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

I'd hold off the "for sure" until we know how much is OD.

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

One design tends to increase costs, but doesn't affect the spend in an AC cycle.

Every team spends about the same amount ... 10% more than they raise.

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
On 12/6/2017 at 12:20 AM, ~Stingray~~ said:

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.

LWL shirley!?

Your 'if only' opinion, like Farmer's, is worth zero. The decision is made, now as long as the COR doesn't bail and the class rule doesn't get changed in a years time and the racing conditions aren't radically modified by a RD full of guilt for not stepping in for safety reasons when it would have actually done some good - we'll be sweet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, yes LWL.

And the JC75 may actually be 75’ LWL instead of 68’. The 68 number was in, iirc, the French PDF’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're doing corrections

The Jesus Christ75?     You cannot be serious!

JL75 maybe,

image.png.2725722ee65d157387c6a317a2102339.pngbut we should probably consult Basiliscus :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/12/2017 at 11:47 AM, 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)

Well duh! This was my reaction when I first saw the bloody thing.

That and how on earth would the general populace relate to it.

I could be wrong, but clearly I won't be on my own in that respect.

Fairly disappointed in what ETNZ have come up with thus far.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well duh! This was my reaction when I first saw the bloody thing.

That and how on earth would the general populace relate to it.

I could be wrong, but clearly I won't be on my own in that respect.

Fairly disappointed in what ETNZ have come up with thus far.

No, you're not alone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Fairly disappointed in what ETNZ have come up with thus far.

Not me, I would have preferred a multi but I am happy that they came up with an extreme boat. The problem being the budget and even more, I think the boat will be very difficult to sail.

How many here have been sailing a dinghy with a crew that stays on the outside the boat in a lull ? Well, here the crew will weight tons and the boat is supposed to be sailing at 50 kts.

It might be an amazing show but I am not even sure the boat is sailable in a reliable manner. Any test in real seen somewhere of the same type of boat in a smaller dimension ?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tornado-Cat said:

Not me, I would have preferred a multi but I am happy that they came up with an extreme boat. The problem being the budget and even more, I think the boat will be very difficult to sail.

How many here have been sailing a dinghy with a crew that stays on the outside the boat in a lull ? Well, here the crew will weight tons and the boat is supposed to be sailing at 50 kts.

It might be an amazing show but I am not even sure the boat is sailable in a reliable manner. Any test in real seen somewhere of the same type of boat in a smaller dimension ?

 

IT WAS DESIGNED BY TNZ

OF COURSE IT WILL BE THE PERFECT BOAT FOR THE AC

HOW DARE YOU INSULT THEIR DESIGN SKILLS

ILL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT THEY WON THE LAST CUP THANK YOU VERY MUCH

JUST WAIT, THIS BOAT WILL SAIL SAFER, MORE STABLE AND FASTER THAN THE AC50'S

*sarcasm

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

IT WAS DESIGNED BY TNZ

 

We can perhaps remind sclarke that one designer was brit, the other french. TNZ invaded by europeans :D

Share this post


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

We can perhaps remind sclarke that one designer was brit, the other french. TNZ invaded by europeans :D

And we can perhaps remind Tornado-Cat that 9 of 14 of Team USA crew were Aussies, as was their General Manager, their coach was French, and their CEO was a Kiwi! Plus how ever many foreigners were part of the design team at Oracle. Most of them were French, Kiwi or Australian, including one of their head designers Ian Burns! Mark Turner is a Kiwi, and their build facility is even in New Zealand! I don't see your point. Answer this question: How many Americans were there on Oracle Team USA's sailing team? How many Kiwi's were on ETNZ's sailing team?

Share this post


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

And we can perhaps remind Tornado-Cat that 9 of 14 of Team USA crew were Aussies, as was their General Manager, their coach was French, and their CEO was a Kiwi! Plus how ever many foreigners were part of the design team at Oracle. Most of them were French, Kiwi or Australian.....

Yes but I don't think the yanks claim to be as "pure" as you claim to be.

Share this post


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

You should avoid that subject as the AC is a design contest and most TNZ design team was from europe.

Were they? Are you sure about that? Or is that just more "Alternate facts" cos you know Alternate facts aren't facts right? And no matter how loud you scream lies, or how long you scream lies...they're still lies.

Share this post


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

Were they? Are you sure about that? Or is that just more "Alternate facts" cos you know Alternate facts aren't facts right? And no matter how loud you scream lies, or how long you scream lies...they're still lies.

I and some other ones here already did the job, do yours now :D

Share this post


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

I and some other ones here already did the job, do yours now :D

I'm sure you all "did the job" with each other, to each other, so I'll leave you and your friends to your "jobs" 

Share this post


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

I'm sure you all "did the job" with each other, to each other, so I'll leave you and your friends to your "jobs" 

So, how does it feel to be a proud kiwi fan with most of your design team from europe ? Are you trolling the Oracle thread for the sake of europeans ?

Please keep up, and bring your buddy Indiot :lol:

Share this post


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

So, how does it feel to be a proud kiwi fan with most of your design team from europe ? Are you trolling the Oracle thread for the sake of europeans ?

Please keep up, and bring your buddy Indiot :lol:

Please tell me how many Europeans you think there actually is in the design team, then tell me how many Kiwi's are actually in the design team. Remember alternate facts aren't facts.

And by the way, I'm not trolling. I'm just reminding you of a fact, yes, a fact that you already know. I'm just reminding you who is/ was and always will be, the better team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jokes aside though @sclarke

do you think that this new boat will be a more affordable platform than the ac50 like grant dalton promised?

and do you think that it will be faster around a track (not top speed)

to be honest, I don't really care about the how many of what nationality that there is

i mean, look at the facts here

oracle won 33 and 34 made up of aussies

ETNZ won the last, and lets be real here, NZ is a part of Australia, just like tassie

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

jokes aside though @sclarke

do you think that this new boat will be a more affordable platform than the ac50 like grant dalton promised?

How do you define "affordable"? Do you define it by the biggest budget or the smallest?

and do you think that it will be faster around a track (not top speed)

Tracks will be different. There's no way to compare, as unless you the previous boat sail the same course, it isn't comparable. The only way to compare is top speed

to be honest, I don't really care about the how many of what nationality that there is

i mean, look at the facts here

oracle won 33 and 34 made up of aussies

And ETNZ won 95, 2000, 2017 made up of Kiwi's.

ETNZ won the last, and lets be real here, NZ is a part of Australia, just like tassie

Geography not a strong point for you then

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i d

Just now, sclarke said:

jokes aside though @sclarke

do you think that this new boat will be a more affordable platform than the ac50 like grant dalton promised?

How do you define "affordable"? Do you define it by the biggest budget or the smallest?

and do you think that it will be faster around a track (not top speed)

Tracks will be different. There's no way to compare, as unless you the previous boat sail the same course, it isn't comparable. The only way to compare is top speed

to be honest, I don't really care about the how many of what nationality that there is

i mean, look at the facts here

oracle won 33 and 34 made up of aussies

And ETNZ won 95, 2000, 2017 made up of Kiwi's.

ETNZ won the last, and lets be real here, NZ is a part of Australia, just like tassie

Geography not a strong point for you then

i define it by the average budget

would i be wrong in saying that the average budget for the last cup was about 100mill in either aud or NZD, they're pretty close anyway, although that's just an estimate

or maybe the minimum competitive budget, which would be around 70ish for the last cycle? you'd have a better idea than me about these numbers

taking into account the radical nature of these boats and that everyone can build 2 of them, minus no tank tests or craning the wing i'd say that they would come out a bit above.

 

no, more ways to compare than top speed

do you think they will be landing foiling tacks and jibes in the same minimum wind speeds that ETNZ was last cup?

what will the takeoff foiling wind speed look like?

will anyone get 100% fly time?

they will 100% be faster in the heavy shit with actual waves though for sure

 

Image result for glenn ashby ETNZ

not kiwi, the other two were yonks ago

 

jokes aren't a strong point for you either then

Share this post


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

Alternate facts....

 

What alternate facts ?

1) Leading design team

- Verdier: French

- Bernasconi: Brit

- Ashby: Australian

2) Others:

- Alix de Lamotte, drafting

- Eduardo Sanchez

- Alessandro Franceschetti

- and a few others I won't care finding

 

And part of the money came from Italy, your second boat was shiny italian, the choice of a mono is Italian.

What are you trying to defend,..... Europeans ?

 

Share this post


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

What alternate facts ?

1) Leading design team

- Verdier: French

- Bernasconi: Brit

- Ashby: Australian

2) Others:

- Alix de Lamotte, drafting

- Eduardo Sanchez

- Alessandro Franceschetti

- and a few others I won't care finding

 

And part of the money came from Italy, your second boat was shiny italian, the choice of a mono is Italian.

What are you trying to defend,..... Europeans ?

 

7 members of a design team of how many? lol hardly a huge number, let alone a majority, now how many Kiwi's are there? lol clutching at straws! Money came from Dubai, Italy, New Zealand, who cares where the money came from?

Share this post


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

7 members of a design team of how many?

They are more than 7, do your research. And no kiwi within the 3 key ones.

Consider that, no europeans = no win, no foreign money = no win

 

Share this post


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

They are more than 7, do your research. And no kiwi within the 3 key ones.

Consider that, no europeans = no win, no foreign money = no win

 

Consider that, no team = no win

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

They are more than 7, do your research. And no kiwi within the 3 key ones.

Consider that, no europeans = no win, no foreign money = no win

 

I'd prefer you would do the research before making misleading statements and embellishing them in the process to support your alternate facts. Remember its you making false and misleading statements. So its you who has to do the research. I gave you the research, and all you could say was "no there was more" even though you have nothing to back that up with, so you've gone from most of the ETNZ design team were Europeans to, oh no its 7, oh no its only 3, but they're the key guys! lol and again, where the money comes from is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with anything! 

Share this post


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

I'd prefer you would do the research before making misleading statements and embellishing them in the process to support your alternate facts.

100% of your top designers were not kiwis. Is that too hard for you to understand ? And a lot others were not kiwis either.

You would NOT have the cup without Europeans designers and money. As simple as that.

At least, the time I keep you here you stop your fake news on the Oracle thread, a team that is not mine though. 

And as you relentlesstly come back with no arguments, I can repeat mine. Pathetic :unsure:

Oh, BTW, for the others, I have been supporting TNZ long time, but I am really bored by some fans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS sclark. You are an argumentative bastard. It is not fake news to say the key people in the design team were not NZers. It is not fake news to say over 50% of those employed in the design team were not NZers. It is not fake news to say the skipper was not an NZer. Those are simple, provable facts. It wasn't against the rules. So why do you feel the need to fight those facts so hard. Does it wound your sense of national pride?

Even now, going into the next edition, we know that one of the key positions in the team is not going to be held by a NZer. I would also bet that we see a signifiicant chunk of the design team being non NZers like last time. It won't break the rules, but it does show that the nationality thing is just a veneer, although with ETNZ, they have traditionally been a more nationalistic team than any other. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

100% of your top designers were not kiwis. Is that too hard for you to understand ? And a lot others were not kiwis either.

You would NOT have the cup without Europeans designers and money. As simple as that.

At least, the time I keep you here you stop your fake news on the Oracle thread, a team that is not mine though. 

And as you relentlesstly come back with no arguments, I can repeat mine. Pathetic :unsure:

Oh, BTW, for the others, I have been supporting TNZ long time, but I am really bored by some fans.

It doesn't matter. Is that too hard for you to understand? 

We wouldn't have the Cyclors without Elise Beavis, she's a Kiwi, and one of two critical design team members retained after Bermuda. She's a Kiwi, so again, 100% is wrong. By the way, again, who cares where the money comes from? its irrelevant. So your point is meaningless. 

Also, ETNZ were the better team, as stated by Jimmy Spithill many times, so my "Fake News" in the oracle thread is just that, REAL news. I guess you're a Trump supporter, because you could tell that guy the Earth is round and he'd say its fake news.

Share this post


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

FFS sclark. You are an argumentative bastard. It is not fake news to say the key people in the design team were not NZers. It is not fake news to say over 50% of those employed in the design team were not NZers. It is not fake news to say the skipper was not an NZer. Those are simple, provable facts. It wasn't against the rules. So why do you feel the need to fight those facts so hard. Does it wound your sense of national pride?

Even now, going into the next edition, we know that one of the key positions in the team is not going to be held by a NZer. I would also bet that we see a signifiicant chunk of the design team being non NZers like last time. It won't break the rules, but it does show that the nationality thing is just a veneer, although with ETNZ, they have traditionally been a more nationalistic team than any other. 

"It is not fake news to say the key people in the design team were not NZers" Yes it is Fake news. Because its factually incorrect (Fake) Because some of the key people were Kiwis. Its not hard to get facts right you know.

It is not fake news to say over 50% of those employed in the design team were not NZers - Yes it is, because again, its factually incorrect (Fake). Because unless you're prepared to back up that statement with facts (and not alternate ones) it will always be...factually incorrect.

"Even now, going into the next edition, we know that one of the key positions in the team is not going to be held by a NZer" And we knew that the whole time, but you know the team has more than one guy right? 

Significant chunk being..what? 7? 3? or just one key guy?

" but it does show that the nationality thing is just a veneer" Explain... 

Look, its easy, until you guys start backing up your claims with proof, I'm gonna keep calling you out on your Fake News posts until you get your facts straight. If you need to do research before making a bold statement, Google is your friend. Its not hard to do. But Alternate Facts aren't facts.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

1) It doesn't matter. Is that too hard for you to understand? 

2) We wouldn't have the Cyclors without Elise Beavis, she's a Kiwi, and one of two critical design team members retained after Bermuda. She's a Kiwi, so again, 100% is wrong. By the way, again, who cares where the money comes from? its irrelevant. So your point is meaningless. 

3) my "Fake News" in the oracle thread is just that, REAL news. I guess you're a Trump supporter, because you could tell that guy the Earth is round and he'd say its fake news.

Ah ah, so

1) It used to matter for you, but when proven wrong, it does not matter.

2) Cyclors were not invented by the kiwis, I think the first one was Cammas on a trimaran, years ago. Wrong again.

3) Fake news: you clog the Oracle thread with allegations that they won because they cheated,  but you DO NOT HAVE ONE PROOF of it. And you still go on, and on, and on.

A question, when proven multiple times wrong, why do you come back ?

Share this post


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

Ah ah, so

1) It used to matter for you, but when proven wrong, it does not matter.

Wrong again. Where the money comes from has NEVER been a problem. Who gets it IS a problem. One that Grant Dalton is rectifying this time.

2) Cyclors were not invented by the kiwis, I think the first one was Cammas on a trimaran, years ago. Wrong again.

Actually it was the Swedes on Sveridge in 77. So its you who is wrong again.

3) Fake news: you clog the Oracle thread with allegations that they won because they cheated,  but you DO NOT HAVE ONE PROOF of it. And you still go on, and on, and on.

Nope. Wrong again. What I've said is, I THINK they cheated. Thats my opinion,Why? simple. Because they cheated once, then got caught breaking another rule afterward. That's twice they've transgressed the rules. That's a culture of cheating and rule breaking. Once a cheat, always a cheat.

A question, when proven multiple times wrong, why do you come back ?

Why do I come back? Because I enjoy the AC, and I support ETNZ.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, sclarke, in order to prove you right you now back pedal on all what you said before, you make a pretty good cyclist. :blink:

- you agree that you only "think" that Oracle won because of cheating

- you agree that kiwis did not invent the bicycle, you should thank the europeans swedes !

- you agree that the top TNZ designers were not kiwis.

And know you will come back saying that you never said the contrary.

Soon you come to tell us you always agreed with surfsailor. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Sclarke and I kissed and made up in the OR thread - turns out we can all agree on the awesomeness of pigs!

:)

Share this post


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

So, sclarke, in order to prove you right you now back pedal on all what you said before, you make a pretty good cyclist. :blink:

Do you only have trouble reading? Or do you have trouble comprehending as well? I haven't backpedalled on anything. NOTHING. I have always, ALWAYS, said it is my opinion that they cheated. I also said others have provided evidence, its just up to you whether you believe that evidence or not.

- you agree that you only "think" that Oracle won because of cheating.

Yes, I do, as I've always said

- you agree that kiwis did not invent the bicycle, you should thank the europeans swedes !

Its funny how you guys expand everything when you get proved wrong. You had a problem with the ETNZ design team being more than 50% Euro. Then when it wasn't, you had  a problem with one guy (Bernasconi) and where the money came from which has nothing to do with anything!

First you talk Cyclors(used to trim sails and assist in general sailing functions in 77, and to pump oil in 2017) then Bicycles (used to get from one point to another on a road), two vastly different things. Just making things up to suit yourself are you?

- you agree that the top TNZ designers were not kiwis.

 I agree one of the two critical Design members was a Brit (Bernasconi), the other was Kiwi (Elise Beavis), but that's a far cry from the over 50% you and your mates originally claimed.

And know you will come back saying that you never said the contrary.

I'm sure you will say silly things because you either haven't read the thread properly, or haven't understood what you've read. Either way, pretty amateur.

Soon you come to tell us you always agreed with surfsailor. :lol:

I will agree with anything that is factually correct. Not made up B.S.

 

Share this post


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

I agree one of the two critical Design members was a Brit (Bernasconi), the other was Kiwi (Elise Beavis)

And GV did not exist I guess. You are not able to have ONE post right. How long do you want to make fun of yourself ?

Share this post


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

^ Sclarke and I kissed and made up in the OR thread - turns out we can all agree on the awesomeness of pigs!

:)

You kissed and made up or went double adapter with the pig as the "interface"?

Share this post


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

And GV did not exist I guess. You are not able to have ONE post right. How long do you want to make fun of yourself ?

Okay, so who else is part of that design team. No one disputes there is foreigners in the design team, just the statement that "The majority of the ETNZ design team is European/ not Kiwi. Its just plain wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/03/2018 at 12:35 PM, Tornado-Cat said:

100% of your top designers were not kiwis. Is that too hard for you to understand ? And a lot others were not kiwis either.

You would NOT have the cup without Europeans designers and money. As simple as that.

At least, the time I keep you here you stop your fake news on the Oracle thread, a team that is not mine though. 

And as you relentlesstly come back with no arguments, I can repeat mine. Pathetic :unsure:

Oh, BTW, for the others, I have been supporting TNZ long time, but I am really bored by some fans.

You might find this hard to swallow, but Bernasconi's as good as Kiwi now.. of course he's a British expat, like many others, but he has lived here for almost 10 years probably a quarter of his life now and has been at ETNZ that entire time... he has recently received the highest national design honour by the Designers Institute Of New Zealand...he's bought into the culture of innovation in this little pocket of the world and - hell he probably got that appreciation from his time at McClaren - another Kiwi engineering genius... 

https://designersinstitute.nz/initiatives/black-pin/2017/dan-bernasconi/interview/

Named after the late great kiwi and another genius John Britten! Worth a watch too.

There's also a full (and frankly as riveting as it is heartbreaking documentary on YouTube as well) - John died of cancer at his peak, at just 45.

 

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