• 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

And does that $78M include LR's help in kind?

Not much support there for the view that Oracle was outspending everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tropical Madness said:

 

Not bad, aside from the too-syrupy Gunboat part .. Even enjoyed the Tornado footage.

The part about the new VOR foiler filmed at Persico is an excerpt from this longer one

 

Share this post


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

And does that $78M include LR's help in kind?

I don't think so. Some have suggested that was worth $30m although I always thought that was high. While the figure for BAR matches something i had heard before, when i was told that figure it also included the cost of the new HQ and the other programs such as the Extreme campaign. You can probably knock it down by about 12-15m. Interesting view on Oracle, because they were always claiming that Larry was holding the purse strings tight this time around. Even still rading between the lines I think the spending league table would read

BAR, Artemis, ETNZ, Oracle, GTS, SBTJ

If you then throw in the amount of in kind Oracle gave to SBTJ and the benefits they received in return from effectively a 2 boat program, you probably end up with Oracle at the top of the table.

Share this post


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

And does that $78M include LR's help in kind?

Not much support there for the view that Oracle was outspending everyone else.

Given Etnz didn't have multiple 45s suggests that they were more budget constrained than Orifice and Artemis and waaay more than BAR that seem to have had a bottomless pit.

But I never believed the bullshit about them being THAT poor and the whole story of struggling to pay the wages in the last week's of the cup just didn't pass the sniff test.

Share this post


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

I don't think so. Some have suggested that was worth $30m although I always thought that was high. While the figure for BAR matches something i had heard before, when i was told that figure it also included the cost of the new HQ and the other programs such as the Extreme campaign. You can probably knock it down by about 12-15m. Interesting view on Oracle, because they were always claiming that Larry was holding the purse strings tight this time around. Even still rading between the lines I think the spending league table would read

BAR, Artemis, ETNZ, Oracle, GTS, SBTJ

If you then throw in the amount of in kind Oracle gave to SBTJ and the benefits they received in return from effectively a 2 boat program, you probably end up with Oracle at the top of the table.

Pounds, Euros, US dollars, NZ dollars - heard of them?

Get back to us when you have figured out how to do fx conversions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many vagaries to campaign expenditures, sponsor benefits and efficiencies that the numbers are hard to judge except in a general sense. Plus, there's no chance any team accountants would have told Russell Greene anything, ever, so he's likely just pulling numbers out of his ass anyway.

As a general question I wonder how much, if any, the overall spend by LE over the past 2 cycles was split between funding all the sideline ACEA and AC45/ACWS/other-team help etc costs were, versus what OR the team was allowed to spend directly. One's spending may or may not have compromised the other's, it would be interesting to know, although I doubt anything was ever desperate since nothing ever hit the rocks and nobody expressed concerns except maybe among the LiveLine crew - which did get smaller in this past cycle.

Share this post


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

Given Etnz didn't have multiple 45s suggests that they were more budget constrained than Orifice and Artemis and waaay more than BAR that seem to have had a bottomless pit.

Otoh, they did get the better of the two LR AC45S boats (Swordfish or Piranha?), started spending later, avoided Bermuda costs until late, had almost won in similar boats in AC34 and so had experienced design systems in place; all of which must have helped.

Agree about BAR, they never appeared to lack for funding. I think it was just too big a startup task, given the clean-slate approach they took especially in the design experience and systems.

Share this post


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

Stingers,

You really think 100m $ or less is going to cut it for AC 36? I say nope particularly if two boats being allowed to built which is probably most likely.

Maybe. Hard to imagine many teams building two big, new-dangled, monohull foilers; and then two-boat running them.

But the general principle is that teams will raise every benefit they can, regardless. IF that is what the event looks like then maybe LR will be the only shark in the fishpond, who knows.

 

Share this post


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

Pounds, Euros, US dollars, NZ dollars - heard of them?

Get back to us when you have figured out how to do fx conversions.

Sorry, nothing to do with currency conversion. I misheard what he said. I thought he had said that Oracle was less than the ones he had mentioned (ETNZ, Artemis and BAR). Sorry.

I took a conversion rate appropriate for most of the campaign rather than use the weak level of sterling today, which is why i have BAR having the biggest budget.

19 minutes ago, Alinghi4ever said:

Disagree about BAR mate. I think if the AC 62's had stayed instead of the AC 50's BA wouldn't have made the Starting Line. Ben was struggling for money.

You do talk a load of shit. There was a time, when the 62's were still being talked about, that BAR didn't have money but that changed, not because of the move to the 50's but because they signed not only Land Rover but also also a whole raft of others who either paid money or gave services in kind. Go check their sponsors list because in the end, they were probably the best funded team and despite their performance, they ended up with very happy sponsors because the exposure was higher than had been expected.

Share this post


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

Otoh, they did get the better of the two LR AC45S boats (Swordfish or Piranha?), started spending later, avoided Bermuda costs until late, had almost won in similar boats in AC34 and so had experienced design systems in place; all of which must have helped.

Agree about BAR, they never appeared to lack for funding. I think it was just too big a startup task, given the clean-slate approach they took especially in the design experience and systems.

Yup, but those ARE signs of tighter budgetary constraints. 

Difference is that I don't think they were half as constrained as Dalton would have us believe. 

Share this post


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

Yup, but those ARE signs of tighter budgetary constraints. 

Difference is that I don't think they were half as constrained as Dalton would have us believe. 

Agree.

Dalton is the guy tasked with money-raising, it colors his strong 'us against the world' and 'Lone Wolf' proclivities, that everyone else is gettting a bit tired of hearing about :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a fact etnz wages were not paid until just a few weeks ago.

nice payout in place of the Auckland regatta helpfully  paid back Matteo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2017 at 2:16 AM, PJB said:

It’s a fact etnz wages were not paid until just a few weeks ago.

nice payout in place of the Auckland regatta helpfully  paid back Matteo. 

So shitty budgeting then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always did figure that Mateo is who pressed everyone for cash back. Would be an interesting read if that ever comes out, the finance/payback-debt hole may even lead way back to MdN's buddy P$B.

Share this post


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

So shitty budgeting then?

Yep. Shitty budgeting. But they won, so who the fuck cares?

Share this post


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

Always did figure that Mateo is who pressed everyone for cash back. Would be an interesting read if that ever comes out, the finance/payback-debt hole may even lead way back to MdN's buddy P$B.

It traces back to ACEA/Alphabet soup actually.  I've been told the repayment is for a loan that was made in advance of the penalty payment so that the team could use it in the AC35 cycle vs his other contributions which weren't repaid (obviously).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alinghi4ever said:

Told you so about the Budgets having to be higher than in AC 35. CEO & Skipper of NYYC Challenge Hutchinson confirmed it.

You also said that every team but TNZ would win and that no one would go to NZ if they won...you fucking muppet.

You have no clue what the budget was for TO...just because you saw a comment by ginge that said TNZ spent more than TO does not make it true, and just because you saw an article in the  Baltimore 'gazette' that you need $300M to be competitive in the next round does not make it true..I think TNZ will be competitive without coming up with that sort of wedge...

I believe that that no one knows what the max budget will be until the last Bil has thrown his trouser money into the game...and that's how it should be..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alinghi4ever said:

Price Tag mentioned in the Baltimore gazette seems to be about right to me.

How do you know without even knowing if it well be a full foiler or foiler assist ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by previous AC the change in the number of sailors will make precisely zero difference to team size and budget. The size of the teams didn't change much between AC32, 33, 34 and 35. All that changed was what they did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no clue about how much budgets are going to be. One thing for sure is that they are not going to be small, and surely higher than the past cups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess it's relative. The more one design elements the more money they will spend trying to get advantages from  other things that are free,  and for sure they will be more expensive. In the long run the richest temas will benefit as usual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole cost discussion is not about the wealthy teams or the amount you need to have a chance of winning the AC.
It's abut the entry cost for the also-rans, fleet-fillers and hopefuls to get more sponsors for the next time due to a respectable performance during this regatta.
IOW, if the basic cost for an AC campaign is low, we will see more teams. Most of them will have no chance to win, but they make a colorful regatta. The few teams that are in to win will always spend what is needed, no matter how low the basic cost is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannot remember where I read it, but it certainly jibes with my professional experience: team competitiveness does increase with a bigger budget, but only to a point; beyond which (teams awash in money) it actually decreases

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you break the news to your boyfriend Ben then - that due to your high standards he is not welcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alinghi4ever said:

We don't need these basic Campaigns in the AC. I'd rather have 5-6 strong Teams than 8-10 with the bottom of those just making up numbers.

Speak for yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 1:03 PM, Rennmaus said:

The whole cost discussion is not about the wealthy teams or the amount you need to have a chance of winning the AC.
It's abut the entry cost for the also-rans, fleet-fillers and hopefuls to get more sponsors for the next time due to a respectable performance during this regatta.
IOW, if the basic cost for an AC campaign is low, we will see more teams. Most of them will have no chance to win, but they make a colorful regatta. The few teams that are in to win will always spend what is needed, no matter how low the basic cost is.

There is always that underdog team that over-achieves and makes it interesting to see how far they can go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Speak for yourself

You meant to say "speak for YOURSELVES", surely?

It seems fairly obvious that A4E has split personality or is an account shared by a number of people who hold diametrically opposing views.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You meant to say "speak for YOURSELVES", surely?

It seems fairly obvious that A4E has split personality or is an account shared by a number of people who hold diametrically opposing views.

Or, it's the royal "We". In any case, my number was wrong, indeed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great blog post from Jim Farmer, who used to be a TNZ director, that all should read

http://www.jamesfarmerqc.co.nz/legal-commentary/americas-cup-part-3

While it is a bit of a footnote, this caught my eye.

Quote

 

To finish. One concern that I do have about the next Event, wherever it is held, is the cost of the new proposed foiling monohull.  No one has ever built a 75 foot fully foiling monohull and the sketches that have been released of the proposed boat show what a breath-taking challenge it will be to design and build such a boat and to make it sail.  In my first piece on the America’s Cup, posted on 1 July 2013, I said:

“Grant Dalton has said that the next Event needs to meet budget constraints to attract a good number of challengers.  He must be right on that and choosing a monohull over the technologically complex multihulls will assist in that regard.”

The technological complexity (and associated costs) of the AC multihulls must surely look simple and modest compared with what is now proposed. 

 

I still find it unbelievable the direction that has been taken and how much cost is going to increase. It's not just in the boats as described so well above. It is in every element, from team size to length of the campaign. Make no mistake, this is going to be the most costly MC addition of the cup ever. I expected better from Dalton and ETNZ. No wonder they are pushing so hard for a hosting fee (read the rest of the blog post)

Share this post


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

There is a great blog post from Jim Farmer, who used to be a TNZ director, that all should read

http://www.jamesfarmerqc.co.nz/legal-commentary/americas-cup-part-3

While it is a bit of a footnote, this caught my eye.

I still find it unbelievable the direction that has been taken and how much cost is going to increase. It's not just in the boats as described so well above. It is in every element, from team size to length of the campaign. Make no mistake, this is going to be the most costly MC addition of the cup ever. I expected better from Dalton and ETNZ. No wonder they are pushing so hard for a hosting fee (read the rest of the blog post)

We learned recently the boat is more like an AC68 (loa) but you lose very little and gain a LOT if you go down more towards 50’ LOA, almost exponentially. With a foiler the hull length, and fore-aft distance between the foils and rudder T,  is almost immaterial anyway above some lower limit.

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