• 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

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

+1 there has been a lot of revisionism on this forum.  I think we all hoped that LE would restore some sanity to the AC, but sadly OR's actions (particularly those behind closed doors) were just as bad as EB.  The revelation that they lobbied the independent race director to reverse a measurement ruling is the latest bs added to the list.  

HHN92 - at my club it was probably 95/5 in favor of the Kiwis.  Apologies to the Australians on here, but a common phrase was "what is that fucking twang noise coming off our boat?"  If I polled the members I think the overwhelming majority would push for a 100% nationality rule!  There was general embarrassment at the fact that team carrying the US flag was sailed by a bunch of Aussies defending the Cup in Bermuda of all places.

Share this post


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

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.

+1

This place was evenly divided for the most part during the court crap with few landing in the middle. Dogwatch being one.  But it's safe to say the majority of us suduced by Lord Oracle realized things had turned and dropped our support and called bull shit when we saw it.  

Having said all that, I am glad things worked out as they did. EB was well on his way to solidifying his control of the Cup and turning it into a glorified Med Cup series.  Uncle Larry is the only person with the stones and money to stop it.  Hell the 2 "saviors" of the Cup in charge today were content seeing EB do with the Cup as he wished.  Only did ENTZ raise issue when they didn't get certain considerations from EB.  Now we have hope for a new, old, beginning as a result of Uncle Larrys actions.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

This place was evenly divided for the most part during the court crap with few landing in the middle. Dogwatch being one. 

Evenly divided certainly isn't how I remember it. As far as I remember there was a long period during AC33 when the late lamented Marianne and myself were just about the only ones who didn't see LE as a white knight. Some of OTUSA sternest critics here today were fanboys at the time, following Dalton's lead. How things change. But yes "a pox on both your houses" was my position on EB and LE throughout the AC33 shit-fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marian was very much a EB supporter. She sent me many a PM trying to open my eyes to the greatness EB wanted to bestow on us AC fans.  She is missed by me but she was not neutral.  

As for the evenly divided, ok a bit to general.  There were more of us on the LE side than EBs, but EB had his share of loyal supporters. The threads are still on this site.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

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

Seems like its you trying to revise.

Many many of us supported Larry to stop ErnieVision, were thrilled to bits to see DoGZilla smash the chair-boat & expected him to do better once he got hold of it.

IIRC I posted something along the lines 'Larry is a first class cunt but he's right in this. If he turns out as bad as Ernie I'll be among the first to call him on it'

AC34 cycle started out well but got pretty weird & ended with all sorts of bad shit, AC35 went full ErnieLarryVision.

Share this post


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

Evenly divided certainly isn't how I remember it

 About 95% vs 5% supporting the white knight against evil ernie in AC 33

About 50/50 in AC34 because kiwis went the other side

About 75%/25% in AC 35 because most Oracle supporters left

About 30% of the kiwis are now as bigoted as OR fanboys of the first times, including the indiot troll replacing pretty well SW Soiler.

Share this post


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

Marian was very much a EB supporter. She sent me many a PM trying to open my eyes to the greatness EB wanted to bestow on us AC fans.  She is missed by me but she was not neutral.  

 

Correct she was not neutral. Memorably (for me at least) she lifted a post I wrote here verbatim without attribution or permission and used it on her site. Someone here then vehemently accused me of plagiarism.  I still miss her, she was a very determined individual.

Share this post


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

Seems like its you trying to revise.

Many many of us supported Larry to stop ErnieVision, were thrilled to bits to see DoGZilla smash the chair-boat & expected him to do better once he got hold of it.

IIRC I posted something along the lines 'Larry is a first class cunt but he's right in this. If he turns out as bad as Ernie I'll be among the first to call him on it'

AC34 cycle started out well but got pretty weird & ended with all sorts of bad shit, AC35 went full ErnieLarryVision.

I too supported Lazza against Ernie because first and foremost the cup needed saving but also Lazza was right. 

Unfortunately he turned around and reverted to type despite saying he was going to make it fairer.

Share this post


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

Marian was very much a EB supporter. She sent me many a PM trying to open my eyes to the greatness EB wanted to bestow on us AC fans.  She is missed by me but she was not neutral.  

As for the evenly divided, ok a bit to general.  There were more of us on the LE side than EBs, but EB had his share of loyal supporters. The threads are still on this site.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Yes, she was a staunch EB supporter, but did her homework to back her position and I commended her for that. It made for a good debate on the issue and made me do my homework also. It was so spooky that I received a pm from her the night she passed away, reading it and then seeing the notice on here really freaked me out. Unfortunately the pm's from that time were cleared during one of the website upgrades.

Share this post


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

Correct she was not neutral. Memorably (for me at least) she lifted a post I wrote here verbatim without attribution or permission and used it on her site. Someone here then vehemently accused me of plagiarism.  I still miss her, she was a very determined individual.

Yes, she was determined.  I had some good debates with her in public and private.  We lost a good person and resource when she passed.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 2:32 PM, dogwatch said:

Evenly divided certainly isn't how I remember it. As far as I remember there was a long period during AC33 when the late lamented Marianne and myself were just about the only ones who didn't see LE as a white knight. Some of OTUSA sternest critics here today were fanboys at the time, following Dalton's lead. How things change. But yes "a pox on both your houses" was my position on EB and LE throughout the AC33 shit-fight.

Marian, and she never let on that she had very personal connections with Alinghi...

Share this post


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

 About 95% vs 5% supporting the white knight against evil ernie in AC 33

But only one was a registered Alinghi Friend :D  (still got the beanie I won to prove it)

 

Share this post


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

But only one was a registered Alinghi Friend :D  (still got the beanie I won to prove it)

From Jack G, right?

Were you there in Feb 2010 along with many of us from 'the other side' ?

Share this post


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

From Jack G, right?

Were you there in Feb 2010 along with many of us from 'the other side' ?

- Yes, and he cheated me ;) out of a bottle of champagne in a contest (IIRC I stumbled on the load at the base of A5's wingmast, expressed in equivalent number of SUVs). More significantly, I sent in a technical question and RV answered it in one  video. But you see, EB had class

- Yes again, was summoned at 6 a.m. together with the cow bell ringers at the dock-out the first (aborted) day, chilled to the bone. Early times, didn't know you other guys then

Share this post


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

- Yes, and he cheated me ;) out of a bottle of champagne in a contest (IIRC I stumbled on the load at the base of A5's wingmast, expressed in equivalent number of SUVs). More significantly, I sent in a technical question and RV answered it in one  video. But you see, EB had class

- Yes again, was summoned at 6 a.m. together with the cow bell ringers at the dock-out the first (aborted) day, chilled to the bone. Early times, didn't know you other guys then

Agree Alinghi displayed class much of the time, that RV was a brilliant designer, and Decision a great boat builder.

Too bad, a bunch of us have life-long memories from Valencia for that DoG Match. You would have been a fun and valuable addition to that company of enthusiasts- am very pleased that we made friends later regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Marian, and she never let on that she had very personal connections with Alinghi...

I always knew she was the third part of the EB-RC-?? love triangle :D

Share this post


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

I always knew she was the third part of the EB-RC-?? love triangle :D

No chance - Did you ever see a photo of her? She was pretty frail when she passed, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Marian, and she never let on that she had very personal connections with Alinghi...

Marian had personal connections with many in the world wide sailing community..you once asked for an in to EB, forgetting that you had got all up in his business in FL and promoted the story that Russel had fucked EB's wife...

She had had an intense dislike of clean, she said she had proof that clean was hacking her SA IM account and towards the end would only use email...

I see down thread that spinbot is making comments on her appearance, but then you have to remember that he and his elk had taken to referring to her as a hag and a cunt..it was pretty nasty around here if you had an opinion different to the oracalites...

Share this post


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

Marian had personal connections with many in the world wide sailing community..you once asked for an in to EB, forgetting that you had got all up in his business in FL and promoted the story that Russel had fucked EB's wife...

She had had an intense dislike of clean, she said she had proof that clean was hacking her SA IM account and towards the end would only use email...

I see down thread that spinbot is making comments on her appearance, but then you have to remember that he and his elk had taken to referring to her as a hag and a cunt..it was pretty nasty around here if you had an opinion different to the oracalites...

Totally agree. Aside of her being an inconditional EB defender, she was awfully treated by Clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2017 at 9:56 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

Marian, and she never let on that she had very personal connections with Alinghi...

Yes she was a rogue. As I said, she just lifted stuff I wrote verbatim  for her site without asking me or even telling me. I still miss her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 11:35 PM, ro! said:

I see down thread that spinbot is making comments on her appearance, but then you have to remember that he and his elk had taken to referring to her as a hag and a cunt..it was pretty nasty around here if you had an opinion different to the oracalites...

There is only one person I can think of that felt so negativity towards Marian that he would of called her names, and he had no qualms about using foul language to make a point, was good old Gusmus.  But his issue with Marian, if I remember correctly, is she hired Gus to work for BYM during AC32 in Valencia and she terminated their business relationship at one point in the middle of AC32.  I believe their editorial opinions did not jibe and their may have also been an issue with unpaid debts.  Far from a bunch of Oraclites using vulgar terms directed at Marian.  

WetHog  :ph34r: 

Share this post


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

There is only one person I can remember that felt so negativity towards Marian that he would of called her names, and he had no qualms about using foul language to make a point, was good old Gusmus.  But his issue with Marian, if I remember correctly, is she hired Gus to work for BYM during AC32 in Valencia and she terminated their business relationship at one point in the middle of AC32.  I believe their editorial opinions did not jibe and their may have also been an issue with unpaid debts.  Far from a bunch of Oraclites using vulgar terms directed at Marian.  

WetHog  :ph34r: 

She actually called me for that job... But I couldn't because my boss wouldn't give me the free days needed to go to Valencia  so I called a friend of mine who was living there and he did the job... He even got an article published in our mythical FP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 11:35 PM, ro! said:

she said she had proof that clean was hacking her SA IM account and towards the end would only use email...

 

Wow she really was losing it at the end, I never heard that particular bit of paranoid delusion, but that wasn't the only one.

 

She was also convinced that Tracy Edwards was trying to take down BYM the same way some other guy was trying to take down SA (with Marian's help).   Not sure how many other boogeymen were going after poor Marian.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2017 at 10:54 PM, jorge said:

Totally agree. Aside of her being an inconditional EB defender, she was awfully treated by Clean.

That's because she was a liar, and someone who passed along information she had promised would be confidential.  Sorry, no love for those who break their word.

Share this post


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

Yes she was a rogue. As I said, she just lifted stuff I wrote verbatim  for her site without asking me or even telling me. I still miss her.

You say rogue, I say unethical liar, and you added to it thief and plagiarist.

Share this post


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

There is only one person I can think of that felt so negativity towards Marian that he would of called her names, and he had no qualms about using foul language to make a point, was good old Gusmus.  But his issue with Marian, if I remember correctly, is she hired Gus to work for BYM during AC32 in Valencia and she terminated their business relationship at one point in the middle of AC32.  I believe their editorial opinions did not jibe and their may have also been an issue with unpaid debts.  Far from a bunch of Oraclites using vulgar terms directed at Marian.  

WetHog  :ph34r: 

Gussie and Marian had thier dispute and I think there was blame on both sides, but the real vitriol was from the west coast maf who hated her for defending EB, and couldn't believe that EB was not the only arsehole in his dispute with lazza and Russ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Wow she really was losing it at the end, I never heard that particular bit of paranoid delusion, but that wasn't the only one.

 

She was also convinced that Tracy Edwards was trying to take down BYM the same way some other guy was trying to take down SA (with Marian's help).   Not sure how many other boogeymen were going after poor Marian.  

 

 

There was nothing wrong with her mind when she died, as for lying that's rich coming from you, you've been conservative with the truth since you first showed up here...and revising history is your MO..

poor marian indeed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A one off post, to set the record straight.

Very few warned of the evils of Larry Ellison when he went after Alinghi and Ernesto Bertarelli. Everybody who did was seriously abused and accused of being both an Alinghi supporter and an apologist. Of that few, Marion was the only one who I can recall who really was a supporter and apologist, because she had an agenda and relationship she never disclosed. Clean is right that she couldn't be trusted, she dealt in mistruths (the original "false news"?) and was actually very bitter and didn't trust many, if any. But for all her faults, Marion was right about 2 people, Ellison and MSP, both of whom were touted as saviors of the AC and both of them were shown to be anything but. She deserves some credit for that.

The few I remember warning that there was no difference between Ellison and Berarelli were Marion, Dogwatch and myself. I am sure there were a couple of others, so sorry for not name checking them, but it was very, very few. 

The other big thing I remember was Spinbot and his promise that if Larry ever pulled any of the tricks that EB was accused of, he would be just as vigerous in his condemnation as he was against EB. That never happened. Shame on him.

FWIW, I believe that Clean was also in the camp of not trusting Ellison's intentions.

My final thought is that we now have a new defender and COR. Some are already suspicious and some are already totally blind to anything that may be wrong. The reality of the AC is that there will never be a perfect defender and there will always be mistakes. The reality is always in the event itself and AC34 was pretty special. AC35 was interesting for me but I suspect far less interesting for many. How AC36 will be judged will be interesting and I am pretty open minded about it. I think it is possible to hav spectacular monohulls, but I wonder how you do it and still get good match racing. However, I also suspect that match racing is way over rated in the AC and there have been very few occasions, if any, when proper match racing decided the AC. I will check back in after 2021 to see what the judgement is.

Share this post


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

A one off post, to set the record straight.

Very few warned of the evils of Larry Ellison when he went after Alinghi and Ernesto Bertarelli. Everybody who did was seriously abused and accused of being both an Alinghi supporter and an apologist. Of that few, Marion was the only one who I can recall who really was a supporter and apologist, because she had an agenda and relationship she never disclosed. Clean is right that she couldn't be trusted, she dealt in mistruths (the original "false news"?) and was actually very bitter and didn't trust many, if any. But for all her faults, Marion was right about 2 people, Ellison and MSP, both of whom were touted as saviors of the AC and both of them were shown to be anything but. She deserves some credit for that.

The few I remember warning that there was no difference between Ellison and Berarelli were Marion, Dogwatch and myself. I am sure there were a couple of others, so sorry for not name checking them, but it was very, very few. 

The other big thing I remember was Spinbot and his promise that if Larry ever pulled any of the tricks that EB was accused of, he would be just as vigerous in his condemnation as he was against EB. That never happened. Shame on him.

FWIW, I believe that Clean was also in the camp of not trusting Ellison's intentions.

My final thought is that we now have a new defender and COR. Some are already suspicious and some are already totally blind to anything that may be wrong. The reality of the AC is that there will never be a perfect defender and there will always be mistakes. The reality is always in the event itself and AC34 was pretty special. AC35 was interesting for me but I suspect far less interesting for many. How AC36 will be judged will be interesting and I am pretty open minded about it. I think it is possible to hav spectacular monohulls, but I wonder how you do it and still get good match racing. However, I also suspect that match racing is way over rated in the AC and there have been very few occasions, if any, when proper match racing decided the AC. I will check back in after 2021 to see what the judgement is.

Nice to see you SimonN. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We might as well talk about Marian, there's fuck-all AC news and won't be until late November when there is further information about the boat.

This is what I wrote after her death was announced. I still quite like it.

I believe we should mourn the dead the way they'd want to be mourned, and we don't need to be too reverential about Marian. She liked a discussion. Actually she liked a bloody good argument. Like, it seems, many here, I was in PM discussion with Marian at times and I once asked her why she persisted here in the face of so much hostility. She said she wanted to present the truth as she saw it and counter the bias of this forum: ironically her own evident bias made few receptive to her arguments.

Having written some nice words about her a couple of months ago following the second "retirement" of BYM News, I'd smiled as she set out on yet another "farewell tour" but alas this time it really was her final fling.

I'd like to picture her right now on a cloud with George Schulyer, asking him why he made such a hash of writing the DoG. Unfortunately this time she won't be posting a link back to a BYM News article on her findings and nobody will be boasting (and lying) about not reading it. Goodbye Marian, it will be duller without you.

 

From this thread, SAAC at its best and worst.

 

Share this post


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

We might as well talk about Marian, there's fuck-all AC news and won't be until late November when there is further information about the boat.

This is what I wrote after her death was announced. I still quite like it.

I believe we should mourn the dead the way they'd want to be mourned, and we don't need to be too reverential about Marian. She liked a discussion. Actually she liked a bloody good argument. Like, it seems, many here, I was in PM discussion with Marian at times and I once asked her why she persisted here in the face of so much hostility. She said she wanted to present the truth as she saw it and counter the bias of this forum: ironically her own evident bias made few receptive to her arguments.

Having written some nice words about her a couple of months ago following the second "retirement" of BYM News, I'd smiled as she set out on yet another "farewell tour" but alas this time it really was her final fling.

I'd like to picture her right now on a cloud with George Schulyer, asking him why he made such a hash of writing the DoG. Unfortunately this time she won't be posting a link back to a BYM News article on her findings and nobody will be boasting (and lying) about not reading it. Goodbye Marian, it will be duller without you.

 

From this thread, SAAC at its best and worst.

 

Thanks for the link...hope most of the old 'friends" in that thread are still healthy and will hopefully return for the AC36 threads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Indio said:

hope most of the old 'friends" in that thread are still healthy and will hopefully return for the AC36 threads..

Wow, I just read the thread and checked some of the old SA'rs profiles, some haven't showed up around here for a long time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chuso007 said:

Wow, I just read the thread and checked some of the old SA'rs profiles, some haven't showed up around here for a long time...

Yeah it was like stepping back in time. I miss not seeing posts from our old friends from that thread..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why I never posted in that thread?

Seem to recall being late to it, might have been away from home a few days?

Otherwise I guess chose not to post anything rather than something douchey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord ( not dougie). 8 years allready. Lot's of water under the bridge.- We're getting older. The issue is not getting older, it's remembering we once were young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, really strange going through that thread. It was a wild time that helped keep my sanity by distracting me from dwelling on being out of work for a year and a half. With the economy like it was there was not much to work on looking for a job, so the time spent on the SAAC forums kept me going, sad to think of these days, seems like an eternity ago now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we go back to this thread we are struck by the extreme agressivity of the posters.

My explanation is that most of them were stupidly naïve fans, thinking that EB was the devil, LE the white knight. Obviously both, not only had the same vision, but tweeked the Deed the same way, the second not doing the basic mistake of the first one.

TNZ is no much better, giving absolutely no right to other challengers thanks to a dark agreement, P$B supposingly defending their interests, hilarious.  And what is the answer ? Fuck you, that's the AC !

Basically, once a defender, W're the best, Fuck the rest. And that is the attitude a THE kiwi troll here, not necessary to name him or her.

I have more respect for GD speaking openly, with or without the truth, than for some naïve believers.

Share this post


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

When we go back to this thread we are struck by the extreme agressivity of the posters.

My explanation is that most of them were stupidly naïve fans, thinking that EB was the devil, LE the white knight. Obviously both, not only had the same vision, but tweeked the Deed the same way, the second not doing the basic mistake of the first one.

TNZ is no much better, giving absolutely no right to other challengers thanks to a dark agreement, P$B supposingly defending their interests, hilarious.  And what is the answer ? Fuck you, that's the AC !

Basically, once a defender, W're the best, Fuck the rest. And that is the attitude a THE kiwi troll here, not necessary to name him or her.

I have more respect for GD speaking openly, with or without the truth, than for some naïve believers.

EB was screwing the DoG and LE made the appearance that he was going to do right by it. Only after getting his hands on it did the real LE appear, EB 'lite' with a more proper challenger YC instead of a fabricated one. I thought Oakley and HIYC were going to be OK but that did not last. Along with cost I wonder if health was concern seeing that he did not last that much longer past their withdrawal.

The defender dealing directly with the CoR is not bad, it is the way it should be. It will be the responsibility of the challengers to keep LR honest. RNZYS only has the obligation to worry about who shows-up on race day. I do not think there was ever any challengers 'commision' back in the day, they had to deal with the CoR. Same with the defense candidates, they had to deal with the NYYC and the club could do as they pleased since it was their defense to win. That is why they did not run a defender selection series, only trials where they did keep score but were ultimately looking for the best boat and crew that they thought could defend the Cup. Other than that they did not care.

Share this post


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

EB was screwing the DoG and LE made the appearance that he was going to do right by it. Only after getting his hands on it did the real LE appear, EB 'lite' with a more proper challenger YC instead of a fabricated one. I thought Oakley and HIYC were going to be OK but that did not last. Along with cost I wonder if health was concern seeing that he did not last that much longer past their withdrawal.

The defender dealing directly with the CoR is not bad, it is the way it should be. It will be the responsibility of the challengers to keep LR honest. RNZYS only has the obligation to worry about who shows-up on race day. I do not think there was ever any challengers 'commision' back in the day, they had to deal with the CoR. Same with the defense candidates, they had to deal with the NYYC and the club could do as they pleased since it was their defense to win. That is why they did not run a defender selection series, only trials where they did keep score but were ultimately looking for the best boat and crew that they thought could defend the Cup. Other than that they did not care.

I do not blame the fans at the time, they were just naïve.

I have never been an Oracle supporter, everybody here knows that, but I have to be honest, both EB and LE offered much more to the challengers.

Most kiwis hated EB and than LE, the irony is that TNZ is even more biased with the challengers than former bad guys. More, IMO, the requirements for being a replacement challenger are not even Deed compliant. (Rennie was the first to see it)

Perhaps because I supported TNZ until now I don't want to blame them for that, I think they just had no choice with P$B.

I agree with most of your post but not that it will be challengers responsability to oblige the CoR to do well, at the end it's defender responsability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The normal historical standard has been that the CoR convenes a Challenger group & takes consensus to negotiate with the Defender.

This protocol is returning to that & its a good thing.

 

The bizarre spectacle of the London 5 coordinating with the Defender to skew the rules in favour of the Defender, that was perverse & people should be ashamed for supporting it.

Share this post


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

When we go back to this thread we are struck by the extreme agressivity of the posters.

My explanation is that most of them were stupidly naïve fans, thinking that EB was the devil, LE the white knight. Obviously both, not only had the same vision, but tweeked the Deed the same way, the second not doing the basic mistake of the first one.

TNZ is no much better, giving absolutely no right to other challengers thanks to a dark agreement, P$B supposingly defending their interests, hilarious.  And what is the answer ? Fuck you, that's the AC !

Basically, once a defender, W're the best, Fuck the rest. And that is the attitude a THE kiwi troll here, not necessary to name him or her.

I have more respect for GD speaking openly, with or without the truth, than for some naïve believers.

ETNZ has been defender multiple times before...

Please illuminate us as to when they fucked others as hard as EB and LE did...

Of course, then consider that EB and LE fucked ETNZ without prejudice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

ETNZ has been defender multiple times before...

Please illuminate us as to when they fucked others as hard as EB and LE did...

Of course, then consider that EB and LE fucked ETNZ without prejudice

Ignore TC. He seems to have spun out of control since the demise of the AC50s. 

He's normally a pain in the arse but I could generally see his point. At the moment,  I can't figure out what crawled up his arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TC usually gets lost when it comes to Protocol matters.

^^^ The only thing HIYC ever had going for it was having a paid OTUSA schill in place to 'negotiate' the AC35 Protocol - with OTUSA.

That set the tone for all the self-serving manoeuvres to follow - and is apparently the standard TC doubts RNZYC & CVS can come up to! :lol:

Is there a single poster from a losing team (those that even had a team) not trolling?

 

Share this post


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

More, IMO, the requirements for being a replacement challenger are not even Deed compliant. (Rennie was the first to see it)

Why do you keep persisting with this?  We've explained it a dozen different ways to Sunday why you're wrong, yet you keep throwing out this "deed non-compliant" BS.  When you can show us that each "replacement challenger" as you call them has to file a new challenge with each passing of the torch, then you will have a basis for your argument.

Share this post


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

I do not blame the fans at the time, they were just naïve.

I have never been an Oracle supporter, everybody here knows that, but I have to be honest, both EB and LE offered much more to the challengers.

Most kiwis hated EB and than LE, the irony is that TNZ is even more biased with the challengers than former bad guys. More, IMO, the requirements for being a replacement challenger are not even Deed compliant. (Rennie was the first to see it)

Perhaps because I supported TNZ until now I don't want to blame them for that, I think they just had no choice with P$B.

I agree with most of your post but not that it will be challengers responsability to oblige the CoR to do well, at the end it's defender responsability.

When a replacement challenger wins the selection series the original challenge is withdrawn, settling the original challenge, then the new challenge is submitted based on the winner of the selection series. I remember this being discussed when OR lost on '07 and withdrawing their challenge, then ETNZ filing the replacement challenge. That way it remains DoG compliant that no other challenge can be accepted until the current one is settled. It should be in there on the transfer of the challenge if someone other than the CoR. We all know it is a formality since the multi-challenger format was accepted by the NYYC, but should be followed to comply with the terms of the DoG and not leave an opening for someone with enough money to drag it through the courts.

Share this post


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

1: I do not blame the fans at the time, they were just naïve.

2: I have never been an Oracle supporter, everybody here knows that, but I have to be honest, both EB and LE offered much more to the challengers.

3: Most kiwis hated EB and than LE, the irony is that TNZ is even more biased with the challengers than former bad guys. More, IMO, the requirements for being a replacement challenger are not even Deed compliant. (Rennie was the first to see it)

4: Perhaps because I supported TNZ until now I don't want to blame them for that, I think they just had no choice with P$B.

5: I agree with most of your post but not that it will be challengers responsability to oblige the CoR to do well, at the end it's defender responsability.

re. 1: Never been naïve, I assume, many of us just did not care. The most pressing problem was getting rid of SNG/EB/Alinghi and their made-up CoR. Then, we could bitch about the next problems, which were GGYC/LE/Oracle. This way we ensured permanent fun.

re. 2: As long as the DoG is honored, all is good. No need for the Defender to "offer" anything to the Challenger(s). 

re. 3: I was educated by several posters here (thanks for that!) that I read the phrase in a wrong way, respectively drew the wrong conclusions. All is good as it is, as the Challengers have to deal with the CoR, and the CoR can set up requirements for the CSS participation at its own discretion. In fact, as the CoR does not even need to set up a CSS, the YCs/teams that will take part in the CSS are lucky that this opportunity is there.
It would have been better to separate the Defender/CoR = AC section in the Protocol from the CoR/Challengers = CSS sections more clearly, but maybe it was just me not reading carefully enough.

re. 4: Most of us do not know what has been negotiated between RNZYS and CVS, but since you speculate, I do too: I think, GD is very happy with the outcome of the negotiations (Protocol and boat).  

re. 5: The CSS is not the Defender's responsibility, not at all. This is what went so totally wrong during AC34 and 35. The Defender should keep its hands away from the CSS, as it is solely the CoR's playground - and has been since it was established and until EB (first AC33 protocol) and later LE came along. As a consequence, it's up to the other Clallengers to keep the CoR honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rh2600 said:

Please illuminate us as to when they fucked others as hard as EB and LE did...

Of course, then consider that EB and LE fucked ETNZ without prejudice

Getting totally sick of this victim mentality and excuses from ETNZ fanboys. It's the mentality of losers. In 2003, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2007, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2013, OR won because ETNZ was not good enough. In 2017, ETNZ won because they were the best. It doesn't matter what the defender does, if you are the best you will win. ETNZ as a team realised that and delivered. It is a shame the fanboys don't seem to get it.

Share this post


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

Why do you keep persisting with this?  We've explained it a dozen different ways to Sunday why you're wrong, yet you keep throwing out this "deed non-compliant" BS.  When you can show us that each "replacement challenger" as you call them has to file a new challenge with each passing of the torch, then you will have a basis for your argument.

Just think of him as Inspector Jacques Clouseau and everything he posts becomes easier to ignore.

Share this post


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

Getting totally sick of this victim mentality and excuses from ETNZ fanboys. It's the mentality of losers. In 2003, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2007, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2013, OR won because ETNZ was not good enough. In 2017, ETNZ won because they were the best. It doesn't matter what the defender does, if you are the best you will win. ETNZ as a team realised that and delivered. It is a shame the fanboys don't seem to get it.

Not to mention how in 2 successive competitions against Oracle under Oracle AC Protocols, ETNZ dang nearly won the first and did win the second. 

Toss out a lot of conspiratorial bullshit and you're left facing the fact that things were fair, it was a level playing field.

ETNZ did address the one flaw in the AC36 Protocol: The Class Rule can't ever be changed to a different one except by full consent of all competitors. Even if it might ultimately be a good idea to do so, it clearly won't happen - the Prot has that 75' monohull essentially signed and chiseled in stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pathetic revisionism - the AC35 Protocol said exactly the same thing, changes to AC Class Rule only by unanimous vote.

.....and this classic bit of spin: "Oh look, that team came 2nd in a 2 team competition what wonderful fair rules there must have been" :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, that in the AC36 Prot they can't change to a different Class from the AC75, which is already defined to be a 75' Monohull. Yes, the internals of that rule could be otherwise changed after COR/D sign to it, but only by unanimous vote.

Share this post


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

Getting totally sick of this victim mentality and excuses from ETNZ fanboys. It's the mentality of losers. In 2003, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2007, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2013, OR won because ETNZ was not good enough. In 2017, ETNZ won because they were the best. It doesn't matter what the defender does, if you are the best you will win. ETNZ as a team realised that and delivered. It is a shame the fanboys don't seem to get it.

If you look at the pattern, anytime you juke with the rules, you lose.

EB in 2010 and LE in 2017. 2007 & 2013 were fairly clean.

Share this post


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

Getting totally sick of this victim mentality and excuses from ETNZ fanboys. It's the mentality of losers. In 2003, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2007, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2013, OR won because ETNZ was not good enough. In 2017, ETNZ won because they were the best. It doesn't matter what the defender does, if you are the best you will win. ETNZ as a team realised that and delivered. It is a shame the fanboys don't seem to get it.

The end justifies the means?? No thanks. ETNZ learned the hard way - 2003 Bertarelli gutted TNZ who never managed to fill the void left by the departees and lost. 2007 ETNZ were good enough but made mistakes - including persevering with Barker. 2013 they were cheated out of the Cup. 2017 they learned from 2013 and humiliated the cheaters.

Nothing wrong with remembering history so we never repeat the mistakes of the past.

Share this post


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

The point is, that in the AC36 Prot they can't change to a different Class from the AC75, which is already defined to be a 75' Monohull. Yes, the internals of that rule could be otherwise changed after COR/D sign to it, but only by unanimous vote.

That's easy to understand. It's ETNZ running the show, not the cheating self-dealing OR-Xerox mob who thankfully are gone. You're too dumb bitter and twisted to see the certainty for Challengers knowing the AC75 won't be changed to an AC50.5 as the cheaters OR-Xerox did in AC35.

Keep drowning in the kool-aid. Btw, why aren't you rooting for the African Diaspora Maritime Challenge?:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Class Sailor said:

Getting totally sick of this victim mentality and excuses from ETNZ fanboys. It's the mentality of losers. In 2003, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2007, EB won because TNZ was not good enough. In 2013, OR won because ETNZ was not good enough. In 2017, ETNZ won because they were the best. It doesn't matter what the defender does, if you are the best you will win. ETNZ as a team realised that and delivered. It is a shame the fanboys don't seem to get it.

Geez - projecting much?

Let me break it down for your small.little.mind

I never suggested ETNZ were victims mate, those are your words... the point was made by TC that the defender always fucks people because of recent history proving this, and that ETNZ as now the defender will become the fucker.

I don't agree, so I then responded that if you look back far enough you can find multiple times the defender didn't fuck anyone, and that in many of these cases that defender was ETNZ - still waiting for someone to argue this is wrong btw...

I *also* added EB and LE fucked others - including themselves and ETNZ - and did so at times even when they weren't the defender.

My point was the EB and LE are always fuckers irrespective of holding the cup, and holding the cup doesn't make you a fucker, as evidenced by ETNZ...

If you don't understand that you are the victim - of too few brain cells or too many jugs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ezyb said:

 We've explained it a dozen different ways to Sunday why you're wrong, yet you keep throwing out this "deed non-compliant" BS.  When you can show us that each "replacement challenger" as you call them has to file a new challenge with each passing of the torch, then you will have a basis for your argument.

I understood what you said but I am not sure you understood mine. Have you read 6.3. If all challenges are received at the same time and have to comply with the Deed, how can some require different conditions than the Deed itself ?

If the CoR may impose his requirements to other challengers, how can the defender treat differently equivalent challenges ?

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

 

Share this post


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


re. 2: As long as the DoG is honored, all is good. No need for the Defender to "offer" anything to the Challenger(s). 
re. 5: The CSS is not the Defender's responsibility, not at all. This is what went so totally wrong during AC34 and 35. The Defender should keep its hands away from the CSS, as it is solely the CoR's playground - and has been since it was established and until EB (first AC33 protocol) and later LE came along. As a consequence, it's up to the other Clallengers to keep the CoR honest.

2. I agree with you but was comparing with the 2 previous "evils"

5. I understand your vision, but it not about the CoR only, all challengers apply to RNZYS

Share this post


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

re. 5: The CSS is not the Defender's responsibility, not at all. This is what went so totally wrong during AC34 and 35. The Defender should keep its hands away from the CSS, as it is solely the CoR's playground - and has been since it was established and until EB (first AC33 protocol) and later LE came along. As a consequence, it's up to the other Clallengers to keep the CoR honest.

No it isn't BUT the way the CSS  & all Preliminary Regattas have been witten down in the new Protocol giving Prada/Luna Rossa so much control it gives the impression Prada will act in their own interest and not in the interest of all future Challengers.

There is no Challenger Forum/Meeting appointed like we had in VLC prior to the LVC.

If Prada really wants great Events they need to come out of their closet and talk with future Challengers like the NYYC or Land Rover BAR even before the Entry Period opens on January 1st.

These 75-foot AC Class Boats will be big. You can't ship these vessels all that easily all over the place like you could do with the AC 45's Foiling Cats.

With the Auckland AC Park & space for the bases not finished before the 2nd Half of 2019 potential Teams need clarity from LR where the Preliminary Events will be held so they can plan the shipping of their boat in advance. The Protocol allows LR to wait announcing these Events until the first half of 2019 I believe. That is waaaay too late, absolutely ridiculous.

Share this post


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

If ETNZ thought the Oracle AC Protocols were in any way unfair then they would not have structured their own to be so similar, to then proclaim (with reason) its fairness.

It will depend of LR behaviour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a change of pace here, not exactly a protocol subject, but any thoughts on which sail brands might try to outfit AC teams?

North is clearly the default choice, but with Quantum in the race, they will likely want their wardrobe on display for at least their own team.

Are there any other likely vendors? Has anyone other than North been used since 2003? North, Quantum .. who are the best of the rest?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now