wise, his customers are Chinese and Indian. 

Id love to see old mate Loyal get a campaign up, seems to have the cash and assume the ego, but doubt he could do it on his own. He had the celebrity contacts to get it noticed and public backing. 

Could Spitball get something going? Guess he has a bit of cash and contacts. Sure some wealthy Sydney wankers would love to be his mate.

Share this post


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

What does it say? Need an account...to read

The 35th America’s Cup has only just finished in Bermuda — with the Kiwis’ Emirates Team NZ thrashing Larry Ellison’s Team Oracle USA — but already corporate scheming has begun on who’ll be racing in Auckland when the cup is held on the winner’s home seas in four years.

Gossip from the recent Hamilton Island Race week regatta was that a consortium of wealthy Australian businessmen — and keen yachties — might already be quietly discussing mounting a joint Australian entry for 2021.

If it comes off, it would be the first Aussie yacht to sail in the race for more than 20 years, and a long 37 years since Alan Bond’s audacious “Boxing Kangaroo” win with the winged-keel Australia II in 1983.

The absence of an Australian yacht in sailing’s fastest, cutting-edge and highest-profile international racing event is a tender issue.

More than half the skippers, navigators, crew, managers and offshore support teams for the seven entries at Bermuda were Aussies, including Team Oracle skipper Jimmy Spithill and navigator and gold Olympian Tom Slingsby, along with Swedish Artemis skipper and Australian gold medallist Nathan Outteridge. And the regatta was run by Australian yachting legend Iain Murray.

Behind the latest talk is 84-year-old property developer Ervin Vidor, sailing his plus 76-foot luxury French cruising yacht, named after his wife Charlotte, who was also aboard at Hamilton Island last week.

Vidor, who owns hotel apartment chains Vibe, Medina, Adina and TraveLodge, is a quiet multi-billionaire worth more than $2 billion, despite his latest Rich List entry estimating his wealth at just $804 million.

House view

A senior Fairfax Media figure has called it. CBS’s proposed takeover of Ten Network is bad for Australian media.

In his weekly musing, ­Financial Review editor-in-chief Michael Stutchbury went against the house view (that is, his boss CEO Greg Hywood and chairman Nick ­Falloon) noting not only was the CBS play bad for News Corp, “it’s also bad for other Australian legacy media companies, including Fairfax Media, Nine Entertainment and Seven West Media.” Stutch notes, “these media companies are most likely to sustain genuine local news operations”. Rather, it is the “outdated” cross-media rules that remain lodged in the Senate that “make it more difficult for Australian media to consolidate into the scale required to compete against big global media companies, including Facebook and Google”, Stutch helpfully points out.

Crew who’s who

Meanwhile, back to the boats. With an America’s Cup entry costing more than $50m to mount, Ervin Vidor is not going to go it alone.

Other contributors could include former Porsche racing car expert and Brisbane office tower developer Peter Harburg, who’s preparing his 100-footer Black Jack for a tilt at this year’s Sydney-Hobart race.

On board Black Jack at Hamilton Island as tactician was Tom Slingsby, who’s desperate to sail under the flag of his birth in an America’s Cup and who is repeatedly mentioned as the man most likely to skipper any future Australian boat.

Sandy Oatley, boss of the Oatley/Hamilton Island group, is not interested after the way his father’s potential challenge was treated. But accountant-to-the-stars Anthony Bell, winner of last year’s S2H on Perpetual Loyal, has repeatedly been mentioned as keen to back an America’s Cup bid in NZ waters, although his recent appearance in the courts over his vicious marriage breakdown with Kelly Landry has dented his appetite for publicity.

Trouble in paradise

Eastward across the Coral Sea from Hamilton Island, there’s trouble in paradise for entrepreneurial Shane Pettiona and Darren Pettiona, whose Iririki Resort in Vanuatu faces the possibility of being shut down in a legal stoush with a builder over work done to repair the damage wrought by Cyclone Pam in 2015. Here in Australia, Shane is probably best known for being a driving force behind a controversial 2015 JV between his 112 group and Fairfax Media under which production of the media group’s Drive section was outsourced.

Darren, meanwhile, is a finance sector veteran whose accomplishments include a stint in 2011 as a director of van Eyk, a $600m funds management empire that collapsed in 2014 (much to the embarrassment of Nicholas Moore’s Macquarie, many of whose clients were heavily invested in van Eyk’s funds).

Oh, and word has it they are Simon Crean’s nephews.

But in Vanuatu the pair are best known as directors of Iririki Islands Holdings, which owns an island — and the resort development on it — close to capital Port Vila.

On Tuesday the Vanuatu Supreme Court ordered Iririki wound up after it failed to meet a demand for $1.4m from builder Vancorp Construction.

The court has given Iririki a stay while an urgent appeal is heard, and the company also has a cross-claim against Vancorp on foot for some $6m.

Adding to the intrigue, lawyer Dane Thornburgh, who represents the Pettionas, has provided Margin Callwith court documents showing the island paradise’s public prosecutor has laid five charges against a Vancorp director — four of fraud against Iririki and one of stealing construction tools from the site.

Bolton acquisition

Corporate raider Nicholas Bolton’s hair may be floppy, but his (and his associates’) determination to seize control of listed cashbox Molopo Energy is as fixed as a WWI bayonet.

A bid for Molopo by Keybridge Capital (where he was a director until Greg Medcraft’s ASIC unkindly banned him in late 2015) and funds controlled by Aurora Funds Management (where he is half-owner) ended in unfortunate circumstances in late June. The Takeovers Panel found Keybridge and Aurora failed to tell the market they were associated, and ordered some 43 million Molopo shares seized by Medcraft’s mob ahead of being sold off.

Dinted but undaunted, Aurora has pressed on, announcing on July 27 it planned a bid for Molopo involving a total of $5m cash, with the rest to be paid in scrip in one of Aurora’s unlisted funds. As Molopo has more than $60m in the bank, the deal might need sweetening.

And yesterday, Molopo hit back, saying the offer was prohibited under the Corporations Act because Aurora knew it would not be made and was reckless as to whether it could perform its obligations under the offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/09/2017 at 7:28 PM, Spirit of Australia II said:

I disagree that Australia no longer has pedigree in the game. Yes, there hasn't been a genuine contender since oneAustralia in 1995 - but Australians have been very visibly successful in the Cup for ETNZ, Alinghi and Oracle since 1995. Do I need to remind you just how many Aussie sailors have been involved in both Oracle and Team New Zealand? Grant Simmer, Bertrand's navigator on Australia II, has played integral design co-ordination roles in winning campaigns for Alinghi and Oracle. Ian Burns has also had design input into Oracle's campaigns. We do have the pedigree to win the damn thing - we just haven't had anyone willing to step up and carry the spear.

The ETNZ model is the only way I think there could be an Australian challenger - it would have to comprise of funding from not just Australian and international corporates (of the likes of Emirates; perhaps Air Asia might like to compete for the NZ route?) but also private investment from a collective of wealthy individuals, yachties and non-yachties alike, the type of people who wouldn't invest money in a Cup campaign on their own but would be prepared to provide the necessary seed and infrastructure funding (in return they'd get a place on the board of directors of the syndicate - or whatever). Like ETNZ, an Australian team would also have to look to overseas donors as well - two that come to mind are Comanche owner Jim Clark (who's married to an Australian, but I doubt would ever bother funding a US Cup challenge of his own) and Scallywag owner Seng Huang Lee (who grew up in Sydney, now resides in his native Hong Kong and has an entry in the VOR). The days of Australian syndicates being funded by sole proprietors is well and truly over.

The challenge is to appoint a unifying figure with history in the Cup who could sell the Cup to these individuals and sceptical corporate boardrooms in Australia and abroad. To my mind, there's only one - John Bertrand - and to my mind he's the one person still with passion for the Cup who could do it. He's also the one person who could potentially woo home sailors and designers without a home following the Oracle debacle, eg Tom Slingsby, Kyle Langford, Sam Newton, Simmer, Burns, etc, and persuade young Aussie sailors with America's Cup aspirations (eg Seve Jarvin, David and Sam Gilmour, Matthew Belcher, Will Ryan) to turn down offers from other Cup challengers.

The ETNZ model has been very successful in enabling such a small country like New Zealand to be competitive in the America's Cup. It's not even that new or innovative an arrangement. Dennis Conner ran his America's Cup campaigns along similar lines (Conner even trumped Syd Fischer's Young Australia back in Auckland in 2000 and got Qantas US to sponsor his Cup challenger!). Ben Ainslie Racing, like ETNZ, works to a similar model. There's no reason why such a model couldn't be adopted for an Australian Cup challenge - provided there are individuals that are willing to make the investment. What an Aussie challenger needs is a 'Grant Dalton' or a 'Peter Blake' to run the show - and as a result, Bertrand is the only one to my mind who could do it - and do it well.

 

 

The pedigree is about the team not the individual. BAR sucked arse not because they didn't have funding or wildly talented individuals. They sucked arse because they had no pedigree as a team. 

Only on team has ever overcome this and they did it by stealing the core of ETNZ which just happened to include two of the most talented A.C. operators ever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/96458344/consortium-of-wealthy-aussies-eye-americas-cup-challenge-for-auckland-2021

 

 

Quote

 

Wealthy Australians eye America's Cup challenge for Auckland 2021

 

The prospect of Australia rejoining the America's Cup for Auckland 2021 continues to build momentum.

The Australian newspaper reports that "a consortium of wealthy Australian businessmen - and keen yachties - might already be quietly discussing mounting a joint Australian entry".

 

 

Share this post


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

Ho hum!  Stuf.com is dragging its heels yet again.  They should be following SA here.

RG at sail-world.com has his take on developments in OZ here http://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Gladwells-Line---Cup-capers-continue-in-Auckland-and-Bermuda/156750?source=email  Long piece that also gets up to date with news and gossip about Cup preparations in Auckland.

Share this post


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

Ho hum!  Stuff is dragging its heels yet again.  They should be following SA here.

RG in sail-world has his research there www.sail-world.com/156922 but it's mostly  roundup of developments reported here

Stuff posing stuff already posted elsewhere? Perish the thought!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/09/2017 at 9:30 AM, Tornado-Cat said:

The 35th America’s Cup has only just finished in Bermuda — with the Kiwis’ Emirates Team NZ thrashing Larry Ellison’s Team Oracle USA — but already corporate scheming has begun on who’ll be racing in Auckland when the cup is held on the winner’s home seas in four years.

Gossip from the recent Hamilton Island Race week regatta was that a consortium of wealthy Australian businessmen — and keen yachties — might already be quietly discussing mounting a joint Australian entry for 2021.

If it comes off, it would be the first Aussie yacht to sail in the race for more than 20 years, and a long 37 years since Alan Bond’s audacious “Boxing Kangaroo” win with the winged-keel Australia II in 1983.

The absence of an Australian yacht in sailing’s fastest, cutting-edge and highest-profile international racing event is a tender issue.

More than half the skippers, navigators, crew, managers and offshore support teams for the seven entries at Bermuda were Aussies, including Team Oracle skipper Jimmy Spithill and navigator and gold Olympian Tom Slingsby, along with Swedish Artemis skipper and Australian gold medallist Nathan Outteridge. And the regatta was run by Australian yachting legend Iain Murray.

Behind the latest talk is 84-year-old property developer Ervin Vidor, sailing his plus 76-foot luxury French cruising yacht, named after his wife Charlotte, who was also aboard at Hamilton Island last week.

Vidor, who owns hotel apartment chains Vibe, Medina, Adina and TraveLodge, is a quiet multi-billionaire worth more than $2 billion, despite his latest Rich List entry estimating his wealth at just $804 million.

House view

A senior Fairfax Media figure has called it. CBS’s proposed takeover of Ten Network is bad for Australian media.

In his weekly musing, ­Financial Review editor-in-chief Michael Stutchbury went against the house view (that is, his boss CEO Greg Hywood and chairman Nick ­Falloon) noting not only was the CBS play bad for News Corp, “it’s also bad for other Australian legacy media companies, including Fairfax Media, Nine Entertainment and Seven West Media.” Stutch notes, “these media companies are most likely to sustain genuine local news operations”. Rather, it is the “outdated” cross-media rules that remain lodged in the Senate that “make it more difficult for Australian media to consolidate into the scale required to compete against big global media companies, including Facebook and Google”, Stutch helpfully points out.

Crew who’s who

Meanwhile, back to the boats. With an America’s Cup entry costing more than $50m to mount, Ervin Vidor is not going to go it alone.

Other contributors could include former Porsche racing car expert and Brisbane office tower developer Peter Harburg, who’s preparing his 100-footer Black Jack for a tilt at this year’s Sydney-Hobart race.

On board Black Jack at Hamilton Island as tactician was Tom Slingsby, who’s desperate to sail under the flag of his birth in an America’s Cup and who is repeatedly mentioned as the man most likely to skipper any future Australian boat.

Sandy Oatley, boss of the Oatley/Hamilton Island group, is not interested after the way his father’s potential challenge was treated. But accountant-to-the-stars Anthony Bell, winner of last year’s S2H on Perpetual Loyal, has repeatedly been mentioned as keen to back an America’s Cup bid in NZ waters, although his recent appearance in the courts over his vicious marriage breakdown with Kelly Landry has dented his appetite for publicity.

Trouble in paradise

Eastward across the Coral Sea from Hamilton Island, there’s trouble in paradise for entrepreneurial Shane Pettiona and Darren Pettiona, whose Iririki Resort in Vanuatu faces the possibility of being shut down in a legal stoush with a builder over work done to repair the damage wrought by Cyclone Pam in 2015. Here in Australia, Shane is probably best known for being a driving force behind a controversial 2015 JV between his 112 group and Fairfax Media under which production of the media group’s Drive section was outsourced.

Darren, meanwhile, is a finance sector veteran whose accomplishments include a stint in 2011 as a director of van Eyk, a $600m funds management empire that collapsed in 2014 (much to the embarrassment of Nicholas Moore’s Macquarie, many of whose clients were heavily invested in van Eyk’s funds).

Oh, and word has it they are Simon Crean’s nephews.

But in Vanuatu the pair are best known as directors of Iririki Islands Holdings, which owns an island — and the resort development on it — close to capital Port Vila.

On Tuesday the Vanuatu Supreme Court ordered Iririki wound up after it failed to meet a demand for $1.4m from builder Vancorp Construction.

The court has given Iririki a stay while an urgent appeal is heard, and the company also has a cross-claim against Vancorp on foot for some $6m.

Adding to the intrigue, lawyer Dane Thornburgh, who represents the Pettionas, has provided Margin Callwith court documents showing the island paradise’s public prosecutor has laid five charges against a Vancorp director — four of fraud against Iririki and one of stealing construction tools from the site.

Bolton acquisition

Corporate raider Nicholas Bolton’s hair may be floppy, but his (and his associates’) determination to seize control of listed cashbox Molopo Energy is as fixed as a WWI bayonet.

A bid for Molopo by Keybridge Capital (where he was a director until Greg Medcraft’s ASIC unkindly banned him in late 2015) and funds controlled by Aurora Funds Management (where he is half-owner) ended in unfortunate circumstances in late June. The Takeovers Panel found Keybridge and Aurora failed to tell the market they were associated, and ordered some 43 million Molopo shares seized by Medcraft’s mob ahead of being sold off.

Dinted but undaunted, Aurora has pressed on, announcing on July 27 it planned a bid for Molopo involving a total of $5m cash, with the rest to be paid in scrip in one of Aurora’s unlisted funds. As Molopo has more than $60m in the bank, the deal might need sweetening.

And yesterday, Molopo hit back, saying the offer was prohibited under the Corporations Act because Aurora knew it would not be made and was reckless as to whether it could perform its obligations under the offer.

Even though I've made it clear in this stream that I'm all for Australia returning to the Cup, I'll still take this report with a grain of salt (until the individuals concerned confirm it otherwise). I'm also not convinced Tom Slingsby is "desperate" to helm an Australian challenger. It didn't seem so important to him in the last Cup cycle when he was approached by the Oatley family and Team Australia. See http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/glenn-ashby-re-signs-with-etnz-for-2017-america-s-cup

Both Slingsby (who was born in the US but raised in Australia) and Jimmy Spithill (who is married to an American and presumably naturalised by now) have dual nationalities and are also unlikely to jump aboard an Aussie challenger quick smart - unlike other Aussie sailors who may be caught out by the new ETNZ/Luna Rossa protocol in a couple of weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The 'Jimmy must be naturalised by now' bit needs to be fact checked.

All through the last cycle it was been claimed that he had dual nationality - but wherever I have seen his nationality listed, it has simply been 'AUS', even where others were listed with 2 (or 3) nationalities.

Not that is matters at this stage, his last campaign, even with all the advantages, was not too brilliantly done - in management or helming terms.

 

That^ story is not much more than name dropping

'We have some rich dudes here. Some of those dudes like yachting. Some of them have chatted about the AC'

 

Good luck to any Aussies wanting to give it ago though - if you are struggling you could always hope for a 'GTF backdoor clause'!? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

Even though I've made it clear in this stream that I'm all for Australia returning to the Cup, I'll still take this report with a grain of salt (until the individuals concerned confirm it otherwise). I'm also not convinced Tom Slingsby is "desperate" to helm an Australian challenger. It didn't seem so important to him in the last Cup cycle when he was approached by the Oatley family and Team Australia. See http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/glenn-ashby-re-signs-with-etnz-for-2017-america-s-cup

Both Slingsby (who was born in the US but raised in Australia) and Jimmy Spithill (who is married to an American and presumably naturalised by now) have dual nationalities and are also unlikely to jump aboard an Aussie challenger quick smart - unlike other Aussie sailors who may be caught out by the new ETNZ/Luna Rossa protocol in a couple of weeks.

Just as well JS and TS aren't interested in politics, because their dual citizenship means they'd be fucked in Canberra as well. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

Sandy Oatley, boss of the Oatley/Hamilton Island group, is not interested after the way his father’s potential challenge was treated

As I recall posts on Hamilton Island's decision not to pursue a challenge focus on costs to compete that turned out to be greater than Oatley anticipated.  The author's allusion to "... the way (Sandy's) father's potential challenge was treated" suggests another concern led Hamilton Island to withdraw.  Does anyone have insight as to what this concern was?

Share this post


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

As I recall posts on Hamilton Island's decision not to pursue a challenge focus on costs to compete that turned out to be greater than Oatley anticipated.  The author's allusion to "... the way (Sandy's) father's potential challenge was treated" suggests another concern led Hamilton Island to withdraw.  Does anyone have insight as to what this concern was?

To clarify, I didn't make that remark - it was Tornado Cat. However, I don't think there's any doubt that the Oatleys also withdrew as the original Challenger of Record because they found they could not develop an equitable and fair protocol for AC35 with Oracle that would have reduced campaign costs and also made the character of the competing teams more nationalistic.

In fact, I've read elsewhere that negotiations between the parties became quite protracted - probably because every useful idea the Oatleys had was dismissed out of hand by Oracle.

Imagine this scenario:
The Oatleys: "We want at least 50 per cent of the crews on the yachts to be nationals of the countries the yachts come from."

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!"

The Oatleys: "We want to make the costs of this regatta more affordable for newbies like us."

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!"

The Oatleys: "We think your proposal to have a bonus point in the America's Cup match sucks!"

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!"

The Oatleys: "We don't want to go to Bermuda, we want the event to stay in San Fran!"

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!"

The Oatleys: "We want to restore integrity to the America's Cup!"

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!"

If that's the way the so-called 'negotiations' went, you can imagine why the Oatleys pulled out, can't you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/09/2017 at 6:34 AM, jaysper said:

The pedigree is about the team not the individual. BAR sucked arse not because they didn't have funding or wildly talented individuals. They sucked arse because they had no pedigree as a team. 

Only on team has ever overcome this and they did it by stealing the core of ETNZ which just happened to include two of the most talented A.C. operators ever.

 

By that logic, shouldn't Alinghi in 2003 have 'sucked arse' because they were a start-up team with no pedigree, despite having Russell Coutts, Brad Butterworth and four other former Team New Zealand stars in the team? Your own argument is invalid. It was precisely because of the pedigree of those individuals that Alinghi won. Similarly, if you were to add the likes of Jimmy Spithill, Tom Slingsby, Grant Simmer, Ian Burns and others to an Australian team, I think you'd find the pedigree of that team would be much higher than if it was managed by newcomers to the Cup scene.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

By that logic, shouldn't Alinghi in 2003 have 'sucked arse' because they were a start-up team with no pedigree, despite having Russell Coutts, Brad Butterworth and four other former Team New Zealand stars in the team? Your own argument is invalid. It was precisely because of the pedigree of those individuals that Alinghi won. Similarly, if you were to add the likes of Jimmy Spithill, Tom Slingsby, Grant Simmer, Ian Burns and others to an Australian team, I think you'd find the pedigree of that team would be much higher than if it was managed by newcomers to the Cup scene.

 

Thinking isn't one of jason's strongest suits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

To clarify, I didn't make that remark - it was Tornado Cat. However, I don't think there's any doubt that the Oatleys also withdrew as the original Challenger of Record because they found they could not develop an equitable and fair protocol for AC35 with Oracle that would have reduced campaign costs and also made the character of the competing teams more nationalistic. This is a complete fabrication. They negotiated a protocol they were happy with and then began to prepare a budget. Once they realised that it was going to cost more than they thought, they withdrew. The only element that they were "unhappy" about was that they believed that the protocol they negotiated and agreed to would reduce costs but they realised after the fact that it did not. 

In fact, I've read elsewhere that negotiations between the parties became quite protracted - probably because every useful idea the Oatleys had was dismissed out of hand by Oracle.

Imagine this scenario:
The Oatleys: "We want at least 50 per cent of the crews on the yachts to be nationals of the countries the yachts come from." This is totally incorrect. At no time did Murray, who was negotiting for the Oatley's suggest a limit on nationality because there is no way that Oracle could or would agree to it considering their retained roster.

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!" At the time, Bermuda was not favourite to host the event

The Oatleys: "We want to make the costs of this regatta more affordable for newbies like us." That was actually an aim of Oracle as well and the costs were curtailed, but not as much as hoped.

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!"

The Oatleys: "We think your proposal to have a bonus point in the America's Cup match sucks!"

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!"

The Oatleys: "We don't want to go to Bermuda, we want the event to stay in San Fran!" At the time of announcing the protocol, there were still at least 3 venues on the shortlist

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!"

The Oatleys: "We want to restore integrity to the America's Cup!"

Oracle: "Nope! Either rubber stamp our protocol or see you in 10 months in Bermuda with 90 x 90 monster multihulls in a Deed of Gift match!"

If that's the way the so-called 'negotiations' went, you can imagine why the Oatleys pulled out, can't you?

 

 

You are so far off you are dreaming and making it up as you go along. You seem to have forgotten they actually signed a protocol and pulled out after. If what you say happened, they would never have signed the protocol. 

The other thing that the Oatley's misjudged is the support or lack of it from others in the sailing community. They believed they would be able to raise the money for a campaign through a mix of their own business contacts and the wider sailing community. They simply were not able to raise the money they thought they needed and when they worked on the budget following signing the protocol, they realised their initial budget was short anyway.

The protocol was negotiated based on reduced costs. this is why they went from building 2 boats to only 1, reduced the size of the boats and a raft of other cost saving measures. 

None of this is exactly a big secret. Both Bob and Sandy told people at the time what was going on. They might not have given big press interviews on it, because that has never been their style, but anybody who knows anything about them would tell you that if there had have been other reasons for withdrawing, they would have said. Oracle had nothing over them to stop them doing so just like Oracle couldn't force them to sign a protocol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

By that logic, shouldn't Alinghi in 2003 have 'sucked arse' because they were a start-up team with no pedigree, despite having Russell Coutts, Brad Butterworth and four other former Team New Zealand stars in the team? Your own argument is invalid. It was precisely because of the pedigree of those individuals that Alinghi won. Similarly, if you were to add the likes of Jimmy Spithill, Tom Slingsby, Grant Simmer, Ian Burns and others to an Australian team, I think you'd find the pedigree of that team would be much higher than if it was managed by newcomers to the Cup scene.

 

Fuck you're an idiot. Read the second part of what you've quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/09/2017 at 4:53 PM, jaysper said:

Fuck you're an idiot. Read the second part of what you've quoted.

I had indeed read the second part of what I'd quoted/you'd said about Alinghi - which is why I thought you had pretty much invalidated your own argument! :P A returning team does indeed have pedigree (eg Team New Zealand, Luna Rossa, etc). A brand new team with the right blend of Cup veterans, other experienced campaigners and new faces, if it is well managed (as Alinghi was), can also have pedigree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/09/2017 at 4:43 PM, A Class Sailor said:

You are so far off you are dreaming and making it up as you go along. You seem to have forgotten they actually signed a protocol and pulled out after. If what you say happened, they would never have signed the protocol. 

The other thing that the Oatley's misjudged is the support or lack of it from others in the sailing community. They believed they would be able to raise the money for a campaign through a mix of their own business contacts and the wider sailing community. They simply were not able to raise the money they thought they needed and when they worked on the budget following signing the protocol, they realised their initial budget was short anyway.

The protocol was negotiated based on reduced costs. this is why they went from building 2 boats to only 1, reduced the size of the boats and a raft of other cost saving measures. 

None of this is exactly a big secret. Both Bob and Sandy told people at the time what was going on. They might not have given big press interviews on it, because that has never been their style, but anybody who knows anything about them would tell you that if there had have been other reasons for withdrawing, they would have said. Oracle had nothing over them to stop them doing so just like Oracle couldn't force them to sign a protocol.

Oh dear, I really appear to have struck a nerve! :P Of course, the negotiations probably didn't quite follow the satirical scenario I outlined but the fact Sandy Oatley doesn't want anything to do with the Cup now implies that the negotiations for the protocol for AC35 were not as harmonious as you claim. I believe members of the Oatley family have told the sailing media off the record that they found the talks extremely difficult and very frustrating. Why - because of the likely intransigence of the personalities and egos they were dealing with.

For a start, the Oatleys were totally inexperienced and ill-equipped to be Challenger of Record for AC35. While they are successful ocean racers, the Oatleys showed as CoR that they belonged in a completely different era (eg that of Sir Thomas Lipton) when it came to the America's Cup. They were attracted by the romance of the Cup but failed to grasp just what a cut-throat competition it is and the kinds of egos they were dealing with (eg Russell Coutts, Tom Ehman, Jimmy Spithill). The Oatleys and their CEO Iain Murray were quoted as saying that as Challenger of Record they sought to make the America's Cup fairer and cost-effective in negotiations.

Well, based on the protocol that was created for AC35, the Oatleys were utterly hopeless - they keeled over to Oracle's every wish (limiting the challengers to training with single boats while granting the defender the right to potentially train with two! The fact Oracle opted not to build a training boat doesn't change that!) and failed to push through any meaningful changes to the Cup - inevitably making the event even more expensive and sealing their fate. The Oatleys were rank amateurs reasoning with ruthless professionals - and their legacy was a dog of a protocol that was designed to severely disadvantage the other challengers. It's amazing that with the cards stacked against them that ETNZ even won!

So, yes, perhaps there wasn't a Deed of Gift-flavoured Sword of Damocles hanging over the Oatleys' heads - but when you're dealing with negotiators like Ehman and Coutts, can you reasonably assume that it wasn't flagged or that the Oatleys weren't bullied into agreeing to conditions that they didn't support?

I also strongly suspect (though can't confirm) that Team Australia was probably just as prepared to enter into a cushy design relationship with Oracle as Team Japan and Team France did - and that probably in exchange for Oracle's data and IP they did have to give in to certain conditions in the protocol that ethically they would not have supported or been comfortable with. If that's the case, you'd probably feel bullied, feel very dirty and would be quite happy to wash your hands of the whole thing. The fact Oracle then got rid of San Fran as a venue early on gave them the perfect excuse to exit the Cup as quickly as possible! (Regardless of what you say, it was obvious to blind Freddie that Oracle was always going to defend in Bermuda because it's a dodgy tax haven! Their so-called 'selection process' involving other American cities was a sham!)

This line of argument doesn't ignore the points you make about funding - I suspect the Oatleys quickly realised they wouldn't be able to make up the shortfall of a Cup campaign either - but I suspect they were also extremely disenchanted by the politics of the Cup as well.

The only thing the Oatleys probably ever did right over the journey was selling their AC45 to ETNZ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SoA II you don't seem to realize that OTUSA had negotiators on both sides of the table - RC plus their extremely conflicted past and future employee, "I'm on sabbatical", Iain 'many hats' Murray.

If the Oatley's were frustrated (only your word on that) it was because they were in the same position as ETNZ and the other Challengers in the previous cup, facing a carefully stacked deck.

 

The other possibility for which you do not allow, but which must be considered, given the actors, is that this was a known and carefully orchestrated work around, a la Ernesto and the 'COR of Convenience' in AC33, only as one would expect, done a little more subtly and sadly 'DOG legally'!?

 

Can we ever be 100% sure one way or the other?

Share this post


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

SoA II you don't seem to realize that OTUSA had negotiators on both sides of the table - RC plus their extremely conflicted past and future employee, "I'm on sabbatical", Iain 'many hats' Murray.

If the Oatley's were frustrated (only your word on that) it was because they were in the same position as ETNZ and the other Challengers in the previous cup, facing a carefully stacked deck.

 

The other possibility for which you do not allow, but which must be considered, given the actors, is that this was a known and carefully orchestrated work around, a la Ernesto and the 'COR of Convenience' in AC33, only as one would expect, done a little more subtly and sadly 'DOG legally'!?

 

Can we ever be 100% sure one way or the other?

Nav, just because there were negotiators on both sides doesn't mean that one side was particularly good or clever at it. In fact, I doubt Iain Murray would have been a very good negotiator at all - he's always been too mild-mannered for the cut and thrust of the America's Cup. He's better off having exited it for his new role with the 2020 Australian Olympic sailing team. Much less politics to deal with!

When Team Australia withdrew from AC35, the thought that the Oatleys were a "carefully orchestrated work around" - a la Alinghi's poodle CNEV before AC33 - did cross my mind. Certainly I was frustrated enough by the withdrawal to even make that charge in a letter of comment on another sailing website!

In hindsight, I suspect not - largely because Golden Gate Yacht Club seemed to be taken by surprise by the challenge (the Oatleys somehow managed to sneak theirs in ahead of Luna Rossa) and also because Oracle's Aussie posse subsequently trained with Team Australia's young sailors on AC45s on Sydney Harbour. That says to me the Oatleys' intentions were always genuine.

It doesn't change the fact though that just as Alinghi sought to stack the cards in its favour in the lead-up to AC33 with a compliant, malleable CoR that Oracle also favoured teams that could be easily manipulated and which would provide little resistance to the vision it wanted for the Cup. In fact, twice during its trusteeship of the Cup, Oracle's initial CoRs pulled out - Team Australia in AC35, Vincenzo Onorato's Mascalzone Latino in AC34. Both, of course, cited costs as the principal reasons for their withdrawals. Both were also no where near as hardarsed as the likes of Team New Zealand or Luna Rossa.

It's a credit to Team New Zealand - and the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron - that during its trusteeship of the Cup (1995 to 2003 and now in the lead-up to AC36 in 2021) it has never shirked from selecting CoRs with spine - the New York Yacht Club for 2000, Luna Rossa for 2003 and Luna Rossa for 2021. It's a good sign that the Kiwis value fairness and that they are willing to work with someone who shares their vision and whom they don't have to bully to come around to their way of thinking.

No doubt people in this stream will whinge about the protocol for AC36 when it's released and allege that Luna Rossa has had too much influence as CoR - but I'd still argue the Kiwis will be doing more to foster "a friendly competition for foreign nations" than Oracle or Alinghi ever were.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOA, you wrote -

It's a credit to Team New Zealand - and the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron - that during its trusteeship of the Cup (1995 to 2003 and now in the lead-up to AC36 in 2021) it has never shirked from selecting CoRs with spine

That's not exactly how it works. A Defender doesn't exactly select a Challenger, they're presented with a Challenge in writing. The first Club to challenge is the challenger. Did New Zealand conspire to be in the company of a specific club so as to facilitate that club's challenge? Yes, but that's not the same as having selected from a slate of potential challengers.

Share this post


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

SOA, you wrote -

It's a credit to Team New Zealand - and the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron - that during its trusteeship of the Cup (1995 to 2003 and now in the lead-up to AC36 in 2021) it has never shirked from selecting CoRs with spine

That's not exactly how it works. A Defender doesn't exactly select a Challenger, they're presented with a Challenge in writing. The first Club to challenge is the challenger. Did New Zealand conspire to be in the company of a specific club so as to facilitate that club's challenge? Yes, but that's not the same as having selected from a slate of potential challengers.

That and they selected a COR that agreed to allow a challenge from Switzerland.  A COR with a spine but said spine had a touch of scoliosis.  :lol:

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

In hindsight, I suspect not - largely because Golden Gate Yacht Club seemed to be taken by surprise by the challenge (the Oatleys somehow managed to sneak theirs in ahead of Luna Rossa)

 

:lol::lol:

 

You do know this was shot about 6 months before they challenged??

The-America%E2%80%99s-Cup-welcomed-to-Au

 

Surprise surprise!?

 

So, if that was the jist of your 'it wasn't a scam' defence.......what should we conclude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Spirit of Australia II said:

In hindsight, I suspect not - largely because Golden Gate Yacht Club seemed to be taken by surprise by the challenge (the Oatleys somehow managed to sneak theirs in ahead of Luna Rossa)

You really do not have a clue about the America's Cup and how it works. There was no surprise and they did not sneak their challenge ahead of anybody. The way it works is that the commodore of the defending club deliberately locks himself away with the preferred challenger, usually on a yacht so nobody else can get to them and the challenge is formally handed over moments after the winner crosses the line. It is the most orchestrated moment you could have and it is impossible to sneak a challenge in. 

You have lots of enthusiasm but no idea at all about the AC. At least it makes for amusing reading and with the length of your posts, we will soon be able to start a sweep on how many stupid and incorrect comments you make per post, because there is fuck all else to do at the moment until we get some announcements;)

Share this post


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

You really do not have a clue about the America's Cup and how it works. There was no surprise and they did not sneak their challenge ahead of anybody. The way it works is that the commodore of the defending club deliberately locks himself away with the preferred challenger, usually on a yacht so nobody else can get to them and the challenge is formally handed over moments after the winner crosses the line. It is the most orchestrated moment you could have and it is impossible to sneak a challenge in. 

You have lots of enthusiasm but no idea at all about the AC. At least it makes for amusing reading and with the length of your posts, we will soon be able to start a sweep on how many stupid and incorrect comments you make per post, because there is fuck all else to do at the moment until we get some announcements;)

Oh come on, he must be right otherwise where did the rumours of the British Commodore wandering forlornly around Bermuda with challenge in hand come from? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And regular as clockwork at this point in the cycle come the claims that this time there will be a plethora of challengers and we'll party again like it was 2007.

Share this post


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

And regular as clockwork at this point in the cycle come the claims that this time there will be a plethora of challengers and we'll party again like it was 2007.

I think somewhere in between is more the truth.

More will be interested now that Orifices grubby hands are of it.

But it is difficult to start a new syndicate, so we are likely to see about 6 to 8 challenger  syndicates IMO which is still pretty damned good given how shit house things have since 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine Iain 'Fresh' Burns (married to LE's very close friend and Oracle CMO) could talk LE into funding an AUS Challenge. 

Thing is, Fresh and Simmer and others in the OR camp are getting old, even Tugboat may be done with the AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September 12, 2017 at 0:42 AM, dogwatch said:

And regular as clockwork at this point in the cycle come the claims that this time there will be a plethora of challengers and we'll party again like it was 2007.

You mean when spinbot said that the wsl45's circuit would be such a success in so many countries that it would generate 12-18 teams and that at least 12 of them would build boats for the AC in SF?

Share this post


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

I imagine Iain 'Fresh' Burns (married to LE's very close friend and Oracle CMO) could talk LE into funding an AUS Challenge. 

Thing is, Fresh and Simmer and others in the OR camp are getting old, even Tugboat may be done with the AC.

The Pinots kicked in early tonight..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Ignore, ro!, since you are only here to take weak shots at people instead of ever contributing any ideas. Wtf is your mental problem? Bye Bye loser.

Share this post


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

Back to Ignore, ro!, since you are only here to take weak shots at people instead of ever contributing any ideas. Wtf is your personal problem? Bye Bye loser.

At least he's not knocking Black Lives Matter..

Share this post


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

Back to Ignore, ro!, since you are only here to take weak shots at people instead of ever contributing any ideas. Wtf is your mental problem? Bye Bye loser.

Oh no ...not the spinbot iggy..you really know how to hurt a guy, have another glass of Pinot...maybe we'll get some more gems before you doze off..

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