barfy

AC 36 Protocol

Recommended Posts

On 9/5/2018 at 4:48 PM, Tornado-Cat said:

When I remember all the whiners who said they would not modify the protocol like OR, that the rule would not change in the middle of the cycle, that it would be soooooo different.

Oh, safety, mother of all manipulation, quite a "déjà vu" in SF, what about wind limits now ? :)

 

52.2 Once published, the AC75 Class Rule cannot be replaced, For a period of three months after the date of publication it may be amended for any reason by COR/D but thereafter can only be amended by unanimous agreement of Competitors whose entries have been officially accepted at such time or when specifically allowed and in accordance with the provisions contained in the AC75 Class Rule. As an exception to the above, the AC75 Class Rule may be amended at any time by the Rules Committee with the agreement of COR/D and the Regatta Director for the changes relating to (i) supplied or specified components;

 

(ii)    safety;

 

(iii)  safety equipment;

 

(iv)  media equipment;

 

(v)    event branding in compliance with the Contract and Brand Manual;

 

(vi)  guest racers, including their impact on masses and centres of mass controlled by Rule 10 of the AC75 Class Rule. In making any such amendments, the Rules Committee shall consider the impact of their proposed changes on all Competitors, taking account of the state of their design and construction programmes, so that any burden imposed is proportional to the need for amendment.

 

 

Safety has to be there, it's up to the Defender and Challenger to treat it with the respect it deserves and not manipulate it for compeitive advantage, most especially when it's done in response to a genuine tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the blanket broadness of 'safety'.

Safety was the excuse that was intended to allow Orifice symmetrical rudder elevators to fix their performance issues in SF.

 

Safety gear, media gear, branding I see no problem, they're the sort of thing that needs to get tweaked closer to the event.

Guest racers seems like a pretty odd thing to allow unilateral changes to so broadly stated, maybe would be acceptable if they inserted something about it being only for safety.

 

On the other hand changes require OK from Rules Committee, CoR/D and Regatta Director, from (possibly incorrect) recollection SF had Regatta Director/ACAlphabet being able to make changes unilaterally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't like the blanket broadness of 'safety'.

Safety was the excuse that was intended to allow Orifice symmetrical rudder elevators to fix their performance issues in SF.

 

Safety gear, media gear, branding I see no problem, they're the sort of thing that needs to get tweaked closer to the event.

Guest racers seems like a pretty odd thing to allow unilateral changes to so broadly stated, maybe would be acceptable if they inserted something about it being only for safety.

 

On the other hand changes require OK from Rules Committee, CoR/D and Regatta Director, from (possibly incorrect) recollection SF had Regatta Director/ACAlphabet being able to make changes unilaterally.

Safety: we all know how this was mismanaged* and mis-used in SF, doesn't mean that is how the rest of the world operates

Guest racers: you say unilateral, I say....... get real

shall consider the impact of their proposed changes on all Competitors, taking account of the state of their design and construction programmes, so that any burden imposed is proportional to the need for amendment.

The COR for the Match (could be anyone remember) is hardly going to cede an advantage to the defender - for any reason. And without their agreement on top of all the others required, nothing changes. Relax

All looks proper and correct - ultimately it's the intent, 'culture' and sportsmanship that decides.....

 

* too little oversight/avoidable tragedy/hysterical over-reaction biasing the competition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2018 at 1:35 PM, Boybland said:

Safety has to be there, it's up to the Defender and Challenger to treat it with the respect it deserves and not manipulate it for compeitive advantage, most especially when it's done in response to a genuine tragedy.

Health and safety is all pervasive in many Western countries, an NZ is no exception. Unless there are adequate nods to safety, no one will be sailing anything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2018 at 10:10 PM, nav said:

Guest racers: you say unilateral, I say....... get real

Well its not giving the other Competitors any say or route of appeal if something untoward were decided on -> unilateral.

CoRs should act in the interest of the Challengers but we've seen that distinctly not happen in the last AC so it shouldn't be treated as a given especially when its being run by the two teams most critical of the previous organisation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to miss the point - have you only just noticed that the only teams they trust to 'do the right thing' are each other?? That is clear and unapologetic throughout the Protocol.

They were rightly critical of the self-dealing and conflicts in the previous iterations, and the 'democratic, (or multilateral in your preferred parlance), solution' has  unarguably been proven fallible and far too ea$ily manipulated.

This is their vision - they earned it the hard way. You have every right to criticize COR/D if they fall short of their own standards - but simply assuming they will will go anywhere near the lows of the last 2 trustees is either a mistake - or sour grapes

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

They were rightly critical of the self-dealing and conflicts in the previous iterations, and the 'democratic, (or multilateral in your preferred parlance), solution' has  unarguably been proven fallible and far too ea$ily manipulated.

The democratic process under AC34 and AC35 was ‘self-dealing’ only when viewed through the thick, conspiracy-tinted glasses worn by a few TNZ fan-boys.

All 3 Challengers could and should be given a great deal of say, and it should get explicitly spelled out in the Protocol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any competitor with chances to participate to the match should be able to have a say to the condition of the match, it's the spirit of the AC.

At one point we may have a CoR in the deciding bodies even though it will not compete in the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a pair  ^ & ^^ ........the teams apart from COR/D can say plenty, and have been one would assume. It's up to the Defender and the COR to decide the shape of AC36. Don't like the explicit terms - don't play, it's simple - it's certainly not for the anti-kiwi fan-boyz (thick, conspiracy-tinted glasses and all) of those who have chosen to enter to complain about the conditions of entry, when the teams themselves seem perfectly happy ATM

TC come on, I mentioned this too obvious fact just the other day in case anyone was overlooking it.... 

Who is the COR during the match, hmmmm? Stop and think for a moment.

So to whom do the duties and rights of the COR fall?

Earn it!

Share this post


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

Who is the COR during the match, hmmmm? Stop and think for a moment.

So to whom do the duties and rights of the COR fall?

Earn it!

^^ Do you think it's the present CoR ? NO

2.1.            The winning Yacht Club (of the CSS) and its winning yacht shall become the Challenger under the Deed of Gift for the Match.

Now, could you explain the notion of "initial" CoR as stipulated in the prot in order to give them even more power, when they may not even present a yacht to challenge ?

Share this post


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

The democratic process under AC34 and AC35 was ‘self-dealing’ only when viewed through the thick, conspiracy-tinted glasses worn by a few TNZ fan-boys.

All 3 Challengers could and should be given a great deal of say, and it should get explicitly spelled out in the Protocol. 

Mutual consent is satisfied according to the DoG between the Defender and Challenger.

Share this post


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

Mutual consent is satisfied according to the DoG between the Defender and Challenger.

True but what they mutually consent to matters. 

For AC36 the two parties have a history of mutual interest so tight that it warrants a better arrangement to protect other Challengers.

My hope is that COR LR will create a traditional Challengers Commission and give them some joint decision-making power against the Defender even if the Protocol for whatever self-interested reasons this time did not enable it. And I actually think it will happen if this time if Bertelli hopes the Cup will go North regardless who faces TNZ.

Share this post


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

True but what they mutually consent to matters. 

For AC36 the two parties have a history of mutual interest so tight that it warrants a better arrangement to protect other Challengers.

My hope is that COR LR will create a traditional Challengers Commission and give them some joint decision-making power against the Defender even if the Protocol for whatever self-interested reasons this time did not enable it. And I actually think it will happen if this time if Bertelli hopes the Cup will go North regardless who faces TNZ.

True, but historically both Defender and challenger have a history of respect for both each other as well as respect for rules which are set, following those rules, fairness and inclusiveness as it pertains to other challengers, where previous Defenders do not. Until either CoR or Defender prove otherwise, or provide a "Real" Reason to think otherwise there is no reason what so ever to expect either Defender or Challenger to go over and above what is "Fair" to win/ retain the Cup as we saw in both previous editions. Therefor there is no need to "Protect" challengers other than those protections which have been set out and agreed to in the protocol. It is pure bitterness that anyone would think, given ETNZ and LR's history and traditions in the Americas Cup to think either team would utilize underhanded tactics, such as those we saw from Oracle Team USA to win the Cup. Neither team have shown to date any history of unsportsmanlike conduct. 

Share this post


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

Any competitor with chances to participate to the match should be able to have a say to the condition of the match, it's the spirit of the AC.

At one point we may have a CoR in the deciding bodies even though it will not compete in the match.

Won't happen. All this talk about Independent Race Committee is blowing up smoke. It wouldn't surprise me if the entire RC consists of New Zealanders because that how it was in 2003 and we had that consistent crap of TNZ didn't want to race, etc.

Share this post


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

My hope is that COR LR will create a traditional Challengers Commission and give them some joint decision-making power 

After what happened in AC35 after LR did that, I'd be amazed.

Share this post


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

After what happened in AC35 after LR did that, I'd be amazed.

This Protocol does a much better job of preventing a change of Class Rule, the big problem for LR last time. But there is a long list of other powers left to exclusive agreement by this historically-tight new COR/D. They could easily agree a myriad of changes that might negatively impact the likes of Ineos and AM. Nothing prevents them from it.

Share this post


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

This Protocol does a much better job of preventing a change of Class Rule, the big problem for LR last time. But there is a long list of other powers left to exclusive agreement by this historically-tight new COR/D.

The solution is not to leave it to the competitor majority like the last time, or to the exclusivity of the COR/D like now, but the unanimous consent of all competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see LR choosing to give up power again, whether the class rule could be changed or not. It also seems there is no love lost between LR and BA, which is another reason not to cede power.

Share this post


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

The solution is not to leave it to the competitor majority like the last time, or to the exclusivity of the COR/D like now, but the unanimous consent of all competitors.

As was stated in the AC62 rule you mean. :lol: :lol:

It makes no difference.

Some have cheated others not

 

1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

They could easily agree a myriad of changes that might negatively impact the likes of Ineos and AM. Nothing prevents them from it.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Or do you truly not know what prevents most from duplicitous self-serving behavior?

Setting it up that way was not only deliberate and done for reasons that should be clear and obvious to all but the most partisan given the history, it has also been from highlighted from the day the Protocol was released. Why are you still 'bringing it to everyones attention' like it's news.

The Team you shill for had their chance.........

Share this post


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

As was stated in the AC62 rule you mean. :lol: :lol:

It makes no difference.

Some have cheated others not

 

 

You are wrong nav, this is the AC62 part of the rule that LR forgot to read. They are still mad about their mistake and want the others to pay for it. There was no cheating as you and a few others keep whining, just a wrong reading.

image.thumb.png.0deecfc9eeb88e5415db0a6d89e67929.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If LR hadn't refused to take responsibility as COR and if they hadn't given it to a chall committee, they could have vetoed the class change. Own fault that will never been repeated by them.

Share this post


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

You are wrong nav, this is the AC62 part of the rule that LR forgot to read. They are still mad about their mistake and want the others to pay for it. There was no cheating as you and a few others keep whining, just a wrong reading.

image.thumb.png.0deecfc9eeb88e5415db0a6d89e67929.png

As usual when it comes to the rules, you come out on the wrong side here councilor.

You simply confirm again what is already perfectly well known.

They could not and did not amend this ^ class rule.

They did not have the unanimous support the rule demanded to protect the integrity of the event and the investment in time and money in development to the rule by the challenging teams - nor were either of the sub-clauses satisfied.

Instead they used the 'amendment by majority'  that existed within the Protocol to rip the class rule out entirely and replace it with a different one.

Alles klar?

Oh, and to help with your confusion: LR's only mistake was to unselfishly (and in hindsight naively) initiate an all-Challengers 'COR committee' - just as you and Spinray, the last holdouts of 'Larry's enablers', laughingly demand they do again :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you confuse the prot with the rule. Anyway, as you realize in your precedent post, LR gave up their CoR position thinking that the rule change required unanimity, it was a mistake.

image.thumb.png.769053d610cfb186bc6f8ed3f7438fa3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amend == make minor changes.

Amend != completely replace with smaller one-design class with a different name & rulebook.

Share this post


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

Amend == make minor changes.

Amend != completely replace with smaller one-design class with a different name & rulebook.

You need to work on your cut and paste skills . You missed two thirds of the description you copied from your google search .

 

make minor changes in (a text) in order to make it fairer, more accurate, or more up-to-date.
"the rule was amended to apply only to nonmembers"
synonyms: revise, alter, change, modify, qualify, adapt, adjust; More
 
 
  • modify formally, as a legal document or legislative bill.
    "did she amend her original will later on?"
  • make better; improve.
    "if you can amend or alter people's mindset"

Share this post


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

You need to work on your cut and paste skills . You missed two thirds of the description you copied from your google search .

 

make minor changes in (a text) in order to make it fairer, more accurate, or more up-to-date.
"the rule was amended to apply only to nonmembers"
synonyms: revise, alter, change, modify, qualify, adapt, adjust; More
 
 
  • modify formally, as a legal document or legislative bill.
    "did she amend her original will later on?"
  • make better; improve.
    "if you can amend or alter people's mindset"

Still no replace in there....

Share this post


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

You need to work on your cut and paste skills . You missed two thirds of the description you copied from your google search .

Eh? I typed it from my knowledge of English, something you obviously lack at <_<

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ truly you should read what you cut and paste.

"Make better; improve" ='smaller???

"make minor changes in (a text) in order to make it fairer, more accurate, or more up-to-date."

True? 50 is more fair than 62?

Rotflmfho

Share this post


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

Still no replace in there....

But there is " make better and improve " which was what they were shooting for. Whether or not they achieved it is a matter of opinion but the facts still remain that the change was still an amendment . 

Share this post


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

Eh? I typed it from my knowledge of English, something you obviously lack at <_<

 

Not hardly.

What you did was cut and paste just the portion that you thought supported your opinion which when the entire description is shown clearly does not .  

Share this post


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

^^ truly you should read what you cut and paste.

"Make better; improve" ='smaller???

"make minor changes in (a text) in order to make it fairer, more accurate, or more up-to-date."

True? 50 is more fair than 62?

Rotflmfho

So size is the only thing that matters to you Mamm ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, maxmini said:

But there is " make better and improve " which was what they were shooting for. Whether or not they achieved it is a matter of opinion but the facts still remain that the change was still an amendment . 

It sounds like a pretty massive stretch to say you amended the class of boat by replacing it with an entirely new class of boat.... 

Only an insurance company or Oracle Racing could possibly to come to an interpretation like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get Luna Rossa's opinion  on that eh? They know the AC game better than most.....

Share this post


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

What you did was cut and paste just the portion that you thought supported your opinion which when the entire description is shown clearly does not .  

Oh I see, how about that :huh: the internet agrees with my understanding of the definition of Amend.

What was your point supposed to be?

 

7 hours ago, maxmini said:

But there is " make better and improve " which was what they were shooting for. Whether or not they achieved it is a matter of opinion but the facts still remain that the change was still an amendment . 

'Make better and improve' absolutely does not include 'throw out the entire existing rule for a 62' box rule and replace it with a 50' one-design class with a different name'.

Share this post


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

Oh I see, how about that :huh: the internet agrees with my understanding of the definition of Amend.

What was your point supposed to be?

 

'Make better and improve' absolutely does not include 'throw out the entire existing rule for a 62' box rule and replace it with a 50' one-design class with a different name'.

Well we all have opinions and that is yours . But it seems as if others , namely those with skin in the game had a different one and amended the event accordingly . Like it or not  that’s the way it is , not really any room for discussion despite these desperate efforts . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Boybland said:

It sounds like a pretty massive stretch to say you amended the class of boat by replacing it with an entirely new class of boat.... 

Only an insurance company or Oracle Racing could possibly to come to an interpretation like that.

I didn’t amend anything , the guys actually involved with the event did . They , better than any of us , had their reasons and had it been a really bad idea it would never have passed muster . 

Share this post


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

Let's get Luna Rossa's opinion  on that eh? They know the AC game better than most.....

They voiced their opinion by leaving the event , the only ones to do so . Apparently their opinion was the minority one . Was it the only reason they bailed out or just an excuse , we will never know . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, maxmini said:

They voiced their opinion by leaving the event , the only ones to do so . Apparently their opinion was the minority one . Was it the only reason they bailed out or just an excuse , we will never know . 

Which is exactly why they will, and should retain their CoR rights over all of the other challengers to avoid a "gang up" similar to what they endured in Bermuda.

Share this post


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

They voiced their opinion by leaving the event , the only ones to do so . Apparently their opinion was the minority one . Was it the only reason they bailed out or just an excuse , we will never know . 

ETNZ also voiced their unhappiness with it as well.

The majority voted to replace the boat, the rules said they could amend the boat, it's a long long stretch to think these are the same thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RNZYS voiced their unhappines about what they allowed in the protocol (in fact RNZYS and CVS did not signed amendment  4).

There were two majority rules: the yacht rule itself as quoted above, and the protocol.

They are not new in the AC game, they knew very well, or should have known, what could happen. LR is just mad about their mistake which is a wrong argument to prevent all competitors to have a voice in AC36.

Sorry, but Larry and Ernesto were better at a democratic AC.

image.png.a2dd7446ed609a6a6a251d4dc81596bb.png

Share this post


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

RNZYS voiced their unhappines about what they allowed in the protocol (in fact RNZYS and CVS did not signed amendment  4).

There were two majority rules: the yacht rule itself as quoted above, and the protocol.

They are not new in the AC game, they knew very well, or should have known, what could happen. LR is just mad about their mistake which is a wrong argument to prevent all competitors to have a voice in AC36.

Sorry, but Larry and Ernesto were better at a democratic AC.

image.png.a2dd7446ed609a6a6a251d4dc81596bb.png

Ridiculous. Its like Donald Trump. "What you're seeing, what you're hearing, and what you're reading isn't whats actually happening"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish those who want to rehash old events would take this discussion to "AC35 Protocol".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good move if it helps for more teams. But the reason might also be technical, like possible difficulties with the arm system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this accurate? I thought teams were able to choose which hull to modify by 25%, before these Rules changed?

Under the previous version of the Protocol, hull alteration of the first boat was restricted to 25% of the hull surface area, now that has been downsized to 12.5% but on each boat.

Share this post


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

Is this accurate? I thought teams were able to choose which hull to modify by 25%, before these Rules changed?

Under the previous version of the Protocol, hull alteration of the first boat was restricted to 25% of the hull surface area, now that has been downsized to 12.5% but on each boat.

Interesting, because this is one way (not necessarily a great way, but maybe the only way) to control budget use - essentially limiting the amount of physical mods you can do to a boat. It also means that you can make less change from your first to your second - which again, diminishes the advantage a little for 2-boat teams.

Both aspects may help somewhat with late comers with less budget and time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that^ seems to be what RG 'thinks' they would all have done - but the Original Protocol was clear.....

11.1b says one hull by 25% from 'original', (as launched  and notified) - but it could be either the 1st or the 2nd hull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Late entries close on November 30, 2018, however Emirates Team New Zealand have said that even this date will be extended if necessary by the Defender and Challenger making a suitable amendment to the Protocol."

Desperation for more challengers.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

"Late entries close on November 30, 2018, however Emirates Team New Zealand have said that even this date will be extended if necessary by the Defender and Challenger making a suitable amendment to the Protocol."

Desperation for more challengers.

 

ok... not sure there are many ACs where challengers would have been turned away if they genuinely wanted a crack, but missed an arbitrary moveable date...

Thing is, I can't think of any time where any more challengers were lining up... bodes well for the cup!

Share this post


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

Thing is, I can't think of any time where any more challengers were lining up... 

AC32 (and others) more challengers actually turned up. As for the wannabes, large numbers were claimed at this stage in both the last two cycles. All BS in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusing to see how some fans declare that they will be happy with 3 challengers or with the biggest line up, with a few days difference, depending on the "weather" conditions.

Share this post


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

AC32 (and others) more challengers actually turned up. As for the wannabes, large numbers were claimed at this stage in both the last two cycles. All BS in the end.

Yes I know that they turned out to be ghosts in the last two cycles, but if they had turned into real physical entrants knocking on the door, no-one would have stopped them entering because of an arbitrary date... case in point Cammas was a very late entry

Share this post


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

"Late entries close on November 30, 2018, however Emirates Team New Zealand have said that even this date will be extended if necessary by the Defender and Challenger making a suitable amendment to the Protocol."

Desperation for more challengers.

 

The other way to look at it is Inclusiveness. So you get 3 challengers, and complain about it, then when ETNZ says its willing to extend the deadline to include more challengers you call it desperation? Doesn't make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wether having only three solid challengers makes for a good event is certainly a debatable  question . What is not debatable is that such a small turnout is not a good event financially. When the whole match was pitched to the powers that be in Auckland the numbers of entrants and the financial windfall projected was about double what we have at this stage. Remember the good old days with room for 8 bases planned out and "where are we going to fit them all " problems  ? Well at least that one issue has been solved. Space will not be a issue  but making anywhere near the projected numbers $$$ wise will .  For all we know it might have been pressure on Grumpy from all the bar owners in town that led him to lowering the bar for entry :)

Share this post


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

The other way to look at it is Inclusiveness. 

Not sure what to call an event that costs $100m plus to play the game, has strict nationality clauses and the diversity of banker's club, but "inclusive" it isn't. <_<

Share this post


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

Not sure what to call an event that costs $100m plus to play the game, has strict nationality clauses and the diversity of banker's club, but "inclusive" it isn't. <_<

Simple. Call it The Americas Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2018 at 6:07 PM, nav said:

 

**TRIGGER WARNING**

 

Pathetic, meaningless and an abdication if YNZYS/ETNZ handed it off to someone else to decide on..

I mean any 1st year graphics student would have thought to at least include some....

7435ec094c1206f4fb470dcc6cfc7a1e.jpg

or

Frosty-Morning-Ta-Moko-Maori-Tattoo-Whak

etc.....

 

 

So the answer is abdication after all - handed off to the Challenger (well yeah ok main sponsor too), so that explains the lack of anything outwardly 'kiwi' in the design - but what is the excuse then for the total lack of style!? :o

 

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