• 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.  
Redsail

Bye bye Artemis Racing

Recommended Posts

...since all crew members have to fulfill this requirement: "Resident of the Country: The sailor must be physically present in the country of the
yacht club for a minimum of 380 days in the 2 year period between the 1st September
2018 and 31st August 2020. Which equates to just over 6 months of each year."

That pretty much forces the team to have their home base in their own country. I don't know how many on this forum has been in Sweden mid-winter, but let me tell you that there will be no AC75:s sailing here between november-february. Unless the class rule includes ice-breaking bows, that is. 

And sure, they COULD in theory move their whole operations back and forth between Sweden and warmer countries, but that is just not a viable option.

A stupid way to formulate a nationality rule. Ruins it for us scandinavians, and still does not even require more than 20% acutal passport holders. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it so bleak? Thought the residency requirement was a condition for non-citizens? So if you're a citizen you can be a core group that never leaves the sailing base, while the hired gun has to take a vacation in Sweden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis is gone for other reasons. They were only interested if it was in foiling cats. In addition, Redsail is correct that the way the residency requirements are phased, if you are in a cold winter environment with no winter sailing and need non-citizens to qualify by residency, you are stuffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember in previous cups (90's/2000's) that time spent in the defenders country working for your syndicate also counted towards the nationality requirements. Crew working in NZ for Artemis during northern winters under that rule would still tick off their 380 days?

Not sure is this is included this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they can simply do what they used to do when the yanks held the cup pre Australia II, buy citizenship. 

For goodness sake, most countries will fast track citizenship pretty quick smart for a fistful of dollars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you front load your residency, send hirer guns to do what ever ACWS racing will be mandated and then go to NZ for as close to a full year as possible before the AC?

Or would you beef up the team in power positions and stagger their residency across the days of the Prada/AC regattas??

Sounds like there are expensive ways round this rule on the face of it.

...

Or will the same rules apply to the ACWS events? In which case teams better get their skates on hiring people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, richiec said:

Is it really that shit in Malmo, year round? Toughen up Viking. 

 

Oh WE are tough. It's Outerridge, Percy, Jensen and those other non-icemen that i'm worried about ;) 

Share this post


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

Is it so bleak? Thought the residency requirement was a condition for non-citizens? So if you're a citizen you can be a core group that never leaves the sailing base, while the hired gun has to take a vacation in Sweden. 

That is true, but isn't really a viable way to become a competitive team if you are supposed to compete with Prada, ETNZ and other teams from warmer places. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With much respect to the Scandiwegians , why not get great sailors who are locals?

If you have not developed great local sailors recently, why expect to have your nation represented by Australians?

You've had awesome sailors. If you want them, develop them rather than buy them.

 

Share this post


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

It's as much about day light hours as warmth.

True, usually not a lot of ice on the Swedish west coast, but short days. Definitely two bases needed. Not impossible though, if well planned.

I don't think it is a bad rule though. If your team consists mainly of foreigner sailors and your base is in an another country, then it's really hard to mobilize your fans.     

Share this post


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

Is it really that shit in Malmo, year round? Toughen up Viking. 

 

It's that shit in the whole cuntry the whole year round...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizens/pa$$port holders from the 'challenging nation' can live/work anywhere - no restrictions.

Any others only have to be 'resident' in that nation for 380 days out of 730 days

Is that really so hard to manage.

 

Alternatively  the billionaire could simply choose to challenge from a YC in a warm country full of decent sailors!?

Share this post


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

Citizens/pa$$port holders from the 'challenging nation' can live/work anywhere - no restrictions.

Any others only have to be 'resident' in that nation for 380 days out of 730 days

Is that really so hard to manage.

 

Wrong question. The correct question is: what actual purpose does "residency" serve? It certainly isn't about "friendly competition between nations". 380 days residency has fuck all relationship to nationality in either a formal or informal sense.

Share this post


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

Wrong question. The correct question is: what actual purpose does "residency" serve? It certainly isn't about "friendly competition between nations". 380 days residency has fuck all relationship to nationality in either a formal or informal sense.

 

Makes it really hard for ppl with money but no infrastructure to buy talent without actual commitment to sail on the boat. The teams that'll be hurt by this the most? Middle Eastern/Chinese money.

Share this post


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

 

Makes it really hard for ppl with money but no infrastructure to buy talent without actual commitment to sail on the boat. The teams that'll be hurt by this the most? Middle Eastern/Chinese money.

Also teams that don't have year-round appropriate waters for practice. See: Alinghi and Artemis. And I suppose any team that may have been thinking of challenging from Canada, Russia, Germany, etc. 

Share this post


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

Wrong question. The correct question is: what actual purpose does "residency" serve? It certainly isn't about "friendly competition between nations". 380 days residency has fuck all relationship to nationality in either a formal or informal sense.

It forces the teams to make  a decision. If you represent that country, you actually have to spend some time there, ie reside there for a period of time. Other wise we end up with another debacle like last time where you have a team representing a nation, but having next to nationals on the sailing team, and sailors being traded off to the highest bidder. What ETNZ is doing is closer to a "friendly competition between nations" than what Oracle did last time.

Share this post


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

Also teams that don't have year-round appropriate waters for practice. See: Alinghi and Artemis. And I suppose any team that may have been thinking of challenging from Canada, Russia, Germany, etc. 

Why challenge from those countries if there is no talent or decent weather there to use?

'cause...

Shitty weather, good sailors, :)

Good weather, good sailors :D

Shit weather, shit sailors :o

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, sclarke said:

It forces the teams to make  a decision. If you represent that country, you actually have to spend some time there, ie reside there for a period of time. Other wise we end up with another debacle like last time where you have a team representing a nation, but having next to nationals on the sailing team, and sailors being traded off to the highest bidder. What ETNZ is doing is closer to a "friendly competition between nations" than what Oracle did last time.

exacterly.....

Share this post


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

Also teams that don't have year-round appropriate waters for practice. See: Alinghi and Artemis. And I suppose any team that may have been thinking of challenging from Canada, Russia, Germany, etc. 

 

While I like the idea of sailing expanding into non-nautical countries, the idea that a Russian or Saudi billionaire can just buy a team and become competitive overnight without any local talent development is rather silly. 

Artemis and Alinghi has plenty of opportunities to put together a competitive team. 20% rule is very low bar, and there's plenty of time to localize foreign talent. The idea that Sweden doesn't have sufficient sailing weather is absurd. I'd be more sympathetic if someone made a case that you can't launch the boat and sail it in homewaters given theschedule . 

Share this post


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

What ETNZ is doing is closer to a "friendly competition between nations" than what Oracle did last time.

Unless you believe that the friendly competition between nations is a build and design competition, which is what the 'Constructed in the country of'  Deed clause makes clear to any reasonable reading of it.

Oracle's design team was majority-USA this time, even if almost none of the construction was.

Share this post


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

It forces the teams to make  a decision. If you represent that country, you actually have to spend some time there, ie reside there for a period of time. Other wise we end up with another debacle like last time where you have a team representing a nation, but having next to nationals on the sailing team, and sailors being traded off to the highest bidder.

A nationality rule does that. A residency rule does nothing except fuck over Artemis. Who, I am aware, may be out anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis Racing has a 2nd RC44 team filled with Swedes.  If they don't enter it won't be because of the bull shit nationality rule.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem in Sweden is not the 20% nationality, but the rule that the bomb nationals need to spend 380 days during 2 years in Sweden. Sailing in Sweden in January is not very good (unless you count ice sailing).

Share this post


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

A nationality rule does that. A residency rule does nothing except fuck over Artemis. Who, I am aware, may be out anyway.

Wait, so PB withdrew and everyone hated him! "threw his toys out the cot" and "PB the crybaby" now  Tornquist does it and its poor Artemis. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Share this post


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

Wait, so PB withdrew and everyone hated him! "threw his toys out the cot" and "PB the crybaby" now  Tornquist does it and its poor Artemis. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Agreed. PB got screwed over by a change MID CYCLE. Artemis is leaving because the new cup holders have changed boats at the BEGINNING of the cycle.

Artemis was my fave non ETNZ team, but they need to pour themselves a cup of hot concrete and harden the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a billionaire, you have options that other people don't have, like buying or founding a nation and then decide for yourself who gets a passport

Share this post


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

Agreed. PB got screwed over by a change MID CYCLE. Artemis is leaving because the new cup holders have changed boats at the BEGINNING of the cycle.

Artemis was my fave non ETNZ team, but they need to pour themselves a cup of hot concrete and harden the fuck up.

The only thing about that change that 'screwed PB over' is that the increase in the number of participating teams reduced his odds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, the NZ fanboys defend anything their team does and turns on others without any thought about what is going on. The nationality rule is grossly unfair and prejudices some countries compared with others. If it was fair and even for all, I would support it.

The first problem is that it depends on the citizenship requirements of each country and some are very different from others. For instance, Qatar has a history of giving sports people who represent them a passport instantly. They could recruit a team from all over the world and instantly have 100% citizenship. By contrast, Abu Dhabi requires you to have lived there for 30 years. I know they are unlikely to enter, but it is for illustrative purposes. Qatar challenge anybody?

Then there is the issue of climate/location. A country that is located in an area where you can sail all year round needs only 20% nationals and can train all year around from the same base while the rest get their citizenship. Some countries cannot sail all year round, they would need 2 bases in order that the non nationals could reside in the country for the required time in summer but still train as much as those who are in warmer climates. 2 bases like that is a very significant cost implication. It also makes it harder to attract some sailors because they wouldn't want to move family around that much.

This isn't about development of home talent as some are trying to suggest. ETNZ have had overseas sailors in their team for a number of editions. Some would say that their MVP last time around was an Australian.

I am not saying there shouldn't be a nationality rule but IMO, it was either poorly thought through in terms of making it fair to all, or there was a deliberate attempt to hurt some teams. I hope it was the former.

 

Share this post


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

The only thing about that change that 'screwed PB over' is that the increase in the number of participating teams reduced his odds. 

Doesn't look like Torbjorn has much faith in his Artemis team then does it?

Share this post


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

Doesn't look like Torbjorn has much faith in his Artemis team then does it?

You are so full of shit it is almost unbelievable. Torbjorn knows when the odds are stacked against him. He built a team that worked the way that interested him. they bonded over adversity and that is what kept them together and strong. Now he can't have that team. Contrary to what you might thank, nobody is forced compete, or do another campaign. If he doesn't like it, why should he go again? It's nothing about having faith. It is about loyalty and enjoying it. Did you consider that he might not want to get rid of his friends and do it again with people he doesn't yet know in a boat that doesn't hold as much interest to him?

Share this post


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

As usual, the NZ fanboys defend anything their team does and turns on others without any thought about what is going on. The nationality rule is grossly unfair and prejudices some countries compared with others. If it was fair and even for all, I would support it.

 

20% is more than fair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d2ba said:

20% is more than fair

No it is not because it is not 20% and the rest free. Read the rules

Quote

10.1 All crew racing in the CSS and the Match shall have the nationality of the country of the yacht club that the competing yacht club represents.

 20% must be nationals and there are significant restrictions on the other 80% to make them "qualify" as nationals. You still miss the real issue, that it effects teams differently depending on their country's citizenship laws and climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TT can do whatever the hell he wants but I suspect that he is cognizant of all the endlessly unfriendly crap GD directed at his team over the past two cycles. Why would he support GD's event now?

He probably hasn't even heard about this Prot yet, let alone given it a passing think.

Share this post


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

TT can do whatever the hell he wants but I suspect that he is cognizant of all the endlessly unfriendly crap GD directed at his team over the past two cycles. Why would he support GD's event now?

He probably hasn't even heard about this Prot yet, let alone given it a passing think.

Again, talking shit. He knew what was going to be announced before the announcement because Percy, like other team leaders, had been speaking to Dalton and had been given a heads up about the key features. TT knew what was coming and had already made his decision. The advanced warning of the key details is how BAR managed to but out the press release they did when it is clear they hadn't had enough time to fully digest what was said.

Share this post


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

No it is not because it is not 20% and the rest free. Read the rules

 20% must be nationals and there are significant restrictions on the other 80% to make them "qualify" as nationals. You still miss the real issue, that it effects teams differently depending on their country's citizenship laws and climate.

But the advantage now is the Amercias Cup is a *challenge between nations* and not much *a guns for hire* ---thats really compelling going back to its roots. Almost like a football team. Bigger potential audience --everyone wins.

Share this post


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

TT can do whatever the hell he wants but I suspect that he is cognizant of all the endlessly unfriendly crap GD directed at his team over the past two cycles. Why would he support GD's event now?

He probably hasn't even heard about this Prot yet, let alone given it a passing think.

Haha when ETNZ or Prada do it, they're seen as "throwing their toys out of the cot" there was even words like "Poison" and "Evil" being thrown around, now since its another team except ETNZ or Prada doing it, the tune has changed to "they can do what ever they want" haha its just funny when the shoe is on the other foot to watch people change their tune.

Share this post


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

Again, talking shit. He knew what was going to be announced before the announcement because Percy, like other team leaders, had been speaking to Dalton and had been given a heads up about the key features. TT knew what was coming and had already made his decision. The advanced warning of the key details is how BAR managed to but out the press release they did when it is clear they hadn't had enough time to fully digest what was said.

Funny, just a few days ago Jimmy Spithill said he "had to wait and see where the goal posts were before making any decisions" now you say TT already knew what the announcement was before it was made and had made a decision. I call B.S. He heard, like everyone else it was going to be raced in mono's and pulled out for that reason. Just as the Tom Ehman interview from a few days ago stated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d2ba said:

But the advantage now the Amercias Cup is a now a real  challenge between nations ---thats really compelling --i would have expected > 20% to be more in line with a football team.

It isn't 20%. It is the whole sailing team. With a football team, there are no regulations that stipulate how long a non national player needs to spend in the country. You can live in one country and play for a team in another, which does actually happen. 

But again, you miss the point. Lets' agree for now that nationality is a worthwhile rule. Surely the impact of it needs to be consistent across teams and countries. That is the problem with the rule. It adversely effects some teams and doesn't impact others.  

Share this post


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

Doesn't look like Torbjorn has much faith in his Artemis team then does it?

+1 Agree. Looks like he's now realised that his team isn't up to the Challenge. Too bad.

Share this post


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

Funny, just a few days ago Jimmy Spithill said he "had to wait and see where the goal posts were before making any decisions" now you say TT already knew what the announcement was before it was made and had made a decision. I call B.S. He heard, like everyone else it was going to be raced in mono's and pulled out for that reason. Just as the Tom Ehman interview from a few days ago stated. 

I could easily believe that Dalton didn't speak to JS but I know for a fact that he had detailed conversations with both Ainslie and Percy. They both knew the monohull change and nationality rule well ahead of the announcement. 

Share this post


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

I could easily believe that Dalton didn't speak to JS but I know for a fact that he had detailed conversations with both Ainslie and Percy. They both knew the monohull change and nationality rule well ahead of the announcement. 

We all knew the monohull change well ahead of the announcement!

Share this post


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

It isn't 20%. It is the whole sailing team. With a football team, there are no regulations that stipulate how long a non national player needs to spend in the country. You can live in one country and play for a team in another, which does actually happen. 

But again, you miss the point. Lets' agree for now that nationality is a worthwhile rule. Surely the impact of it needs to be consistent across teams and countries. That is the problem with the rule. It adversely effects some teams and doesn't impact others.  

Explain... if you can.

Share this post


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

We all knew the monohull change well ahead of the announcement!

The Nationality change was well signalled in advance too.

Share this post


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

Explain...

How many times do myself and others need to do that? Try reading what other people post. I know that might mean keep tabs on more than one thread at a time, but surely you can do that!

4 minutes ago, sclarke said:

We all knew the monohull change well ahead of the announcement!

 

1 minute ago, Sailbydate said:

The Nationality change was well signalled in advance too.

@ sclarke - Who do you think it was "leaked" to? A group of randoms or team leaders? Both were so well signalled it is inconceivable that Dalton had not said it to those people. He was certainly speaking to them. Maybe it was just to see if they wanted to go for a motorbike ride with him:wacko:

Share this post


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

How many times do myself and others need to do that? Try reading what other people post. I know that might mean keep tabs on more than one thread at a time, but surely you can do that!

 

@ sclarke - Who do you think it was "leaked" to? A group of randoms or team leaders? Both were so well signalled it is inconceivable that Dalton had not said it to those people. He was certainly speaking to them. Maybe it was just to see if they wanted to go for a motorbike ride with him:wacko:

Haha oh so now you've realised you can't back up your claim that its unfair and you want everyone else to back you up on it! haha laugh out loud! Admit it, you're just making shit up to back up your absolutely baseless argument. Now the protocol was "leaked". Do you know for a fact that it was "Leaked" or is that yet another baseless claim?

Share this post


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

It isn't 20%. It is the whole sailing team. With a football team, there are no regulations that stipulate how long a non national player needs to spend in the country. You can live in one country and play for a team in another, which does actually happen. 

But again, you miss the point. Lets' agree for now that nationality is a worthwhile rule. Surely the impact of it needs to be consistent across teams and countries. That is the problem with the rule. It adversely effects some teams and doesn't impact others.  

You have a point --i think you are right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look the residence requirements are not that harsh. If your determined to challenge it wouldn't be a problem. If your a syndicate and you find the nationality rule too hard then your unlikely to win. 

Share this post


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

For a Team like Artemis Racing it is hard.

Bollocks ........If you cant manage 380 out of 2 years..you don't have much ticker. In many ways the the 20% passport holders is generous 

Why would you want to cheer for a team that's not full of your own country men ????

Share this post


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

+1 Agree. Looks like he's now realised that his team isn't up to the Challenge. Too bad.

And it is a circle. If you don't develop local talent and give them a chance to compete, they'll never make it. Sounds like the critics of the nationality rule basically think the purse should be able to front any team they want - which is still true, a Swedish rich person can certainly setup shop in US, New Zealand, Australia, GB, France, Spain, Portugal. A lot of places where you can find the talent and industrial base to laminate a hull. 

Share this post


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

Again, talking shit. He knew what was going to be announced before the announcement because Percy, like other team leaders, had been speaking to Dalton and had been given a heads up about the key features. TT knew what was coming and had already made his decision. The advanced warning of the key details is how BAR managed to but out the press release they did when it is clear they hadn't had enough time to fully digest what was said.

My point remains.

TT like other $B's simply don't respond within minutes of even days, for deep thinks around the relative minutiae of sailing events.

Including around unfriendly invitations, which to him this one from GD will certainly be.

Share this post


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

My point remains.

TT like other $B's simply don't respond to minutes of even days, for deep thinks around the relative minutiae of sailing events. Including unfriendly invitations, which to him this one will certainly be.

Question: Why was it "Not ok" for LR to withdraw following the class change, but it "is ok" for Torbjorn Tornquist to withdraw for the same reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty clear that some of you have no interest in trying to understand the rules and are taking the attitude that if it is written by TNZ, it must be fair. Great. I do hope that Qatar launch a challenge with their 100% nationals all of who are given a passport on the day they sign with the team (perfectly legal both under the protocol and under Qatar law)

Let's look at another example and compare, say, a Spanish team with a Swedish team. The Spanish team can have 20% nationals, 80% need to establish nationality under the protocol and have a base in Spain and sail all the year around while their people qualify as nationals. The Swedish team cannot set u a base in Sweden that can be used all year around. if they have 20% nationals and 80% needing to qualify, the only way they can do that is to have 2 bases, one in Sweden for summer sailing and residency requirements and a winter training base somewhere warm. That adds significant expense and also makes the team less attractive to some sailors, because they would not choose to move family every 6 months.

So some teams are significantly harder hot by the rule than others. Make any excuse you like, that is a fact.

Then there is the situation where it is possible to be born in a country and live your whole life there and still not have a passport for that country or in some cases, not be eligible to become a citizen, just because of a quirk in the laws of that country.

The farce of it is that living 360 days in 2 years in a country doesn't suddenly make an Australian a Swede. Nathan Outteridge would still be seen as an Australian and I bet all commentators would still refer to him as an Australian, because his passport won't change. Rather than the farce of the residency requirements.

What would have been fair was a higher nationality rule, determined as either existing long term residency or passport holding by a certain date predating the protocol to stop flags of convenience, coupled with a certain number of non nationals. The 20% is a farce because the reality is even with the residency requirements, the teams can have only 20% of people who are identifiable as nationals. Surely having people who are identifiable as nationals is the whole point. If it had been, say, 50% nationals and the rest can be from anywhere, the crew would have been far closer to being a national team. As it is, it could still be 80% hired guns.

Share this post


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

Question: Why was it "Not ok" for LR to withdraw following the class change, but it "is ok" for Torbjorn Tornquist to withdraw for the same reason?

Ask TT not me but my guess is that GD has simply made too many enemies, his entire history is one of pointed 'me against the world' acrimony.

With GD's love-affair P$B as a cohort and as his title commercial sponsor now, how fairly can anyone reasonably expect this whole thing to go down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so let's just say you're Canadian ... 
The protocol puts you for practical purposes in Halifax (sorta kinda), Vancouver (bathtub), or Victoria (best); but the money puts you in the 416 (RCYC? and frozen for 6 months) or maybe Vancouver (RVYC home of the blue collar kings and their stinky stinky stink pots).
It complicates the hell out of it. 
Ain't no red surge in this go-round.


 

Share this post


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

Its pretty clear that some of you have no interest in trying to understand the rules and are taking the attitude that if it is written by TNZ, it must be fair. Great. I do hope that Qatar launch a challenge with their 100% nationals all of who are given a passport on the day they sign with the team (perfectly legal both under the protocol and under Qatar law)

Let's look at another example and compare, say, a Spanish team with a Swedish team. The Spanish team can have 20% nationals, 80% need to establish nationality under the protocol and have a base in Spain and sail all the year around while their people qualify as nationals. The Swedish team cannot set u a base in Sweden that can be used all year around. if they have 20% nationals and 80% needing to qualify, the only way they can do that is to have 2 bases, one in Sweden for summer sailing and residency requirements and a winter training base somewhere warm. That adds significant expense and also makes the team less attractive to some sailors, because they would not choose to move family every 6 months.

So some teams are significantly harder hot by the rule than others. Make any excuse you like, that is a fact.

Then there is the situation where it is possible to be born in a country and live your whole life there and still not have a passport for that country or in some cases, not be eligible to become a citizen, just because of a quirk in the laws of that country.

The farce of it is that living 360 days in 2 years in a country doesn't suddenly make an Australian a Swede. Nathan Outteridge would still be seen as an Australian and I bet all commentators would still refer to him as an Australian, because his passport won't change. Rather than the farce of the residency requirements.

What would have been fair was a higher nationality rule, determined as either existing long term residency or passport holding by a certain date predating the protocol to stop flags of convenience, coupled with a certain number of non nationals. The 20% is a farce because the reality is even with the residency requirements, the teams can have only 20% of people who are identifiable as nationals. Surely having people who are identifiable as nationals is the whole point. If it had been, say, 50% nationals and the rest can be from anywhere, the crew would have been far closer to being a national team. As it is, it could still be 80% hired guns.

I am giving a bit of leeway on this since these nationality rules may have the effect GD spoke of, which is to give bigger consideration to national sailors on balance.

Share this post


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

Question: Why was it "Not ok" for LR to withdraw following the class change, but it "is ok" for Torbjorn Tornquist to withdraw for the same reason?

Does it matter if you are given the answer? It has been asked and answered at least 3 times, but you don't want to listen. For one last time....

To start with, LR withdrew on a point of principal. the change in the length of the cat made little real difference and as we saw with ETNZ, the LR technology still worked on the 50's. Bertelli threw his toys out of the pram as he has been seen to do before. The reality is that the change did not prejudice anybody. 

The big difference is that this is not a class change. It is a change in the whole type of boat. Last tie around, they simply altered the length of the boat. It was still a foiling cat. If the next cup had been in 75 foot foiling cats, Artemis would probably still be in. Does anybody deny that choosing a monohull fundamentally changes the whole nature of the type of racing we will see.

If yo really think there is any similarity between LR withdrawing over a change in boat length and teams not interested in a completely different type of boat, you really have lost touch with reality. 

Share this post


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

Ask TT not me but my guess is that GD has simply made too many enemies, his entire history is one of pointed 'me against the world' acrimony.

With GD's love-affair P$B as a cohort and as his title commercial sponsor now, how fairly can anyone reasonably expect this whole thing to go down?

I'm asking you because you were one of the main detractors of the decision of Luna Rossa to withdraw from the AC. At every opportunity you were taking potshots at PB and Max Sirena saying Max is toxic to an Americas Cup campaign (even though he's been part of 2 cup winning teams, and is now skipper of the CoR) and, now its fine to withdraw because "GD has made too many enemies" two very contradictory statements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sclarke is among those who are now blindly barking everything ETNZ-Protocol.

The truth is, there's some good and some bad in it, depending your position as a promoter, sailor, fan, politician, or just a simple fool. 

 

Share this post


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

I'm asking you because you were one of the main detractors of the decision of Luna Rossa to withdraw from the AC. At every opportunity you were taking potshots at PB and Max Sirena saying Max is toxic to an Americas Cup campaign (even though he's been part of 2 cup winning teams, and is now skipper of the CoR) and, now its fine to withdraw because "GD has made too many enemies" two very contradictory statements. 

Max S, like GD, was a big pain in the ass protagonist, sharply critical of all perceived 'enemies' for the past two cycles. Conspiracies? Bought into it all, hook line and sinker and with relish on top.

I don't think this advertised, cozy love-affair relationship between NZ and Italy, GD vs P$B, will end well either once it gets adversarial but time will tell for how long you and others hold Max and P$B in such high esteem.. These guys are all very conspiratorial.

 

Share this post


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

Does it matter if you are given the answer? It has been asked and answered at least 3 times, but you don't want to listen. For one last time....

To start with, LR withdrew on a point of principal. the change in the length of the cat made little real difference and as we saw with ETNZ, the LR technology still worked on the 50's. Bertelli threw his toys out of the pram as he has been seen to do before. The reality is that the change did not prejudice anybody. 

The big difference is that this is not a class change. It is a change in the whole type of boat. Last tie around, they simply altered the length of the boat. It was still a foiling cat. If the next cup had been in 75 foot foiling cats, Artemis would probably still be in. Does anybody deny that choosing a monohull fundamentally changes the whole nature of the type of racing we will see.

If yo really think there is any similarity between LR withdrawing over a change in boat length and teams not interested in a completely different type of boat, you really have lost touch with reality. 

Either way, Its still a point of principle. Whether it be a case of a change of class, a change of size, or a change of colour, or what ever it may be, it is still, at the end of the day, a point of principle. Artemis wanted the foiling cats to remain, and ETNZ decided against it, therefor Artemis will not be part of it. Last time Luna Rossa wanted the 62 footers to remain, Oracle decided against it, therefor Luna Rossa withdrew. They are both points of principle. One was Patrizio Bertelli's, and the other is Torbjorn Tornquists.

Share this post


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

The only thing about that change that 'screwed PB over' is that the increase in the number of participating teams reduced his odds. 

Dude! Take the eye patch off.

Who did it add? GTF that were so far off the pace that it was just ridiculous and Oracle's mini me. Quite frankly any challenger that couldn't beat them would have stood ZERO chance against Orifice.

It doesn't matter how many extra competitors jump on board. If they are all fucking hopeless then it has absolutely no impact on your ability to win.

If you can't see that then you don't have an eye patch on, you have a full sleeping mask.

Share this post


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

Its pretty clear that some of you have no interest in trying to understand the rules and are taking the attitude that if it is written by TNZ, it must be fair. Great. I do hope that Qatar launch a challenge with their 100% nationals all of who are given a passport on the day they sign with the team (perfectly legal both under the protocol and under Qatar law)

Let's look at another example and compare, say, a Spanish team with a Swedish team. The Spanish team can have 20% nationals, 80% need to establish nationality under the protocol and have a base in Spain and sail all the year around while their people qualify as nationals. The Swedish team cannot set u a base in Sweden that can be used all year around. if they have 20% nationals and 80% needing to qualify, the only way they can do that is to have 2 bases, one in Sweden for summer sailing and residency requirements and a winter training base somewhere warm. That adds significant expense and also makes the team less attractive to some sailors, because they would not choose to move family every 6 months.

So some teams are significantly harder hot by the rule than others. Make any excuse you like, that is a fact.

Then there is the situation where it is possible to be born in a country and live your whole life there and still not have a passport for that country or in some cases, not be eligible to become a citizen, just because of a quirk in the laws of that country.

The farce of it is that living 360 days in 2 years in a country doesn't suddenly make an Australian a Swede. Nathan Outteridge would still be seen as an Australian and I bet all commentators would still refer to him as an Australian, because his passport won't change. Rather than the farce of the residency requirements.

What would have been fair was a higher nationality rule, determined as either existing long term residency or passport holding by a certain date predating the protocol to stop flags of convenience, coupled with a certain number of non nationals. The 20% is a farce because the reality is even with the residency requirements, the teams can have only 20% of people who are identifiable as nationals. Surely having people who are identifiable as nationals is the whole point. If it had been, say, 50% nationals and the rest can be from anywhere, the crew would have been far closer to being a national team. As it is, it could still be 80% hired guns.

Its simple really. The aim of the Nationality rule, was to basically kill two birds with one stone. There is a need to have "homegrown talent" at the forefront, but as well as this, with a residency restriction, it forces teams to base their campaigns out of the country of which they challenge. If 80% of your team need to prove residency, it makes more sense to base your campaign out of the challenging nation, at least for that 380 days anyway to as you say, not lump team members with extra expense of having to move families around. 

Last time we saw teams challenging out of Sweden and Japan, made up of foreign sailors, who had based themselves out of San Francisco and Bermuda. This gives fans of their team little opportunity to get to know their team, or relate to the campaign in any way. All they see is puff videos from 1000's of miles away, from a team of highly paid foreigners. At least with an 80% residency, the campaign is forced to run out of where its competitors are based, which will be most likely, the country of origin, rather than having a half a team of nationals basing their campaign in a country which is thousands of miles away.

Having a home base in your country in which to run a campaign out of, much like BAR in Portsmouth, and ETNZ in Auckland, is far more conducive to a national sporting atmosphere than basing a campaign thousands of miles away in which fans never get to experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sailor-nationality rules are all about PR commercialism and also have the effect, as GD noted with glee, of knocking down sailor opportunities and therefore salaries. 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the competition described by the DoG, despite the propaganda and 'Return to Tradition' bs being bandied about. Follow the money..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that Artemis are being unfairly treated by the nationality rule .. They have had two AC challenges and have developed a team they can stay in their base at Bermuda and bring 100% sailors with Swedish passports and operate like they have in the past.

If finding sailors with Swedish passports is a problem they are in the wrong game.

Share this post


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

I don't see that Artemis are being unfairly treated by the nationality rule .. They have had two AC challenges and have developed a team they can stay in their base at Bermuda and bring 100% sailors with Swedish passports and operate like they have in the past.

If finding sailors with Swedish passports is a problem they are in the wrong game.

You do talk some shit at times.

Does anybody agree with the principal that each team should be treated the same and have equal opportunity. I sure hope so, because that seem to be part of the noise we have heard non stop from NZ since they last lost the cup. It seems that the nationality rule prevents that equality. Yiur post highlights that inequality, because Artemis would have to use an option that puts them at a disadvantage when other teams do have to. 

I am not arguing against a nationality clause. Read carefully. I suggested it was stronger, but I want it to be fair.

6 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

Dalton says a race between countries therefore the sponsors must be based in your country

There is a certain irony in the winning boat having the name of another country all over its' wing. That couldn't possibly be confusing around nationality, could it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly

Total BS that all advertising is about some foreign product, who can tell what nationality you are.

Total fudge to let kiwi sailors on the Arab boat.

Team EU here we come

Your home base can be anywhere the airline lands

Share this post


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

You do talk some shit at times.

Does anybody agree with the principal that each team should be treated the same and have equal opportunity. I sure hope so, because that seem to be part of the noise we have heard non stop from NZ since they last lost the cup. It seems that the nationality rule prevents that equality. Yiur post highlights that inequality, because Artemis would have to use an option that puts them at a disadvantage when other teams do have to. 

I am not arguing against a nationality clause. Read carefully. I suggested it was stronger, but I want it to be fair.

There is a certain irony in the winning boat having the name of another country all over its' wing. That couldn't possibly be confusing around nationality, could it!

Wrong. The Nationality rule promotes equal opportunity. Now all teams have a chance to promote their own sailing talent in the Americas Cup representing the nation they identify with. It somewhat prevents the billionaires from buying/ selling sailors like cattle being auctioned off to the highest bidder. At least now the Cups primary focus will be on contesting the Americas Cup between Nations, not billionaires. While the protocol will not, and never has, pleased everyone, it is as fair as it is going to get, and more fair than it has been the Oracle watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither Australia nor NZ could front a team without foreign money.

Its a billionares race.

Nationality bs is for the olympics.

Daltons just trying to get gov money

Governments dont fund AC Teams so how is it a race between countries?

Time we went back to technolgy and materials coming from your country if you want to insert gov funded national pride.

 

Share this post


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

Neither Australia nor NZ could front a team without foreign money.

Its a billionares race.

Nationality bs is for the olympics.

Daltons just trying to get gov money

Governments dont fund AC Teams so how is it a race between countries?

Time we went back to technolgy and materials coming from your country if you want to insert gov funded national pride.

 

As a kiwi I agree NZ needs foreign money but your wrong about Australia theres plenty of people with the cash to do it. 

Share this post


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

The sailor-nationality rules are all about PR commercialism and also have the effect, as GD noted with glee, of knocking down sailor opportunities and therefore salaries. 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the competition described by the DoG, despite the propaganda and 'Return to Tradition' bs being bandied about. Follow the money..

I do think knocking down sailor salaries is a good thing. Over the years salaries have got so large its wrecking the sport. 

Share this post


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

There is a certain irony in the winning boat having the name of another country all over its' wing. That couldn't possibly be confusing around nationality, could it!

I'm loving the butt hurt. I note the losing British crew on the Indian boat have said they'll be back for the next round. Pukka chaps from the Sub-Continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the kiwis won the right to host the event and only the italians Oracle and artemis qualify

Oops, and the French and softbank

Share this post


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

I'm loving the butt hurt. I note the losing British crew on the Indian boat have said they'll be back for the next round. Pukka chaps from the Sub-Continent.

I cannot think of a more British brand than Land Rover. Just for the record, Land Rover is owned by jaguar Land Rover group, a company registered in the UK. Whoever is the ultimate owner doesn't change any of that. If you look at the other brands that sponsor BAR, you will find a high level of British companies, some of which could be described as being as British as they come. Look at the ETNZ sponsors and we see the vast majority are not from NZ. 

Do you think people in the UK would consider Land rover to be a British sponsor of BAR? Too true the would. Do you think anybody in NZ would see Emirates as a NZ company? Take that global. For the vast majority of people, on seeing Land Rover on a boat, if asked they would guess the boat might come from the UK. Take the flag off the boat and they would still guess the UK. Take the flag off the ETNZ boat and I bet most would say it was from the Emirates. 

If we want to be serious about developing nationality for teams that the public can relate to, let's make it a true effort from each country. No foreign sponsors. Surely if you cannot raise the money in your own country you cannot be serious about sailing and shouldn't be in the AC :P

Share this post


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

Neither Australia nor NZ could front a team without foreign money.

Its a billionares race.

Nationality bs is for the olympics.

Daltons just trying to get gov money

Governments dont fund AC Teams so how is it a race between countries?

Time we went back to technolgy and materials coming from your country if you want to insert gov funded national pride.

 

Nailed it!

 

Commercial football of any code is played by teams made up of players and owners sourced in whatever way they choose. 

 

When it comes to nation V nation it is a true national government funded effort. That’s the only time a nationality rule is appropriate. 

Share this post


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

Land Rover is owned by jaguar Land Rover group, a company registered in the UK.

Land Rover is a pukka Indian firm.

Share this post


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

Sclarke is among those who are now blindly barking everything ETNZ-Protocol.

The truth is, there's some good and some bad in it, depending your position as a promoter, sailor, fan, politician, or just a simple fool. 

 

GD to Stinger: "I never promised you a rainbow, Sunshine."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites