• 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.  

Recommended Posts

On 8/31/2017 at 10:34 AM, barfy said:

aghhh, i thought we were there already...3 more weeks of discussing the orange menace and rugby

"Last time you didn’t hear a boo out of the defender for 10 months, well this ain't gonna happen with us. Within days, certainly by weeks it will be laid out."
Mr G. Dalton
26th June 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just nailing the sides on the box rule. BIG reveal any day now! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 years still to go to beat OTUSA's (more or less finalised) effort, so take it just as easy as you did then....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope that the announced protocol is full and final, unlike the perpetually changing Mongolian Cluster Fuck that was AC35...

I'd rather an up front delay to preclude a repeat of that unprofessional and stupid state of affairs.

Share this post


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

2 years still to go to beat OTUSA's (more or less finalised) effort, so take it just as easy as you did then....

Humm, AC35 protocol v1 is from June 2, 2014, it took them about 9 months.

Share this post


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

Let's hope that the announced protocol is full and final, unlike the perpetually changing Mongolian Cluster Fuck that was AC35...

I'd rather an up front delay to preclude a repeat of that unprofessional and stupid state of affairs.

It won't be final, as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 9:12 AM, nav said:

2 years still to go to beat OTUSA's (more or less finalised) effort, so take it just as easy as you did then....

I didn't take it well then.  And the difference now is ETNZ have proclaimed themselves saviors of the Cup, morally just in all they do.  Talk is cheap. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

Just relax, everything is gonna be ok.

but 100%, the anti-kiwi bitches are gonna bitch anyway

And at least 20% the Kiwi bitches too, I don't doubt. 

But, as they say.....

 

Share this post


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

I didn't take it well then.  And the difference now is ETNZ have proclaimed themselves saviors of the Cup, morally just in all they do.  Talk is cheap. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Chillax dude. Sure I'm getting a little antsy and indeed talk is cheap.

But Etnz have defended twice before and done an admirable job both times and seem to be intent on doing so again.

That is the difference between them and, dare I say, every other defender except for the ocker.  The others have always sought to tilt the playing field in the extreme sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2017 at 11:52 AM, Tornado-Cat said:

It won't be final, as usual.

Substantially final. No changing the length of the fucking boat, for example... 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. I'd be disappointed if a protocol was announced then changes significantly over the years leading up to 2021, however.

Share this post


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

^^ Let's wait and see.

 

On 9/9/2017 at 11:52 AM, Tornado-Cat said:

It won't be final, as usual.

you seem to contradict yourself a bit here TC.

any speculation here is just shit talk. of course there is no better place for that other than Trumps twitter account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the team only got their first paycheck last week so don't expect miracles.

Late this month, limited detail. Will have plenty to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the old mono hulls. People like the foiling speed

this is the best of both worlds. 
At a guess, They are going to be quick - 30-40 knots.

They are going to lack the maneuverability that the cats had, So that will make things interesting in the starting box and tactics

Will the be able to foil the whole time? - Doubt it 

I wonder what they are going to use up top sail/wing etc

2021 is a very long way away. As much as I would have liked them to start racing things quicker - 2 year cycle, I think its important to keep it at 4 years. Its a grand event :) 

Share this post


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

I love the old mono hulls. People like the foiling speed

this is the best of both worlds. 
At a guess, They are going to be quick - 30-40 knots.

They are going to lack the maneuverability that the cats had, So that will make things interesting in the starting box and tactics

Will the be able to foil the whole time? - Doubt it 

I wonder what they are going to use up top sail/wing etc

2021 is a very long way away. As much as I would have liked them to start racing things quicker - 2 year cycle, I think its important to keep it at 4 years. Its a grand event :) 

I hope I am wrong, but I do wonder what canting a keel will do to the ability to match race.

Share this post


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

I hope I am wrong, but I do wonder what canting a keel will do to the ability to match race.

As long as the motive power is not human, it will be fine.

Share this post


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

As long as the motive power is not human, it will be fine.

Diseasal engine? Yuck!

Not from a enviro point of view, but from the point of view that this is worse that cyclors :(

Share this post


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

Diseasal engine? Yuck!

Not from a enviro point of view, but from the point of view that this is worse that cyclors :(

Electric motors if they are allowed a big enough battery.

Share this post


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

Electric motors if they are allowed a big enough battery.

But still worse than cyclors.

I would rather have displacement mono. Feels more like real sailing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent,...."

However we learn that the kind of boat was decided by a team that was not a challenger at the time. If the protocol proposes this boat, can a team decide to go to the NYSC ?

Hip pocket is nothing new, but probable challenges may have been excluded by a team not already challenger who imposed the boat to the defender PRIOR to the new AC, that is new.

So, what about the validity of this CoR ?

Share this post


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

The DoG says clearly that the Defender choses the Boat and not the CoR. I'm sure some Teams will view their legal Options to challenge this Tornado-Cat.

In fact, the Mutual consent does not specify if the defender or the challenger chose the boat, it has to be a mutual consent, but the Deed is clear, the MC has to be agreed :

- AFTER the Challenge and not before

- with a CHALLENGER  and  DEFENDER, not with a team and a challenger at the time. That clearly spoliates other valid challenges.

I agree that some teams must now evaluate the legal options.

Share this post


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

In fact, the Mutual consent does not specify if the defender or the challenger chose the boat, it has to be a mutual consent, but the Deed is clear, the MC has to be agreed :

- AFTER the Challenge and not before

- with a CHALLENGER  and  DEFENDER, not with a team and a challenger at the time. That clearly spoliates other valid challenges.

I agree that some teams must now evaluate the legal options.

What? Please quote the passage of the DoG where it says that it is verboten to agree the boat before a challenge. Initially, the boats were already existing before a challenge was lodged. Building boats specifically for the AC is a rather "new" phenomenon.
In fact, in the days of yore, when Lipton and the Caladians challenged, Defender and future Challenger negotiated all MCable items, and once agreement was reached, the challenge was delivered - and accepted.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Share this post


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

However we learn that the kind of boat was decided by a team that was not a challenger at the time. If the protocol proposes this boat, can a team decide to go to the NYSC ?

They could, but they will almost certainly lose.  ETNZ was not the defender at any point during the process, so the clause about contemplating a challenge before the existing one is extinguished would not apply. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

What? Please quote the passage of the DoG where it says that it is verboten to agree the boat before a challenge. Initially, the boats were already existing before a challenge was lodged. Building boats specifically for the AC is a rather "new" phenomenon.
In fact, in the days of yore, when Lipton and the Caladians challenged, Defender and future Challenger negotiated all MCable items, and once agreement was reached, the challenge was delivered - and accepted.

Move along, nothing to see here.

As usual it takes Rennie to expose the lack of AC knowledge of the tc's and a4's of this forum...

Share this post


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

What? Please quote the passage of the DoG where it says that it is verboten to agree the boat before a challenge. Initially, the boats were already existing before a challenge was lodged. Building boats specifically for the AC is a rather "new" phenomenon.
In fact, in the days of yore, when Lipton and the Caladians challenged, Defender and future Challenger negotiated all MCable items, and once agreement was reached, the challenge was delivered - and accepted.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 Repeat after me: "The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent,...."

The club challenging can only be called that way after his challenge was received.

As for the example you give, can you provide us with a validation from the NYSC ?

Share this post


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

As usual it takes Rennie to expose the lack of AC knowledge of the tc's and a4's of this forum...

BTW, what did you say about the 5 challengers framework agreement ? That is was not Deed compliant, isn't it ? correct me if you supported it.

Share this post


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

BTW, what did you say about the 5 challengers framework agreement ? That is was not Deed compliant, isn't it ? correct me if you supported it.

I didn't say it was or was not deed compliant, it was greedy attempt by a bunch of sailors to perpetuate a world super league and masquerade it as the Americas Cup..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ro! said:

I didn't say it was or was not deed compliant, it was greedy attempt by a bunch of sailors to perpetuate a world super league and masquerade it as the Americas Cup..

IMO, it was not Deed compliant, no more than now with P$B. However it would have worked if nobody complained.

Share this post


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

BTW, what did you say about the 5 challengers framework agreement ? That is was not Deed compliant, isn't it ? correct me if you supported it.

It potentially wasn't because OR were a party to it ~ as the defender ~ while there was an existing challenge still in progress. That's the key distinction - ETNZ and LR had no real standing under the deed when they made their agreement whereas OR/GGYC did as the current holder/trustee of the Cup.

Share this post


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

It potentially wasn't because OR were a party to it ~ as the defender ~ while there was an existing challenge still in progress. That's the key distinction - ETNZ and LR had no real standing under the deed when they made their agreement whereas OR/GGYC did as the current holder/trustee of the Cup.

OR was not yet the next Defender, or Challenger so it makes no difference. There is therefore also no difference to what the hidden deal was between GD and P$B, except for the $buy-off involved and how far back in time that deal got done. None of them was AC36 Defender or Challenger, among the 5 or the 2.

A key difference, probably legal, is the selling out of boat choice. P$B made that sell-out explicitly clear and a lot of people, including Max S sitting next to him in that interview, must have cringed at what P$B announced. 

Share this post


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

OR was not yet the next Defender, or Challenger so it makes no difference. There is therefore also no difference to what the hidden deal was between GD and P$B, except for the $buy-off involved and how far back in time that deal got done. None of them was AC36 Defender or Challenger, among the 5 or the 2.

A key difference, probably legal, is the selling out of boat choice. P$B made that explicitly clear and a lot of people, including Max S sitting next to him in that interview, must have cringed at what P$B announced. 

They were the defender at the time they entered the framework agreement while there was still a pending challenge to be resolved.  That arguably made the LF deed non-compliant.  ETNZ, on the other hand, was not the defender at the time they entered into the agreement with LR (you could try to argue they were bound by the same restriction, but would most likely fail in the NYSC).  Now, if you're saying it doesn't matter because OR didn't win AC35 then yes that is true, but it doesn't make the framework agreement any more deed legal.  As an aside, it would have been interesting if Artemis (or any of the other LF teams) had won as I don't know if OR being a signatory would have tainted it for all.  

In terms of boat, the LF also specified the continuation of the AC50 so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw.

 

Share this post


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

It potentially wasn't because OR were a party to it ~ as the defender ~ while there was an existing challenge still in progress. That's the key distinction - ETNZ and LR had no real standing under the deed when they made their agreement whereas OR/GGYC did as the current holder/trustee of the Cup.

I balanced this option, however did not support it.

It is true that challengers and the defender had a stating in AC35, but not in AC36. You have a point though.

Share this post


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

I balanced this option, however did not support it.

It is true that challengers and the defender had a standing in AC35, but not in AC36. You have a point though.

edit

Share this post


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

 Repeat after me: "The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent,...."

The club challenging can only be called that way after his challenge was received.

As for the example you give, can you provide us with a validation from the NYSC ?

Ah but you've overlooked the part that is most pertinent. 

According to what has been reported, Etnz was floated a loan that was only payable if they didn't choose foiling monos.

They could still in fact go another route but the loan repayments might sting a little.

Move along nothing to see here.

Share this post


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

Ah but you've overlooked the part that is most pertinent. 

According to what has been reported, Etnz was floated a loan that was only payable if they didn't choose foiling monos.

They could still in fact go another route but the loan repayments might sting a little.

Move along nothing to see here.

Obviously I thought about it. If TNZ pays back the loan they can do what they want, is that what you want to say ?

Now, think twice, what if P$B decides to make their agreement public, with TNZ signature on it, who is going to pay, the challenger ? or the defender for BOFD ?

Perhaps GD could get out of it with a dog match, but they only have about 8 months for that, and B$T is richer. Let's hope for them they kept their AC50.:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here goes, 1st post, I for one smell a lot of money going into a lot of lawyers' wallets, having said that I do believe the positions of LR & ETNZ to be quite strong, but you never know, mayhap "uncle Larry" will find some obscure language to dredge up & piss & moan about.

Share this post


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

Obviously I thought about it. If TNZ pays back the loan they can do what they want, is that what you want to say ?

Now, think twice, what if P$B decides to make their agreement public, with TNZ signature on it, who is going to pay, the challenger ? or the defender for BOFD ?

Perhaps GD could get out of it with a dog match, but they only have about 8 months for that, and B$T is richer. Let's hope for them they kept their AC50.:D

 

I'm perplexed TC. You are being utterly obtuse, which is unlike you.

Share this post


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

Move along nothing to see here.

There's a pretty nasty smell.

Share this post


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

IMO, it was not Deed compliant, no more than now with P$B. However it would have worked if nobody complained.

The reason it didn't work is because the winner had the guts to stand against the bullying gang of five and refused to sign. 

Share this post


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

 Repeat after me: "The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent,...."

The club challenging can only be called that way after his challenge was received.

As for the example you give, can you provide us with a validation from the NYSC ?

If there was any agreement between ETNZ and LR, then that isn't either the challenging or defending Yacht Club, is it? The teams are not the yacht Clubs...

Share this post


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

The reason it didn't work is because the winner had the guts to stand against the bullying gang of five and refused to sign. 

The reason it did not work is that TNZ already had an agreement with P$B.

Share this post


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

If there was any agreement between ETNZ and LR, then that isn't either the challenging or defending Yacht Club, is it? The teams are not the yacht Clubs...

Correct, I am not sure it would help either, as it would show that Clubs are not deciding the conditions of the MC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much complaining over the fact the Challenger of Record managed to negotiate the boat the CoR wants :huh:

Share this post


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

I'm perplexed TC. You are being utterly obtuse, which is unlike you.

Let's try to be clear. As far as now we only talk about rumors, only the production of a signed document would be more damaging and, IMO, only P$B could do it. So he could tell: let's sail mono or I spill the beans. GD will accept mono.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit, I'm completely lost here. It appears that the CoR is dictating the boat in AC36. Isn't that a good thing?  Historically - certainly in the early years - the challenger would specify the boat they intended to challenge in.  The deed even contemplates it for a DoG challenge:

"Accompanying the ten months’ notice of challenge, there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and the following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water line; beam at load water line, and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded; and a custom-house registry of the vessel must also be sent as soon as possible."

From everything I've been told by people who should know, the agreement between LR and ETNZ is deed legal so I don't really understand the moral outrage.  Is it because two private parties chose to keep the details of an agreement between them private until it became operative?  

Share this post


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

It appears that the CoR is dictating the boat in AC36. Isn't that a good thing?

Yes but the vocal ones are the people who thought it was a sweet fucking deal for Challengers to lock-in shitty Defender biased rules & lock out other strong Challengers not just for one but for multiple AC cycles.

Share this post


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

 lock out other strong Challengers not just for one but for multiple AC cycles.

Is that so? What other "strong challengers" would have been locked out by the Framework Agreement and how?

Share this post


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

If there was any agreement between ETNZ and LR, then that isn't either the challenging or defending Yacht Club, is it? The teams are not the yacht Clubs...

Bingo, well spotted
 

3 hours ago, hoom said:

So much complaining over the fact the Challenger of Record managed to negotiate the boat the CoR wants :huh:

Cute, and oh so true

Share this post


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

Is that so? What other "strong challengers" would have been locked out by the Framework Agreement and how?

Without a doubt signing the agreement would have been made a condition of entry for anyone except the COR.

So anyone who felt being able to hold the regatta on their own terms should they win was important would simply not enter, not locked out perhaps , but not there all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, the AC36 protocol might or might not have required entrants to the Framework Agreement but the Agreement itself did not, nor could it have done. So the assertion that the Agreement locked anyone out is bogus.

Secondly, if Oracle (say) had won AC35 and if the AC36 protocol had required entrants to agree to the Framework, then ETNZ would have held their noses and signed. No "lock out".

 

Share this post


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

Without a doubt signing the agreement would have been made a condition of entry for anyone except the COR.

So anyone who felt being able to hold the regatta on their own terms should they win was important would simply not enter, not locked out perhaps , but not there all the same.

Those 5 club/syndicates signed the London FA only because they liked it, for all the reasons that every one of them explained. There was no evident monetary coercion or covert bribery involved. 

Contrast that to what had already GD signed.. two years earlier.. and hidden until P$B exposed it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LFA was flushed down the toilet as soon as the winner of AC35 was confirmed.If one of them had won AC35, I think the NY-AG would have stepped in to challenge the legality of the LFA under the DoG if they tried to enforce it.

Had OR-Xerox defended successfully, I think they would have signed JPN-Xerox as CoR to make things nice and tidy for the in-house self-dealings. This might have put Artemis' nose out of joint. Otoh, had Artemis won, I could see them having BAR as CoR to make things nice and Eurocentric.

Share this post


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

Secondly, if you are arguing that if Oracle (say) had won AC35 and if the AC36 protocol had required entrants to agree to the Framework, then ETNZ would have held their noses and signed. No "lock out".

 

If the LFA became a condition of Challenge acceptance in the AC36 Protocol, you can bet that the NYSC and NY-AG would stomp all over it under the Deed. An AC36 Protocol can only address AC36, not become a pre-qualification for all future editions of the AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funniest thing I found about the whole thing is, Oracle and ACEA, the two entities preaching "sustainability" are now the two entities who are trying to erase every official trace of AC35 from the public domain. Just goes to show, the only thing they wanted to sustain, was their own vision. They didn't get their way, so now they're taking their ball and going home. If we can't have it, then no one else can either. 

Share this post


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

Without a doubt signing the agreement would have been made a condition of entry for anyone except the COR.

You have that completely backwards. It was teams declaring what they would agree to, should they win.

Nothing in the LFA said anything about excluding any Challengers, although it did imply the one CoR would need to be like-minded with the outline.

I don't see any way that potential Challengers have ever been excluded - absent abnormal circumstances, 'CNEV' and that (whatever it's name was) African-American wannabe team was. If you publish a Protocol then you better be prepared for whoever is legal that takes you on, on the terms you offered.

Share this post


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

The funniest thing I found about the whole thing is, Oracle and ACEA, the two entities preaching "sustainability" are now the two entities who are trying to erase every official trace of AC35 from the public domain. Just goes to show, the only thing they wanted to sustain, was their own vision. They didn't get their way, so now they're taking their ball and going home. If we can't have it, then no one else can either. 

There is zero proof of this allegation.

The @AmericasCup Twitter account displays its location as Auckland, so that and probably other social media accounts got turned over, with whatever consequences. Maybe the new ACEA just hasn't been formed or paid yet. 

Share this post


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

Without a doubt signing the agreement would have been made a condition of entry for anyone except the COR.

 

No the condition would have been to accept the boat, as it will be with the new prot. Difference being that they had 2 years to prepare the boat for the next prot.

Share this post


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

The funniest thing I found about the whole thing is, Oracle and ACEA, the two entities preaching "sustainability" are now the two entities who are trying to erase every official trace of AC35 from the public domain.

Utter BS, if you think of the website, all important docs are still here in the noticeboard.

http://noticeboard.acracemgt.com/home

Share this post


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

What about the YouTube vids? Removing them is pretty fucking ordinary. 

YouTube have nothing to do with "erase any official trace". Official traces are in the noticeboard.

Share this post


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

You have that completely backwards. It was teams declaring what they would agree to, should they win.

Nothing in the LFA said anything about excluding any Challengers, although it did imply the one CoR would need to be like-minded with the outline.

I don't see any way that potential Challengers have ever been excluded - absent abnormal circumstances, 'CNEV' and that (whatever it's name was) African-American wannabe team was. If you publish a Protocol then you better be prepared for whoever is legal that takes you on, on the terms you offered.

Only one challenger is garaunteed, the COR, they then use mutual consent to draft a protocol ALL other challengers are required to sign, pretty sure they would have tried it on given the chance.  There is no way they were letting ETNZ challenge again without at least trying to hold them to the future vision.

Share this post


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

There is zero proof of this allegation.

True.

Its very disappointing that nobody has managed to get to the bottom of it/no official statements have been obtained.

 

3 hours ago, Indio said:

I think the NY-AG would have stepped in to challenge the legality of the LFA under the DoG if they tried to enforce it.

I wonder if they actually would have, or it'd have required a prospective Challenger to start it off?

Certainly the Framework couldn't possibly stand up to NYSC scrutiny.

Share this post


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

YouTube have nothing to do with "erase any official trace". Official traces are in the noticeboard.

Actually the OFFICIAL youtube channel has been fucked.

That IS official,  no?

Share this post


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

YouTube have nothing to do with "erase any official trace". Official traces are in the noticeboard.

Oracle and ACEA were trying to appeal to and convert the Non-sailing audience. If these people want to see Americas Cup, they don't go and read notice boards that's for sure! They go to You tube. But there is nothing, I repeat, nothing there anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this not the very problem with the AC?
There is no continuity.
After all who owns all copyright for of those AC34 & AC35 videos and broadcast footage?
It's not ETNZ that's for sure.
Unless you have sight of the legal documentation -  then it's all scuttlebutt and back fence talk.

Share this post


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

Is this not the very problem with the AC?
There is no continuity.
After all who owns all copyright for of those AC34 & AC35 videos and broadcast footage?
It's not ETNZ that's for sure.
Unless you have sight of the legal documentation -  then it's all scuttlebutt and back fence talk.

160 odd years, oldest still competed for trophy, and you say there's no continuity?

Share this post


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

Is this not the very problem with the AC?
There is no continuity.
After all who owns all copyright for of those AC34 & AC35 videos and broadcast footage?
It's not ETNZ that's for sure.

Unless you have sight of the legal documentation -  then it's all scuttlebutt and back fence talk.

(Mostly) Wrong about this ^ bit too. The Trustee 'owns' (holds in trust) everything AC IP etc

RNZYS is the current trustee, so.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. AC35 protocol:

 

50. MEDIA
50.1. Event-related media rights: All rights in and to any audio and/or visual
content and data collected by or on behalf of ACEA during the course of or
in connection with the whole or any part or parts of the Events shall vest
solely and exclusively in ACEA which shall, at its sole discretion, be entitled
to assign, transfer, license and/or otherwise exploit any such rights in
and to the applicable content and data.
50.2. Post-AC35: Upon the date that is ninety (90) days following the final race
of AC35, all such rights and related intellectual property that remain
vested in, and are capable of being assigned by, ACEA at that time
shall be assigned by ACEA to the then current trustee of the America’s
Cup and shall subsequently form part of the property of the America’s
Cup to be held in trust for the benefit of all future trustees.

 

So ETNZ/RNZYS could put all those videos back up on Youtube. Betcha they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

90 days (the max) coincides with the end of September and the new Protocol. Perhaps a new site will go up at that time, the YouTube channel will be re-activated, etc.

Share this post


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

(Mostly) Wrong about this ^ bit too. The Trustee 'owns' (holds in trust) everything AC IP etc

RNZYS is the current trustee, so.......

I guess we'll see what happens then
 

Share this post


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

Yes. AC35 protocol:

 

50. MEDIA
50.1. Event-related media rights: All rights in and to any audio and/or visual
content and data collected by or on behalf of ACEA during the course of or
in connection with the whole or any part or parts of the Events shall vest
solely and exclusively in ACEA which shall, at its sole discretion, be entitled
to assign, transfer, license and/or otherwise exploit any such rights in
and to the applicable content and data.
50.2. Post-AC35: Upon the date that is ninety (90) days following the final race
of AC35, all such rights and related intellectual property that remain
vested in, and are capable of being assigned by, ACEA at that time
shall be assigned by ACEA to the then current trustee of the America’s
Cup and shall subsequently form part of the property of the America’s
Cup to be held in trust for the benefit of all future trustees.

 

So ETNZ/RNZYS could put all those videos back up on Youtube. Betcha they don't.

Thanks, it will put at rest some baseless accusations.

Share this post


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

160 odd years, oldest still competed for trophy, and you say there's no continuity?

Indeed Renny. A continual shit storm.

Share this post


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

You're confusing longevity with continuity

Speaking of continuity, how are all those young black kids you paraded in AC35 doing in their "new-found" sailing addiction? Are they still sailing or have they quietly slipped back into the background now that the AC35 circus has left port??

Share this post


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

Thanks, it will put at rest some baseless accusations.

Actually, the use of "upon" rather than "on or before" would imply that ACEA/OR did take everything down for some reason.  I'm scratching my head as to the "why" part, as I would have thought it would be easier to just leave everything up and hand over the keys to ETNZ/RYNZS at the 90 day mark and let them deal with it.  Clean suggested he had more background, so hopefully we'll hear the whole story one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites