• 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.  
barfy

AC 36 Protocol

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, WetHog said:

Right here.  Group of one.  :P

And thanks to the Protocol cheat sheet Renny provided in another thread I ran into some interesting details I was unaware of.  Especially the bit where not only can Challengers not sail both of THEIR boats at the same time, or against other Challengers (accept during the Prada World Series and Prada Cup), but only one boat can be modified up to 25%.  Add to that the restrictions on building materials/techniques and bans on testing techniques out of the water and the Challengers success will depend on hiring designers that guess right on their design for the most part.  Seems fair.

Also, everyones favorite, the Repechage, is back.  Yipee!

WetHog  :ph34r:

Don't confuse boat with hull for the 25% modification rule, they are not the same thing at all.

I assume the intention is that your final hull shape is your second boat, the 25% modification allows you to bring your first boat up to as close as possible to this shape to make it a viable reserver boat in the event of damage.

At this point you appear to still be able to continue modify all appendages and rigging and other components as much as you like (this may of course change in the final release).

It's also worth noting the defender can ONLY sail against their second boat during the Challenger Selection series, unless you expect ETNZ race in the CSS or to turn up to race one with ZERO match racing practice it pretty much has to be this way.

Share this post


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

Don't confuse boat with hull for the 25% modification rule, they are not the same thing at all.

I assume the intention is that your final hull shape is your second boat, the 25% modification allows you to bring your first boat up to as close as possible to this shape to make it a viable reserver boat in the event of damage.

At this point you appear to still be able to continue modify all appendages and rigging and other components as much as you like (this may of course change in the final release).

It's also worth noting the defender can ONLY sail against their second boat during the Challenger Selection series, unless you expect ETNZ race in the CSS or to turn up to race one with ZERO match racing practice it pretty much has to be this way.

Who might the reserve helm be on ETNZ and who will steer the B boat during the defender tune up to the match? The return of DB? Haha

Share this post


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

At this point you appear to still be able to continue modify all appendages and rigging and other components as much as you like (this may of course change in the final release).

No matter which boat you mod 25% of the hull shape on, yes it appears to be a free for all on the rest. A second boat may not be that important, actually.

Share this post


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

Who might the reserve helm be on ETNZ and who will steer the B boat during the defender tune up to the match? The return of DB? Haha

It's actually an interesting question, ETNZ are in effect going to need possibly 24 people on the sailing crew, thats a fairly large crew budget right there!

Share this post


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

It's actually an interesting question, ETNZ are in effect going to need possibly 24 people on the sailing crew, thats a fairly large crew budget right there!

This is assuming that they consider a second team for tune up necessary.

They did fine without it last time and even Orifice saw little value in it.

Clearly they will almost definitely build a second boat, but I'm not so convinced about hiring a second crew.

Share this post


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

No matter which boat you mod 25% of the hull shape on, yes it appears to be a free for all on the rest. A second boat may not be that important, actually.

I wonder if they won't add some restrictions to some of the other components as the class rule becomes clear, with foils being an obvious target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ~HHN92~ said:

Just too early to tell between the design and the players we do not know about yet. If Q locks-up Botin, and it is a TP52 style box rule, they may have a lead in this thing.

 

1

Stop making sense: people would think you had Kiwi blood in you.

Share this post


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

Who might the reserve helm be on ETNZ and who will steer the B boat during the defender tune up to the match? The return of DB? Haha

Isaac McHardie. He will push Burling by the time 2021 rolls around...

59d40ecccf780_IsaacMcHardie.jpg.10905676b1701eb9fdde0d98a6149ed9.jpg

Share this post


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

I wonder if they won't add some restrictions to some of the other components as the class rule becomes clear, with foils being an obvious target.

Would those restrictions be in a Protocol change or in a coming Design Rule spec? 

Share this post


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

This is assuming that they consider a second team for tune up necessary.

They did fine without it last time and even Orifice saw little value in it.

Clearly they will almost definitely build a second boat, but I'm not so convinced about hiring a second crew.

But Oracle was racing in the CSS which makes a big difference to your match readiness.

Share this post


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

But Oracle was racing in the CSS which makes a big difference to your match readiness.

Oracle had the exact same chance as anyone else to earn that 1 point and iirc got it only on a tie breaker or ETNZ would have won it. It was that damn close.

ETNZ will race among the Challengers too, will also likely affect the CSS standings, they simply bow out a few weeks earlier than what Oracle did, but unlike Oracle may run a second boat.

Which is all good but the time difference is not that huge.

 

Share this post


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

Oracle had the exact same chance as anyone else to earn that 1 point and iirc got it only on a tie breaker or ETNZ would have won it. It was that damn close.

ETNZ will race among the Challengers too, will also likely affect the CSS standings, they simply bow out a few weeks earlier than what Oracle did, but unlike Oracle may run a second boat.

Which is all good but the time difference is not that huge.

 

Don't be such a stupid fuckwit - just read the Protocol of get a homeless bum to do it to you. ETNZ will race in the ACWS events but will NOT take points if they finish in the points standings after each race, with teams moving up one spot and earning points accordingly - unlike the cheaters OR-Xerox who took points in the ACWS events leading to AC35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
Oct 4, 2017

The 7 times Volvo Ocean Race competitor and first time America’s Cup winner talks about the obstacles faced by Emirates Team New Zealand on the road to Bermuda, and spends more than an hour with host Alan Block going over the plans for the next America’s Cup in Auckland, NZ. They talk boat choice, venue choice, and much, much more in this long-overdue chat between to bald guys with gravelly voices.

Show Notes:

00:00-10:27 Intro
11:27 Who wrote the protocol and explanation of its genesis
13:17 Off-water battles in the Bermuda Cup buildup, and obstacles thrown up by Coutts & friends
14:47 Why should challengers trust you to be more fair as organizer than the America’s Cup Event Authority were to ETNZ?
15:34 “The most ridiculous stacking of the deck in modern times came from Alinghi"
15:57 How much has Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron been involved in the protocol process?
16:57 About the Cup’s national NZ road show coming up
18:07 Why is it OK to take the Cup to a boat show but not a car show?
18:57 How the RNZYS will help lessen the load for Dalton and the TNZ staff.
20:57 What information did you base your decision to go to a monohull? What's the real motivation?
25:57 The density of breeze in Auckland and the frailty of the Cup cats. Dalts: "16 knots here would pull an AC50 to pieces"
26:41 On NZ’s huge tech advantage in Bermuda. “For the life of me I can't figure out how all the other teams were so far behind us"
26:57 How keeping the AC50 would almost definitely guarantee another TNZ win
28:07 How many concepts are being considered for the actual boat? Are ETNZ consulting with other potential challengers besides Luna Rossa?
30:03 Does the design rule schedule mean TNZ and Luna Rossa get an unreasonable head start over other challengers?
30:57 Why can't you say whether or not the boat will lift out of the water?
31:57 Would you lose Glenn and Burling and the other speed junkie tech heads if you go to a heavier, more conventional type of boat?
32:47 Ashby's huge beard and his two months on walkabout
34:07 Dalts' motorcycle crash in the Isle of Man TT
36:02 Bicycle grinders and the openness of the AC36 design rule. "We have no intention of banning bicycles"
38:52 Box rules vs open Rules, and the element in the next AC of "one-design supplied parts”. Don’t want to stop innovation in areas that can help the average yacht racer, eventually.
41:30 Clean's disappointment with the residency requirement, and Dalts explanation of what he thinks people are misunderstanding about the new nationality/residency rule.
43:24 Finding the balance between a rule that would exclude many countries and one that will help reduce the mercenary culture in the sport, and how to get teams to look to their own countrymen first for crew.
48:07 Dalts: "They commit to a team and a country rather than a worldwide circus where they're guns for hire to an owner who doesn't realize he's getting ripped off"
48:57 Surrogate boats, regatta schedules, and high entry fees for the pre-regattas. "This will allow us to create a financial pool so we don't have to be beholden to a city for funds.” Dalton says ACWS events were driven by venue fees in bad places or at bad times for sailing. “Make it great for the yachties, and the rest is easy."
52:27 With the residency requirements and lack of venue certainty right now, how does ETNZ ensure teams spend enough time in Auckland to justify the money the venue will have to spend to prepare for the Cup?
53:42 Dalts' sample schedule for Challengers.
57:12 Is the Italian Option really just Dalts holding Auckland's feet to the fire? What's with the natural disaster thing?
59:05 Two boat testing for ETNZ and no one else? How about a defender challenge?
60:58 There are ways around two-boat bans, but it might not help anyone. Dalts: "SoftBank was Oracles B boat, but they couldn't get it up to speed fast enough"
61:42 Fan questions begin: Soft sails or hard sails? Hybrids?
62:51 Limiting electronics? More PlayStation type controls? Dalts analogy for ac35: "Oracle were still a mobile phone and we were a supercomputer"
64:27 Sailhandling, stored power and the team's philosophical problem with combustion engines on AC boats.
65:37 What happened with the AC34 and 35 Facebook pages and videos? Were they stolen?
67:06 IF you can get the media back, will you publish all the video from those Cups for free to the world?
67:57 who owns the Liveline graphics system and do you intend to have them back in the mix for the worldwide audience?
69:02 Free to air distribution for AC36!
74:37 Omega time, Swiss Timing, and how am entirely new graphics system might be going into the AC46 broadcast
76:27 Entry period closes before venue announced. How is that ok? (Answer, it might not be).
77:57 What are you looking to get from Auckland and the NZ government to make the event possible?
80:01 How much will a basic, unembarassing campaign cost? "People will still spend 160 million" to try to win
81:38 Biggest sponsorship mistake made by most campaigns
82:57 Happy to see Louis Vuitton go, or will you miss them?
84:07 Burlington vs Tuke, Mark Turner’s shock departure from the Volvo Ocean Race, and Dalts’ picks for the 2017 VOR
86:42 Uniting the major races, World Sailing, and where the sport is headed at the pinnacle.
87:42 Exactly what they're releasing in November and how Dalts will judge whether it was the kind of technological success he hopes for.
88:47 What's by far the most read site in New Zealand (guess?), AC Anarchist Stingray gets a shoutout, and out.


Read more at http://www.sailinganarchy.libsyn.com/#ruqXrv41zt6M4ImV.99

Share this post


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

This is assuming that they consider a second team for tune up necessary.

They did fine without it last time and even Orifice saw little value in it.

Clearly they will almost definitely build a second boat, but I'm not so convinced about hiring a second crew.

WTF!! Did you miss all the 2 boat sailing that Oracle did with the AC45 surrogates? They didn't need to build a second AC50 to be able to go 2 boat testing. Admittedly, they did stop the 2 boat programme after the CSS began, but I th\ink that was because they needed all their efforts to get the AC50 right and didn't have the manpower to keep 2 boats going. Once SBTJ were out, they had their second boat anyway.

Share this post


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

WTF!! Did you miss all the 2 boat sailing that Oracle did with the AC45 surrogates? They didn't need to build a second AC50 to be able to go 2 boat testing. Admittedly, they did stop the 2 boat programme after the CSS began, but I th\ink that was because they needed all their efforts to get the AC50 right and didn't have the manpower to keep 2 boats going. Once SBTJ were out, they had their second boat anyway.

Remember I am talking about tune up rather than two boat testing because Etnz as the defender can ONLY run two boats during the challenger series. At this point,  boat development is pretty much over and the focus is specifically on perfecting sailing techniques to get the boat you have to its maximum potential. 

Ergo, I am not sure the value this would add would justify the cost of a 2nd crew.

Share this post


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

 

 

You all convinced me.
In a nutshell: As the CSS is no part of the Deed (AC) anyway, its rules can be set up by Defender and CoR at their discretion. The CSS is "just a regatta" by application/invitation. The Deed mandated requirements are fulfilled with the previous "CoR" challenge.
Got it, thanks.

In a nutshell, Rennie.

Share this post


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

This is assuming that they consider a second team for tune up necessary.

They did fine without it last time and even Orifice saw little value in it.

Clearly they will almost definitely build a second boat, but I'm not so convinced about hiring a second crew.

Except that GD said in Clean's interview that they will 'definitely' be going with a second boat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listened to Dalts and Clean

I can see Dalts thinking about the 3 people 20% and living in the country stuff is more about continual employment and not mercenary crewing.

I guess his thinking is to keep the price down of crew yet engineer them to have more long term jobs?

He does mention its a race between yacht clubs not countries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like would prefer high %age national but can't do it legally, so they've come up with something that still allows non-nationals but handicaps any team that tried it so much that they would be there for the canapé only. In general protocol, and GDs answers, only go so far with fairness that they doesn't impact ETNZ. So no defender trail but 2 boat tuning. Nationality requirement for the crew but no restriction on where the funding or design talent can come from.

May be, given how poor as church mice ETNZ will no doubt be compared to loads-a-money-bosh-bosh Luna Prada, that is a funny kind of fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty clear what the pitch to the money is

PRADAS THROWING A PARTY!

COME ALONG, HAVE A GOOD TIME

IT'S GOING TO BE REAL SWELL

(BIO RSVP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point that Prada is coming in as a sponsor, is an enormous benefit and GD's mention of Omega's interest.

These are 2 mega brands that are likely to be just the start.

This is really positive for the cup (despite the thoughts of some people)

Share this post


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

Except that GD said in Clean's interview that they will 'definitely' be going with a second boat 

Yes, but didn't say whether they would run them both simultaneously. 

They could easily do the same as in 2013.

Share this post


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

The point that Prada is coming in as a sponsor, is an enormous benefit and GD's mention of Omega's interest.

These are 2 mega brands that are likely to be just the start.

This is really positive for the cup (despite the thoughts of some people)

+1

Share this post


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

'Emirates Team New Zealand's relationship with Luna Rossa has been described as an America's Cup 'duopoly' - but the syndicates say there's a fair division between them, reports Suzanne McFadden'

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/04/51538/team-nz-luna-rossa-friendship-goes-head-to-toe

Good read. 

Share this post


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

Good read. 

Definitely.

The whole situation sounds like the old Lipton days (?), when "all conditions of the match" had been agreed between Defender and Challenger, and only after this agreement the challenge was made. With a lot of respect between the two parties.
Feels good... (for how long?)

Share this post


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

The point that Prada is coming in as a sponsor, is an enormous benefit and GD's mention of Omega's interest.

These are 2 mega brands that are likely to be just the start.

This is really positive for the cup (despite the thoughts of some people)

I think the involvement of Swiss Timing via ETNZ's relationship with OMEGA will bring more snazzy graphics and on-screen overlays to the race broadcasts, building on Stan Honey's excellent work to date. I don't think Honey will be involved in AC36 reading between the lines in Dalt's interview with Clean - something about ownership of Honey's development & technology...

Share this post


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

The point that Prada is coming in as a sponsor, is an enormous benefit and GD's mention of Omega's interest.

His talk about Omega did sound convincing, may explain the photo's that TC says he has of GD in Switzerland recently too, but:

How can you get drones to be as accurate as 5cm (!) from simple drone cameras, given what LiveLine dumped into that precision using helicopters and the FLIR cameras etc? It is so damn good that the umpires have been using it, for almost instant officiating, with almost zero pressback from teams given the accuracy of the evidence.

GD's description of the Omega devices along ski ramps are reasonable, maybe even his discrediting of how the lay lines on TV were computed too, but those ski ramp devices aren't moving in 3D. 

Omega could be a sponsor benefactor but the challenge to them to raise that bar would be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sat corrected GPS is close to 5cm so the drone could know where it is, thats a start with range finding camera's

If racing is close to the shore you could get it more accurate

Maybe the boats need this so the data coming back is very accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2017 at 10:23 PM, Rennmaus said:

You all convinced me.
In a nutshell: As the CSS is no part of the Deed (AC) anyway, its rules can be set up by Defender and CoR at their discretion. The CSS is "just a regatta" by application/invitation. The Deed mandated requirements are fulfilled with the previous "CoR" challenge.
Got it, thanks.

 

I like the requirement that unless a challenging Yacht Club existed before the end of the final race of the AC35 Match, they are not eligible to challenge.

Share this post


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

I think the involvement of Swiss Timing via ETNZ's relationship with OMEGA will bring more snazzy graphics and on-screen overlays to the race broadcasts, building on Stan Honey's excellent work to date. I don't think Honey will be involved in AC36 reading between the lines in Dalt's interview with Clean - something about ownership of Honey's development & technology...

If Stan Honey owns the development and technology, this edition of the AC will have to start from scratch with who ever is doing the broadcast.  More dollars to be spent by RNZYS, it could all add up to a large sum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trt131 said:

If Stan Honey owns the development and technology, this edition of the AC will have to start from scratch with who ever is doing the broadcast.  More dollars to be spent by RNZYS, it could all add up to a large sum.

Grant sounded like he thinks Ellison owns Honey's developments. The Swiss Timing option looks pretty snazzy - I don't think we'll miss out on the quality of Honey's great efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gladwell has a good look at the protocol and some other stuff:

America's Cup - Russell Green on Protocol's return to Cup traditions

by Richard Gladwell, Sail-World.com/nz on 5 Oct

In a second interview after the main media conference, last Friday Sail-World spoke to Russell Green - Team New Zealand's long-time rules and legal adviser and a key figure in the Protocol negotiation for the 36th Match for the America's Cup, to be held in Auckland or Italy.

While the Protocol has been signed off by the Commodores of the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and Circolo della Vela Sicilia, there are still some key announcements to come.

'Next step is the boat,' Green explains. 'The Class Rule has to be published on March 31 - not in the Protocol, but what we are saying is that we will produce the concept for prospective competitors and media to look at by the end of November.'

(All that is said in the Protocol is that the boat will be known as the AC75 – a reference to the name of the class and a probable indicator of overall length.)

 

Class and rules changes

Challenger Selection Series Sponsor Switch

TV Revenue to be shared

Arbitration Panel, Jury Committee

Nationality

Dalton Clause

 

http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Americas-Cup---Russell-Green-on-Protocols-return-to-Cup-traditions/157791?source=l.facebook

Share this post


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

Gladwell has a good look at the protocol and some other stuff:

America's Cup - Russell Green on Protocol's return to Cup traditions

http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Americas-Cup---Russell-Green-on-Protocols-return-to-Cup-traditions/157791?source=l.facebook

New things I've learned from this article:

- Didn't know LR actually built and christened an AC62.  ;)

- 3 month window after March 31 where the Class rule can be changed by the COR and Defender alone, other Challengers have no say.  They say to fix mistakes but...

- Potential media representative observing the arbitration process to act as a pool reporter for other media members.

- No more Challenger Committee.  Up to LR how to manage the other Challengers in regards to rules issues and the like.  LR has ultimate veto power.

Good interview, thanks for sharing.

WetHog  :ph34r:

 

 

Share this post


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

- Didn't know LR actually built and christened an AC62.  ;)

 

And in 2012 no less. Very prescient of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 10:26 PM, Barnyb said:

Gladwell has a good look at the protocol and some other stuff:

America's Cup - Russell Green on Protocol's return to Cup traditions

by Richard Gladwell, Sail-World.com/nz on 5 Oct

In a second interview after the main media conference, last Friday Sail-World spoke to Russell Green - Team New Zealand's long-time rules and legal adviser and a key figure in the Protocol negotiation for the 36th Match for the America's Cup, to be held in Auckland or Italy.

While the Protocol has been signed off by the Commodores of the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and Circolo della Vela Sicilia, there are still some key announcements to come.

'Next step is the boat,' Green explains. 'The Class Rule has to be published on March 31 - not in the Protocol, but what we are saying is that we will produce the concept for prospective competitors and media to look at by the end of November.'

(All that is said in the Protocol is that the boat will be known as the AC75 – a reference to the name of the class and a probable indicator of overall length.)

 

Class and rules changes

Challenger Selection Series Sponsor Switch

TV Revenue to be shared

Arbitration Panel, Jury Committee

Nationality

Dalton Clause

 

http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Americas-Cup---Russell-Green-on-Protocols-return-to-Cup-traditions/157791?source=l.facebook

Good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good to see the dalton clause gone. it will add a boat load more spice if the challs can say what they want. and then of course we here on SA can judge them :)

Hell, BA can even punch Gladwell in the head and jump off the wharf.

 

Share this post


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

good to see the dalton clause gone. it will add a boat load more spice if the challs can say what they want. and then of course we here on SA can judge them :)

Hell, BA can even punch Gladwell in the head and jump off WHAT'S LEFT OF the wharf.

 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone tune that in? Green was okay, provided insight on some of the guiding ideas.

One interesting point that came up was them leaving design sharing open, intentionally. It jives somewhat with the idea to leave designers out of the nat restrictions. He said 'CiC' rules on designers would also be too expensive, a point I disagree with since then why impose it on sailors? The answer of course, is that - as Green pointedly stated/admitted - the nat rules on sailors is all about one thing only: public interest and therefore making money through the commercialization of it.

Sailor nat rules will cost-hurt Challengers more than they will ETNZ, whereas designer nat rules might hurt ETNZ more than anybody else, and the latter is for certain truer to the Deed (TE even pointed to that in NYYC history) but Green didn't go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More from that, at https://i.stuff.co.nz/nz-newspapers/central-north-island/sport/sport-region-6459/97761827/New-York-and-Bermuda-tipped-to-host-Americas-Cup-warm-up-regattas

New York and Bermuda loom as America's Cup warmup options ahead of the real deal in Auckland 2021.

Team New Zealand rules expert Russell Green revealed some of the thinking around the build-up to the event as he discussed the protocol recently released by the defenders and challenger of record Luna Rossa in a live chat with American-based website Sailing Illustrated on Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from there,

Team New Zealand will be involved in all of the pre-regattas, including the Christmas Cup, before separating from the challengers and only  reappearing for the America's Cup match against the top overseas outfit.

That differs to Bermuda where defenders Oracle Team USA inserted themselves in the challenger round-robin series for the first time in the history of the event.

me: It's not all that different from Bermuda since the Defender will still 'insert themselves' in an event very close to the Match before stepping aside. It's not as close in time but it's only a matter of degree. The big difference is in them not being able to gain an early point which would have forced everyone to race hard and honestly. Which may or may not be good for anyone, time will tell. Challs will earn a point towards the RR's regardless who wins, in races against the Def in that series.

Share this post


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

Anyone tune that in? Green was okay, provided insight on some of the guiding ideas.

One interesting point that came up was them leaving design sharing open, intentionally. It jives somewhat with the idea to leave designers out of the nat restrictions. He said 'CiC' rules on designers would also be too expensive, a point I disagree with since then why impose it on sailors? The answer of course, is that - as Green pointedly stated/admitted - the nat rules on sailors is all about one thing only: public interest and therefore making money through the commercialization of it.

Sailor nat rules will cost-hurt Challengers more than they will ETNZ, whereas designer nat rules might hurt ETNZ more than anybody else, and the latter is for certain truer to the Deed (TE even pointed to that in NYYC history) but Green didn't go there.

Who it will hurt was not their aim - you've already described the rationale above.

If you live in a world where decisions can only be made when their impact is equally agreed by all that it effects all the same, then you are living on another planet.

Share this post


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

Also from there,

Team New Zealand will be involved in all of the pre-regattas, including the Christmas Cup, before separating from the challengers and only  reappearing for the America's Cup match against the top overseas outfit.

That differs to Bermuda where defenders Oracle Team USA inserted themselves in the challenger round-robin series for the first time in the history of the event.

me: It's not all that different from Bermuda since the Defender will still 'insert themselves' in an event very close to the Match before stepping aside. It's not as close in time but it's only a matter of degree. The big difference is in them not being able to gain an early point which would have forced everyone to race hard and honestly. Which may or may not be good for anyone, time will tell. Challs will earn a point towards the RR's regardless who wins, in races against the Def in that series.

We don't need time to tell us this is different to Oracle's dickishness in the RRs - despite your best attempts to conflate the two.

Come'on mate... give it a rest and talk about something productive and fun! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I have posted that the Prot is reasonable, many times. There are aspects that will favor ETNZ but within reason that is their prerogative.

A close reading of the Prot does definitely suggest that LR and Prada have a great deal of power to screw the other Challs should they choose to, completely unchecked as Ainslie already pointed out, but maybe P$B actually values their interests more highly versus his own interests? Could be. Somehow.

Share this post


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

Also from there,

Team New Zealand will be involved in all of the pre-regattas, including the Christmas Cup, before separating from the challengers and only  reappearing for the America's Cup match against the top overseas outfit.

That differs to Bermuda where defenders Oracle Team USA inserted themselves in the challenger round-robin series for the first time in the history of the event.

me: It's not all that different from Bermuda since the Defender will still 'insert themselves' in an event very close to the Match before stepping aside. It's not as close in time but it's only a matter of degree. The big difference is in them not being able to gain an early point which would have forced everyone to race hard and honestly. Which may or may not be good for anyone, time will tell. Challs will earn a point towards the RR's regardless who wins, in races against the Def in that series.

His comment also included that it was like the ACTS before the 32nd Cup, no more. It was also indicated, maybe not here, that the teams would race their 1st gen boats, not their Cup boats.

The designers left off the nationality list helps the US effort IMO, I would be totally surprised if Botin is not on the BMQRA design team, or maybe even J/V. So not so biased, and RG noted that small 'start-up' nations could meet the residency rules also, even bringing in outside talent. They are not trying to disadvantage anybody, just doing the obvious to get the fans re-engaged.

It was also noted that both ETNZ and LR wanted the separation between defender and challengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ~HHN92~ said:

.. It was also indicated, maybe not here, that the teams would race their 1st gen boats, not their Cup boats.

Nope, Green specifically said teams would expected to 'leapfrog' their two boats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ~HHN92~ said:

.. They are not trying to disadvantage anybody, just doing the obvious to get the fans re-engaged.

Again, he flat out admitted that they chose to make sailors instead of designers subject to the restrictions for one reason only: $elling it. 

It's their pregogative but to argue that sailor nat restrictions is being forced for Deed reasons of 'friendly competition between nations' deviously ignores what that competition is defined in the Deed to be about: Constructed In Country, which by most reasonable definitions means that is was all National boat designers and about national boat builders. 

 

 

Share this post


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

^ I have posted that the Prot is reasonable, many times. There are aspects that will favor ETNZ but within reason that is their prerogative.

A close reading of the Prot does definitely suggest that LR and Prada have a great deal of power to screw the other Challs should they choose to, completely unchecked as Ainslie already pointed out, but maybe P$B actually values their interests more highly versus his own interests? Could be. Somehow.

LR as CoR has all the rights they should have through the mutual consent process. They are the "Representative" of the challengers, which mean the challengers negotiate with the defender through LR. That is exactly how the CoR position works. They are the representative/ the spokesperson, so that the inmates don't end up running the asylum. PB is in a position where he will do exactly what he feels is best for the challengers. BUT they must remember, there is no majority vote, which can be easily manipulated by the defender to disadvantage certain teams, as it did last time. 

Share this post


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

LR as CoR has all the rights ..... They are the "Representative" of the challengers.... They are the representative/ the spokesperson, ......... PB is in a position where he will do exactly what he feels is best for the challengers.

Ah ah ah, pretty funny indeed.

Share this post


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

Ah ah ah, pretty funny indeed.

It seems Torbjorn didn't find it funny at all. Right now, 4 million Kiwi's are laughing at the fact that those teams who once conspired to disadvantage the Kiwi's and Luna Rossa last time are moaning about how unfair the protocol is.

Share this post


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

PB is in a position where he will do exactly what he feels is best for the challengers.

rosy-retrospection-photo-montage.jpeg

Share this post


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

One of TE's slides showed '100% of the hull laminated in country' but actually, the Prot excludes replaceable bows and sterns from this requirement. And iirc you can completely replace it anywhere else in the world later.

Anyway, I asked the question yesterday 'Considering the Constructed clause in the Deed, why are the nationality rules on sailors instead of on designers?' and transcribed here is answer the I got, fwiw.

TE: (a mention about how that (designers) was the original nationality rule restriction employed by the NYYC)

Green: The reality (this is my opinion) is that design teams are different than they used to be. We used to have a principal designer and a few others hanging off. But now you have all sorts of people and contractors from all over the world contributing and it’s much more a technical game with technicians, and they’re not full time. And to make them go through nationality rules would just be extraordinarily expensive. So in my view it’s just not practical. I mean in our team we have guys that provide all sorts of services at various times of the campaign but they never work full time. And so the reality is the nature of the design teams have changed, you do not have just one or a small group of designers, you use resources from all over the world. All the teams do that. So the reality is that it’s just not practical and would be inordinately expensive.

 

TE: And how would you enforce it. Just as this technology (Skype) did not exist before  2005, really before 1995 when everything changed with the internet, you see with these design teams the information that flows all around the world, they all work virtually, as do the teams – the teams have people coming in on conference call with the conversations back and forth, emails and so on, ideas are flowing virtually at the speed of light, so it would be impossible to enforce, is the other part of it.

 

Green: And the other issue is that the crew are the players. They’re the guys who go out on the field of play and that’s what the public sees. It’s just like other sports. So you don’t see restrictions on designers, you see it on the actual players, the crew. The people who compete in the yachts, are the players and that’s who the public sees. And that’s the vision the we all have seen.

 

 

Share this post


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

^ And where is the statement you claimed he made - that they want the crew as 'nationals' just to make money?

See public, public, especially in the last paragraph. 

The first Interpretive Resolution sought to address exactly this subject and they narrowly scoped it to designers, understanding as they did that it was not TV revenues that mattered, the competition between nations being in essence one that can be distilled down to

'Who can design and build the fastest boat?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Sorry...public, public?

 

Did Russel Green say 'it's just to make money', or did he not?

You made that exact claim in several posts - were you in fact making that up?

 

Still listening but haven't heard anything like that.....

 

 

Share this post


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

^ Sorry...public, public?

 

Did Russel Green say 'it's just to make money', or did he not?

You made that exact claim in several posts - were you in fact making that up?

He did not say it literally, he implied it. 

And for your further education..

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Deed_of_Gift

Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees on March 27, 1958Edit

(The "1958 Resolution")

WHEREAS, a question has been raised on behalf of certain individuals, citizens of a foreign country, interested in a possible challenge for the America’s Cup, as to whether a challenge would be accepted by the New York Yacht Club if the challenger were designed in the United States but the hull built in the country of the challenging Club; and

WHEREAS, by the original Deed of Gift of the America’s Cup dated July 8, 1857, it was expressly provided that the Cup should be "perpetually a Challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries"; and

WHEREAS, by the second Deed of Gift dated January 4, 1882, it was provided that the yacht challenging for the Cup and the yacht defending must be "constructed" in the country to which the challenging and defending Clubs respectively belong; and the above recited provision that the Cup should be "perpetually a Challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign counties" as again set forth; and

WHEREAS, by the third and present Deed of Gift dated October 24, 1887, it was again provided that the Cup should be a "perpetual Challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign counties," and the second paragraph thereof contained the provision above referred to that the challenging and defending yachts shall be constructed in the countries they respectively represent;

NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the expressed intent of the donors of the America’s Cup that is should be "perpetually a Challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries," and the fact that in accordance with that intent and commencing with the first race for the Cup in 1870 down to the present time every challenger has been both designed and constructed in the country of the defending Club so that every challenger and every defender has been in all respects truly representative of the countries of the challenging and defending club and the Cup has become by tradition the symbol of the yachting supremacy of the country of the Club winning the challenge match:

RESOLVED that the word "constructed" wherever it appeared in the Deed of Gift of the America’s Cup shall always be construed as "designed and built".

W. Mahlon Dickerson, Secretary

Share this post


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

You can keep your history - and your lies mate, sad you feel the need to resort to that

Not only did I transcribe his exact reply to the question, I have also pasted the very first AC IR to add to the reason for why I asked the question in the first place. 

Green took time to express his view (thank you) but Hamish Ross (also mentioned in the podcast) may have provided a more historical take on it. 

What is sad is your taking issue with my curiousity about a semi-serious aspect of what the AC really is all about, from Green's POV.

As TE says, this is the most restrictive sailor nationality clause in AC History. Only dumbasses refuse to be curious about the reasons for it being so in this largely Green-written Protocol. He was the perfect guy to ask the question of.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point he made about the 'distributed design team' I made 2 weeks ago as part of the explanation re nationality, so you gained nothing there.

Then you chose to lie about the rest of his reasoning - applying you own cultural acquisitiveness perhaps.

 

......and you criticize others reporting :lol:

 

Share this post


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

One of TE's slides showed '100% of the hull laminated in country' but actually, the Prot excludes replaceable bows and sterns from this requirement. And iirc you can completely replace it anywhere else in the world later.

Anyway, I asked the question yesterday 'Considering the Constructed clause in the Deed, why are the nationality rules on sailors instead of on designers?' and transcribed here is answer the I got, fwiw.

TE: (a mention about how that (designers) was the original nationality rule restriction employed by the NYYC)

Green: The reality (this is my opinion) is that design teams are different than they used to be. We used to have a principal designer and a few others hanging off. But now you have all sorts of people and contractors from all over the world contributing and it’s much more a technical game with technicians, and they’re not full time. And to make them go through nationality rules would just be extraordinarily expensive. So in my view it’s just not practical. I mean in our team we have guys that provide all sorts of services at various times of the campaign but they never work full time. And so the reality is the nature of the design teams have changed, you do not have just one or a small group of designers, you use resources from all over the world. All the teams do that. So the reality is that it’s just not practical and would be inordinately expensive.

 

TE: And how would you enforce it. Just as this technology (Skype) did not exist before  2005, really before 1995 when everything changed with the internet, you see with these design teams the information that flows all around the world, they all work virtually, as do the teams – the teams have people coming in on conference call with the conversations back and forth, emails and so on, ideas are flowing virtually at the speed of light, so it would be impossible to enforce, is the other part of it.

 

Green: And the other issue is that the crew are the players. They’re the guys who go out on the field of play and that’s what the public sees. It’s just like other sports. So you don’t see restrictions on designers, you see it on the actual players, the crew. The people who compete in the yachts, are the players and that’s who the public sees. And that’s the vision the we all have seen.

 

 

My understanding of the constructed clause in this protocol meant 'original' construction. If the boat was damaged, or they want to modify a section, they could do that in-house at their team base in Auckland.

I understand where he is coming from on the designers, it is not a paper and pencil drafting exercise anymore, these guys on large projects do their part and then send it to the central designer to be integrated with the rest of the platform. No longer do they work in an office down the hall as was once the case. It would be like herding cats to try and control it on the design and development side. With the crew, it is pretty straightforward, they are going to be where the boat is, whether the AC boat or a boat used for training.

As I believe he stated, and GD stated, they basically took the old protocol and modernized it to the realities of modern day programs, relative to a TP52, Maxi 72, Comanche, VOR, etc. type. It is no big secret ploy to gain an advantage, just working with the realities of how things operate these days. Q is a US based team but they have Botin, who is French I think, that has designed their boats. Other teams have the same issue. I wish it could be that the local hot hand designer would be the one used to design the boat, I think it could be limited to the principal designer being a national of the country who puts everything together for the package of the boat used in the campaign. The 'yacht designer' does not do all the work anymore, for the rigs, structure, foils, systems, etc., specialists are brought in for their expertise.But, these guys are hardly ever seen or known, the crews are the faces of the campaign and that's what counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/10/2017 at 11:14 PM, WetHog said:

- 3 month window after March 31 where the Class rule can be changed by the COR and Defender alone, other Challengers have no say.  They say to fix mistakes but.

There is a certain sense of irony that LR complained when rules could be changed by a majority vote yet they now propose that changes can be made by a minority vote. Saying it will only be used to "fix mistakes" is interesting. Was specifying a boat 12' too long a mistake that was corrected in AC35 ;)

There isn't a lot that people give Ellison credit for, but when he was COR for AC32, he made it very clear that the only way the protocol and class rule could be changed was with 100% agreement from every challenger. It wasn't formalised in the protocol and it drove Bertarelli crazy, being the beginning of the big fall out between the 2, but it ensured that the situation LR faced in AC35 could not have happened.

There is a saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I accept there are good intentions behind the protocol, but there is also a huge amount of what I hope is unintentional hypocrisy that could lead to abuse of position. We have seen so many times that "the precious" corrupts and that even those who are hailed the saviours of the cup can become something else. Remember, in most people's eyes, Ellison was a great COR sticking up for the rights of all challengers, he was a saviour by taking on Bertarelli through the court system and forcing the DOG match to wrestle back the cup from somebody who was abusing it. Very few forecast that Ellison would hijack the cup for his own means and those who did were shouted down.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ~HHN92~ said:

the crews are the faces of the campaign and that's what counts.

That 'that's what counts' opinion is the point I have long taken issue with; Deed-wise the nationality restriction is completely misplaced if it is on sailors instead of designers. If it's not on designers then restrictions don't actually belong anywhere, unless it's (as Green admitted) purely for commercial/audience reasons instead.

I fully get the difficulty of implementing nationality restrictions where they rightly belong in today's world, and ~perhaps~ it is all MC-able anyway, but doing it for sailors only smells a great deal more of commercial greed than anything at all about honoring what the Deed is actually all about.

They can probably specify that sailors have to be helmetless and must wear long, flowing in the wind red and silver Prada scarves, perform flag salute ceremonies before entering the prestart box, all kinds of patriotic things for commercial reasons. But absolutely none of that is about the Deed's constructed in country ~yacht or vessel~. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lied about Green, now you are lying about the DOG - how desperate are you?

There is nothing in there about designers or their nationality is there now.....it's a simple enough document.

That will just be another quote you can't find - but I'm sure it's 'implied' right spin-bot ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geezus, nav, quit being a shallow, petty piece of crap. If you posted already about designers in modern times and nobody bothered to read or remember your post, well that's the reason why.

Green was the perfect guy to ask, and I did, and he gave a full throated response. Which is to his credit.

Share this post


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

That 'that's what counts' opinion is the point I have long taken issue with; Deed-wise the nationality restriction is completely misplaced if it is on sailors instead of designers. If it's not on designers then restrictions don't actually belong anywhere, unless it's (as Green admitted) purely for commercial/audience reasons instead.

But using the constructed definition you posted above, it says "in" not "by nationals" so I'm not sure where you get the idea that CIC should apply to designers only.  It's fine to argue that there should be no nationality clause at all as that's a valid position, but arbitrarily suggesting that it should be designers vs sailors makes no sense as the deed doesn't support that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRs are pretty odd, mostly he said she said about Nationality requirements, all got removed by Alinghi anyway.

Probably somewhere along the way there should have been an official Amendment.

 

Side point re Alinghi: RNZYS has gotten a lot of schtick around here for letting SNG into AC2000 but aside from the fact RNZYS fought that entry & were forced to accept it by the AP, from the above link it was actually Royal Perth Yacht Club who opened that issue by getting Chicago Yacht Club allowed in '84.

Share this post


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

Not only did I transcribe his exact reply to the question, I have also pasted the very first AC IR to add to the reason for why I asked the question in the first place. 

Green took time to express his view (thank you) but Hamish Ross (also mentioned in the podcast) may have provided a more historical take on it. 

What is sad is your taking issue with my curiousity about a semi-serious aspect of what the AC really is all about, from Green's POV.

As TE says, this is the most restrictive sailor nationality clause in AC History. Only dumbasses refuse to be curious about the reasons for it being so in this largely Green-written Protocol. He was the perfect guy to ask the question of.

 

Why are you curious? It's already been asked and answered by Green, Dalton, and several others, and seems very simple. 

Also, the IR are not law, nor are they history.  They were a screwy side chapter that only existed because a few NYYC members had some great connections on the Bench for those years.

Share this post


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

Why are you curious? It's already been asked and answered by Green, Dalton, and several others, and seems very simple. 

It's not that simple a question if you understand the deep AC history on this exact subject. Which is why both GD and Green got into it, although obviously from their own POV's.

They chose to implement the harshest Nat rules ever, but imo by what the Deed specifies these restrictions are misdirected. What they are doing is a result of commercial sailing promoter interests, you being yet another obvious wannabe. How does that not seem very simple to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep saying that when the IRs show there was at least one AC run with explicit requirement for all Nationals vs this requires only 20%??? :unsure:

Share this post


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

Why do you keep saying that when the IRs show there was at least one AC run with explicit requirement for all Nationals vs this requires only 20%??? :unsure:

Which one, and did it simply add sailors to a long-preexisting designer nationality clause? Which came first?

What is the real competition laid out in the Deed? 'Constructed' is absolutely fundamental but in which clause is the word 'sailor' or 'crew'? So then.. ?

Share this post


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

That 'that's what counts' opinion is the point I have long taken issue with; Deed-wise the nationality restriction is completely misplaced if it is on sailors instead of designers. If it's not on designers then restrictions don't actually belong anywhere, unless it's (as Green admitted) purely for commercial/audience reasons instead.

I fully get the difficulty of implementing nationality restrictions where they rightly belong in today's world, and ~perhaps~ it is all MC-able anyway, but doing it for sailors only smells a great deal more of commercial greed than anything at all about honoring what the Deed is actually all about.

They can probably specify that sailors have to be helmetless and must wear long, flowing in the wind red and silver Prada scarves, perform flag salute ceremonies before entering the prestart box, all kinds of patriotic things for commercial reasons. But absolutely none of that is about the Deed's constructed in country ~yacht or vessel~. 

 

 

TE always notes and kids about the 'Andy Rose Rule' that the NYYC added due to his participation with the Aussies in '77. Even in the times when there were paid hands to run the boats the afterguard and helm were always nationals of the country. (Charlie Barr had become naturalized) And in the 12m era they were always the elders of the club with the college kids as crew until DC and his full time programs. Who do you read about from the stories in the 1800's to the 12m era, the Scandinavian crew? No, Vanderbilt, Herreshoff, Sopwith, Lipton, Cunningham, Mosbacher, Ficker, Morgan, Bavier, Hood, Conner, Bertrand, Blackaller, Melges, Pajot, Baird, Read, Cayard, Coutts, Spithill, Burling, Hutchinson, Barker, and a whole host of others I can see but not remember their names off the top of my head.

While the DoG does not specify it by MC the protocol can define nationality as a condition of the match. The foiling cats with a mixed bag of crew did not captivate and grow an audience, so let's see what this does for it. It may not move the needle either but I think it is worth a try. It is a big item that differs from how things used to be, and that might not be so bad. I doubt it could be worse, other than the confusion the general public may have over the boats changing all the time. I know it irritates the NASCAR crowd when they tweak with the cars every year, or even in the middle of the year, like the rule change from 62's to 50's.

Share this post


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

Which one, and did it simply add sailors to a long-preexisting designer nationality clause? Which came first?

1980 Resolution

Quote

RESOLVED that, for a candidate to be eligible for an America’s Cup Match in any year subsequent to 1980, every member of the candidate’s crew must be a national of the country in which the club represented by the candidate is located

 

I do agree that there should be designer nationality rules too but you were the one specifically talking sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread. It's not too soon to be calendaring the 36th America's Cup. Lots of speculation (and confusion) abound.

Dana Johannsen, "Confusion at how racing monohulls decision reached," NZHerald, 30 September 2017, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11928118 accessed 10.10.2017l

Dana Johannsen, ''Confusion at how racing monohulls decision reached,'' NZHerald, 30 September 2017.png

Kery Dates for the 36th America's Cup, 10.10.2017  © YBW.com.png

Share this post


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

It's not that simple a question if you understand the deep AC history on this exact subject. Which is why both GD and Green got into it, although obviously from their own POV's.

They chose to implement the harshest Nat rules ever, but imo by what the Deed specifies these restrictions are misdirected. What they are doing is a result of commercial sailing promoter interests, you being yet another obvious wannabe. How does that not seem very simple to you?

WTF are you talking about?  If you think these rules have anything on the pre-RPYC requirements you need to lay down the pipe you're smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall we take the deed as written and amended as the standard?

Should we use some old interpretations that no longer have any relevance?

The last Protocol ? Or the London 'document' ?  The high-water marks of Deed compliance apparently. :lol:

 

Spinbot desperately takes a little of each, as well as deliberately misrepresenting what he is told, in his years long and continuing attempt to besmirch Kiwi sportsmen and women - by attempting to drag them down to the level he is obviously used to

 

Share this post


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

in most people's eyes, Ellison was a great COR sticking up for the rights of all challengers, he was a saviour by taking on Bertarelli through the court system and forcing the DOG match to wrestle back the cup from somebody who was abusing it. Very few forecast that Ellison would hijack the cup for his own means and those who did were shouted down.

 

Not true at all, not sure where you are getting your revisionist history.

In most people's eyes (including mine, writing live from the New York Court and then broadcasting from Valencia through every step in the fight), Larry was doing whatever he had to do to get the Cup away from Ernesto, in typical Larry fashion, and no one ever accused Ellison or Coutts of 'sticking up for the rights' of anyone that wasn't named Larry or Russell.

Many on this forum forecast that Ellison would hijack the Cup.  Dogwatch constantly, and others plenty.  I remained optimistic for a bit after 2010 but not for long - it was obvious in Valencia that any Russell Coutts endeavor would be driven by cash first, winning second, with ethics and sportsmanship somewhere down between LGBT bathrooms and marine mammal protection...

Share this post


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

Not true at all, not sure where you are getting your revisionist history.

In most people's eyes (including mine, writing live from the New York Court and then broadcasting from Valencia through every step in the fight), Larry was doing whatever he had to do to get the Cup away from Ernesto, in typical Larry fashion, and no one ever accused Ellison or Coutts of 'sticking up for the rights' of anyone that wasn't named Larry or Russell.

Many on this forum forecast that Ellison would hijack the Cup.  Dogwatch constantly, and others plenty.  I remained optimistic for a bit after 2010 but not for long - it was obvious in Valencia that any Russell Coutts endeavor would be driven by cash first, winning second, with ethics and sportsmanship somewhere down between LGBT bathrooms and marine mammal protection...

There were a number of us who believed that based on the mis-information that was being presented by the OR side. They even appeared to use info from this forum in their filings. The ones who were (correct, sadly) saying that LE is was doing it to gain the same advantages as EB chided those who believed it. Many of us taken for the ride noted that if LE pulled a stunt like EB that we would turn on him, which I think most all of us have. I know I got strange looks at the club when I was rooting for the Kiwis during the recent match. Most did not understand until we had a little chat, then they got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites