Redsail

Bye bye Artemis Racing

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, morrisre said:

Land Rover Jaguar is an Indian company reportedly in the mix to buy up Maserati and Alpha Romeo

Maserati and Alfa(without ph) Romeo are an important asset in FCA. Land Rover Jaguar has nothing to do with them.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ~Stingray~ 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.

What are/were these "unfriendly invitations"? Have I missed a scandal?
 

11 hours 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.

^ This post as just one example of nat rule criticism...

While I still haven't made my mind up if I'm pro or con any nat rule - and the AC36 protocol nat rule specifically - I think the "some teams are better off" argument rather unconvincing.
A sports event has a certain set of rules. Athletes, who want to compete, need to adhere to these rules, and be able/capable to participate at all. Same with funding: If a team/YC cannot afford to participate in the AC, tough luck. If a team is too stupid to build a boat according to the rules, it cannot plead "stupidity" and demand the rule to be changed. Oh, wait a moment... What about Artemis in AC34?

Anyway, countries are not equal. It may be easy to set up a sailing campaign in Spain or Germany, it may be almost impossible to do so in Chad, Tajikistan or Sweden. Maybe start with volleyball?
Funding is also not equal, neither are capability and participants' skill sets. Nobody is entitled to take part in the America's Cup. It is no right of man.

8 hours 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!

Agree, once a team has entered, it should be treated like all other teams. But before it enters, it needs to live up the entry qualifications, which are the same for all teams a s well.
If you are too poor, too stupid, too inexperienced, have no annual regatta, or are not from a foreign country, or - now - cannot meet the nat rules, you should look for another regatta with lower entry requirements, instead of dragging the other teams down to the lowest common denominator of your miserable position, or blame the rules for your own incapability.

 

10 hours ago, ~Stingray~ said:

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.

Same as most posters hereabouts once held RC, TE and LE in high esteem... Until they got hold of the Cup and set up their set of rules.
Same old, same old...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NZL4EVER said:

As much as ETNZ hated how The events were run and the boat class changed they stuck it out kept there head down and eventually won the cup back.

 

Not sure "kept head down" is an entirely accurate description of interviews given by GD during AC34. To the point that in AC35 he was gagged.

 

No gagging clause in the AC36 protocol, which is good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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.

Damn shame.  Great team that made a good showing financed by a billionaire who seemed like a decent bloke who loved sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Artemis wanted to challenge, then I notice that Royal Thames YC has reciprocal with Royal Gothenburg YC and Royal Swedish Yacht Club. There is nothing in the protocol to stop a challenge from RTYC having a team logo that incorporates the Swedish flag.

After all Törnqvist doesnt even live in Sweden

Share this post


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

If Artemis wanted to challenge, then I notice that Royal Thames YC has reciprocal with Royal Gothenburg YC and Royal Swedish Yacht Club. There is nothing in the protocol to stop a challenge from RTYC having a team logo that incorporates the Swedish flag.

After all Törnqvist doesnt even live in Sweden

Exactly Törnqvist lives in Switzerland. Artemis is an english team backed by a swedish man who lives in Switzerland. Maybe they didn't ever had a base in Sweden except for the yacht club. And now the nationality rule is a problem?!?!?! HATERS GONNA HATE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems to me that the nationality rule is laughable with loopholes that a Volvo truck can be driven through.

Step One : Find your sponsor

Step Two : Find Your Team

Step Three : Decide on team base location

Step Four : Select suitable challenge yacht club based on 1,2,&3 and launch challenge.

Step Five : Design logo with suitable national characteristics to please owner and sponsor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I am blissfully unaware of the names of challenging yacht clubs for most of last round's AC entrants.

So if Royal Thames was the challenger of record for Team Artemis Sweden and Royal Hamilton Amateur Dinghy Club was challenger of record for Team Mexico then Swedish and Mexican billionaires can come and play in a friendly competition between nations. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Frankly I am blissfully unaware of the names of challenging yacht clubs for most of last round's AC entrants.

So if Royal Thames was the challenger of record for Team Artemis Sweden and Royal Hamilton Amateur Dinghy Club was challenger of record for Team Mexico then Swedish and Mexican billionaires can come and play in a friendly competition between nations. B)

You are blissfully unaware of many AC ongoings, apparently. How may challengers of record shall there be per AC?

Share this post


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

 Artemis is an english team backed by a swedish man who lives in Switzerland.

Incorrect. Not an English team. Some Brits on the team, was all. It was a global team with no particular national identity. Same as Oracle or Softbank. This is pretty normal, look at most of the VOR teams.

Share this post


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

You are blissfully unaware of many AC ongoings, apparently. How may challengers of record shall there be per AC?

Were there not three in AC35? Only one at a time, mind you.

 

Share this post


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

Were there not three in AC35? Only one at a time, mind you.

 

Well for accuracy, HIYC, LR, The Committee, ETNZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NZL4EVER said:

As much as ETNZ hated how The events were run and the boat class changed they stuck it out kept there head down and eventually won the cup back.

As soon as the situation changes for Artemis there gone.

You had a chance with your wealth of experience to take it out.

See ya!

But they are World Famous on Lake Geneva, apparently. And are capable of beating the best sailors in the world, according to EB.

Pity they haven't the balls to come down under and test their high opinion of themselves. ;)

Share this post


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

But they are World Famous on Lake Geneva, apparently. And are capable of beating the best sailors in the world, according to EB.

Pity they haven't the balls to come down under and test their high opinion of themselves. ;)

Whoops. I posted complete bollocks here. Not even the correct team or arch villain!

Now I know for certain my comments are completely ignored by AC posters here. Just as well, looking at the abysmal rant above. :unsure:

Still......

Share this post


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

If Artemis wanted to challenge, then I notice that Royal Thames YC has reciprocal with Royal Gothenburg YC and Royal Swedish Yacht Club. There is nothing in the protocol to stop a challenge from RTYC having a team logo that incorporates the Swedish flag.

After all Törnqvist doesnt even live in Sweden

Which sums up the exact problem with the AC, and what GD has tried to prevent with their recent protocol announcement.

Share this post


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

Can Artemis challenge from an NZ yacht club?

Friendly competition between countries? Last time I looked the Mainland was still part of New Zealand. ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, macca said:

Test Rugby internationals are funded by the national governing bodies of the respective countries.

If you consider test rugby to not be commercial football of any code, well, you can define your way out of any misstatement.

Share this post


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

If you consider test rugby to not be commercial football of any code, well, you can define your way out of any misstatement.

The point is: There is only one team per country and that team is managed/funded by that countries governing body for the sport. If you applied that same approach to sailing then you would have the NZ entry from Yachting NZ, US sailing would-be the USA one etc. 

 

Share this post


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

National rugby unions own many teams. Men, women, 7s, junior.

Did you bet on the All Blacks to score another 4 tries in the second 40?? Or are you just being adversarial because of our crappy weather??:P

Share this post


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

Friendly competition between countries? Last time I looked the Mainland was still part of New Zealand. ;)

 

 

But we are working to resolve that! :ph34r:

North Zealand forever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Boybland said:

But we are working to resolve that! :ph34r:

North Zealand forever!

We might take a leaf out of Catalonia's book, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Careful, the mainlanders might cut the Cook Strait cable and then you would be in the dark.

True. Up until 5 years ago, I might have stood at Fighting Bay, Marlborough Sounds with axe at the ready too.

Those bloody Jafas have a lot to answer for, when you live on the Mainland!

Closer at hand, they're not so bad. Not too close mind. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trt131 said:

Careful, the mainlanders might cut the Cook Strait cable and then you would be in the dark.

We are pretty much in the dark about what they are doing down there anyway, never is this more apparent than when the Blues play the Crusaders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Boybland said:

We are pretty much in the dark about what they are doing down there anyway, never is this more apparent than when the Blues play the Crusaders!

Shit, even the mighty Taniwha could baffle the Blues, BB.  The Blues - that's South Northland right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2017 at 3:26 PM, sclarke said:

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, OR, JPA, FRA, BAR, and ALL of the sailors including ETNZ wanted the foiling cats to remain, but ETNZ made a deal with LR prior to AC35 in exchange for funding and tech, therefor Artemis will not be part of it. Last time Luna Rossa wanted the 62 footers to remain, Oracle consulted with ALL the teams who decided (as a majority) against it, therefor Luna Rossa withdrew. They are both points of principle. One was Patrizio Bertelli's, and the other is Torbjorn Tornquists.

FIFY. You can argue that involving all of the challengers in the AC35 decision to shorten the boats to control costs was not really what the deed of gift intended, but you can NOT argue that there are any 'parallels' whatsoever between a democratic decision to shorten the boats, and a back room deal between a potential defender and a potential challenger that was bought and paid for with $30,000,000 cash plus very expensive technology.

Share this post


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

FIFY. You can argue that involving all of the challengers in the AC35 decision to shorten the boats to control costs was not really what the deed of gift intended, but you can NOT argue that there are any 'parallels' whatsoever between a democratic decision to shorten the boats, and a back room deal between a potential defender and a potential challenger that was bought and paid for with $30,000,000 cash plus very expensive technology.

Haha a "Democratic decision". Was it also a "democratic decision" to pull the Auckland regatta? No, didn't think so, hence the Commissioner stepping down after a few months, and the financial compensation paid to ETNZ. The fact is, it doesn't matter. ETNZ partnered with Luna Rossa to stay in the game. Without them ETNZ would've had no competitive chance against the Bermuda 5. And You're probably correct. Luna Rossa may/ may not have played a huge role in the ETNZ win, therefor a deal had to be made, for the most part, out of necessity. LR provided ETNZ with people and tech, and ETNZ provided LR with a way to stay in the Americas Cup game. In any deal, both parties must compromise, obviously they did, hence the protocol announcement. It doesn't matter whether its LR, or any other team, a protocol still needed to be established, and therefor, a deal would have to be made. The CoR challenge was accepted and confirmed between ETNZ and LR. It is valid and legal, whats the big deal?

Share this post


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

Haha a "Democratic decision". Was it also a "democratic decision" to pull the Auckland regatta? No, didn't think so, hence the Commissioner stepping down after a few months, and the financial compensation paid to ETNZ. The fact is, it doesn't matter. ETNZ partnered with Luna Rossa to stay in the game. Without them ETNZ would've had no competitive chance against the Bermuda 5. And You're probably correct. Luna Rossa may/ may not have played a huge role in the ETNZ win, therefor a deal had to be made, for the most part, out of necessity. LR provided ETNZ with people and tech, and ETNZ provided LR with a way to stay in the Americas Cup game. In any deal, both parties must compromise, obviously they did, hence the protocol announcement. It doesn't matter whether its LR, or any other team, a protocol still needed to be established, and therefor, a deal would have to be made. The CoR challenge was accepted and confirmed between ETNZ and LR. It is valid and legal, whats the big deal?

The Aukland regatta has nothing to do do with the boat change - although the both addressed costs, they are separate issues. Complete straw man.

As is the argument that half of the teams in AC 35 didn't 'count' because they were 'poodles'. The biggest poodle in AC history is LR - in AC34, they built an entire campaign solely to support ETNZ by sharing the development costs and providing a third test boat. In AC35, they didn't even bother pretending to compete - just injected cash and technology directly into ETNZ, with the sole objective of wresting the AC away from both OR and the teams that wanted to continue in foiling cats. They were successful - no one is arguing that - but the actual victor was not just ETNZ, but a combined team of ETNZ + LR. 

ETNZ was an excellent team - they literally checked off every box to correct mistakes etc they made in AC34, and both managed their development and sailed their boat better than anyone else (although to be fair a faster boat always makes sailors look like geniuses). I doubt we will ever know how much of the tech innovation that resulted in their faster boat came from LR, and how much was in-house. My gut is that ETNZ probably could've done it without the LR tech, so I think you are wrong about that, and should maybe give ETNZ more credit - but the fact is they did not, choosing instead to rely on a partnership with a team that has pockets every bit as deep and technological resources every bit as broad as OR's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 7:51 PM, Team_GBR said:

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.

Dalts talked about this at length in the podcast I hope to release tonight, but the point is that they will be hopefully in Auckland practicing during the northern winter, and then back in their home country putting in the time on their boat during the summer.

Share this post


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

Dalts talked about this at length in the podcast I hope to release tonight, but the point is that they will be hopefully in Auckland practicing during the northern winter, and then back in their home country putting in the time on their boat during the summer.

Dalts is really becoming a class A #########

For years he has been going on about cost reduction and fairness for all challengers. If as you claim he has identified the "issue", then what he has done is forced some teams to spend far more money than other teams while getting far less sailing time than other teams. If you are from, say, Sweden, how long will it take you to ship your boats back and forth? You will lose 3 moths a year in shipping. If you are from a country where you can sail all year round, you can do what ETNZ did, stay at home, save significant money and not lose any time shipping. 

The nationality clause is total rubbish. Please can somebody explain to me how having 2 national out of a crew of say 10-12 improves the national appeal of a team. You can stick them in non glam positions such as grinding and nobody will ever hear their names. You will still have a Foreign helm and foreigners in the key positions.

What i cannot work out is whether the nationality rule is simply poorly thought out, or whether it got so compromised in the writing and they didn't realise it, or whether it is intentionally aimed at disadvantaging a few teams.

Share this post


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

Then nat clause encourages the teams to have more than 3 nationals, because they do not need to adhere to the 380 days requirement

+1, that is exactly the intent, strongly encourage but not actually force it.

Share this post


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

 If you are from a country where you can sail all year round, you can do what ETNZ did, stay at home, save significant money and not lose any time shipping. 

The nationality clause is total rubbish. Please can somebody explain to me how having 2 national out of a crew of say 10-12 improves the national appeal of a team. You can stick them in non glam positions such as grinding and nobody will ever hear their names. You will still have a Foreign helm and foreigners in the key positions.

What i cannot work out is whether the nationality rule is simply poorly thought out, or whether it got so compromised in the writing and they didn't realise it, or whether it is intentionally aimed at disadvantaging a few teams.

Firstly, calm the fuck down.

Secondly, the team can always opt for people who are citizens and voila! they can camp in NZ from now until eternity. ETNZ have imposed precisely fuck all extra costs on teams.

What they HAVE done is impose a penalty on your team if you choose not to go for this option.

Thirdly, practically every country in the world will "sell" citizenship to people who are rich or have special skills they require. Therefore, all that Torborjn or others would need to do is make a case for the likes of Outteridge to be citizens and the problem goes away.

Finally, its not that the nationality rule is necessarily poorly thought out. Its that ANY nationality rule is impractical to enforce.

Testimony to this is that some on these boards are calling the rules pointlessly weak whilst others like yourself are ranting about how draconian they are.

Personally, I would rather they had not bothered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Let's be honest here - the objective of this protocol (at least so far as LR is concerned, who paid handsomely in advance to set the terms) is to have an LR versus ETNZ cup match. 

Share this post


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

^ Let's be honest here - the objective of this protocol (at least so far as LR is concerned, who paid handsomely in advance to set the terms) is to have an LR versus ETNZ cup match. 

I am totally honest in writing that I do not see any proof for this assumption

Share this post


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

^ Let's be honest here - the objective of this protocol (at least so far as LR is concerned, who paid handsomely in advance to set the terms) is to have an LR versus ETNZ cup match. 

Let's be honest here - everything following the hyphen is a load of bollox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest here - everything following the hyphen is a load of bollox.

Sure. It's just coincidence that LR supported ETNZ with cash and tech, then became the 'hip pocket' challenger, then GD decided on monohulls, and now the second strongest team in AC35 (Artemis) is hamstrung by a nationality rule that really only effects their business model.

LOL

Share this post


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

^ Ok - what do YOU think LR's objective is in this cup cycle? To lose again?

It doesn't matter what I think, I just honestly stated that I see no proof for your assumption.
In fact, I do not know LR's objective, as I haven't spoken to any LR personnel in ages.

Share this post


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

The Aukland regatta has nothing to do do with the boat change - although the both addressed costs, they are separate issues. Complete straw man.

As is the argument that half of the teams in AC 35 didn't 'count' because they were 'poodles'. The biggest poodle in AC history is LR - in AC34, they built an entire campaign solely to support ETNZ by sharing the development costs and providing a third test boat. In AC35, they didn't even bother pretending to compete - just injected cash and technology directly into ETNZ, with the sole objective of wresting the AC away from both OR and the teams that wanted to continue in foiling cats. They were successful - no one is arguing that - but the actual victor was not just ETNZ, but a combined team of ETNZ + LR. 

ETNZ was an excellent team - they literally checked off every box to correct mistakes etc they made in AC34, and both managed their development and sailed their boat better than anyone else (although to be fair a faster boat always makes sailors look like geniuses). I doubt we will ever know how much of the tech innovation that resulted in their faster boat came from LR, and how much was in-house. My gut is that ETNZ probably could've done it without the LR tech, so I think you are wrong about that, and should maybe give ETNZ more credit - but the fact is they did not, choosing instead to rely on a partnership with a team that has pockets every bit as deep and technological resources every bit as broad as OR's. 

Physically they are different, however Dalton has stated "that was the card that was played by the Organising committee. To take the boats down to 50 feet, and lose Auckland as the qualifier OR stay with 62, and come to Auckland as agreed, as signed up to at this stage, subject to the host agreement which they now had". So effectively, the change of class rule, coupled with the cancellation of the Auckland regatta, as cost reduction methods were the reason why Luna Rossa withdrew as CoR. IN effect, they are the same issue - Cost reduction.

Secondly, AC34, you have it the wrong way round. ETNZ supported Luna Rossa. Luna Rossa were late to enter, and the only way they thought they could be competitive was to buy a design package from ETNZ (just as Softbank did with Oracle) ETNZ shared design information with Luna Rossa, as at that stage, Luna Rossa had a very small design team. LR built an identical boat to ETNZ's first boat which was cannibalised to provide parts for boat 2. Now, you may think "Oh LR just wanted to be 3rd test boat for ETNZ" and "they're just pretending to compete" but that is just your own ill informed conspiracy theory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Sure, dude - LR spent $120,000,000 just to come 'hang out' in SF in 2013. And - tech wise - the only difference taking the boats down to 50' made was the inclusion of more teams. 

LOL

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter what I think, I just honestly stated that I see no proof for your assumption.
In fact, I do not know LR's objective, as I haven't spoken to any LR personnel in ages.

I'm guessing - with a total investment approaching USD300,000,000 inclusive of AC34-AC36 - LR are in it to win it.

But that's just me.

Share this post


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

I'm guessing - with a total investment approaching USD300,000,000 inclusive of AC34-AC36 - they are in it to win it.

But that's just me.

They are in to win it, as every other team should be. It's a competition.
That does not necessarily imply that they are doing this by setting up self-favorable rules. As written above, I see no proof that LR tries to disadvantage the tier2 challengers. I may perceive it, assume it, think it might be so, but I see no proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ 100 plus years of AC history tells a very different story. Especially when you consider the fact that LR invested heavily with cash and tech in achieving the outcome that guaranteed they would be the COR for AC36.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

True. Up until 5 years ago, I might have stood at Fighting Bay, Marlborough Sounds with axe at the ready too.

Those bloody Jaffas have a lot to answer for, when you live on the Mainland!

Closer at hand, they're not so bad. Not too close mind. ;)

 

there ya go......fixed it for you

Share this post


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

Dalts is really becoming a class A #########

For years he has been going on about cost reduction and fairness for all challengers. If as you claim he has identified the "issue", then what he has done is forced some teams to spend far more money than other teams while getting far less sailing time than other teams. If you are from, say, Sweden, how long will it take you to ship your boats back and forth? You will lose 3 moths a year in shipping. If you are from a country where you can sail all year round, you can do what ETNZ did, stay at home, save significant money and not lose any time shipping. 

The nationality clause is total rubbish. Please can somebody explain to me how having 2 national out of a crew of say 10-12 improves the national appeal of a team. You can stick them in non glam positions such as grinding and nobody will ever hear their names. You will still have a Foreign helm and foreigners in the key positions.

What i cannot work out is whether the nationality rule is simply poorly thought out, or whether it got so compromised in the writing and they didn't realise it, or whether it is intentionally aimed at disadvantaging a few teams.

you will only ever get foreigners in helm and other key positions if you're convinced that your local talent is total crap...........wouldn't your energy be more fruitfull channelled toward mproving the local setup ??????? it may also allow that country to win other events as well

Share this post


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

^ Sure, dude - LR spent $120,000,000 just to come 'hang out' in SF in 2013. And - tech wise - the only difference taking the boats down to 50' made was the inclusion of more teams. 

LOL

No, they spent the money to mount a challenge in San Francisco. They bought the design package from ETNZ because it was the only chance they thought they had at being competitive. So they weren't just "hanging out" in San Fran, Artemis Racing was testament to that.

AC35...more teams? More teams than what? The previous year? In San Fran we had 4 teams including the defender. In Bermuda we had 6 including the defender. If the oracle plan had gone as they wanted it to, and ETNZ had've folded, there would've been 5 teams. One more than the previous year. So what you should've said was the inclusion of one more team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Nobody wanted ETNZ to 'fold' in AC35. That's just paranoid butthurt from you and your ilk. What everybody - all the other teams plus, apparently, many of ETNZ's sailors - wanted was for ETNZ to sign onto the framework agreement and keep the foiling cats going for another cycle or two. Everything OR did was designed to increase the number of teams, and that's exactly what happened - there were 6 teams in Bermuda.

Anyway, it's all spilt milk at this point - AC is moving forward, I'm sure the monos will be very cool boats, and I'm sure ETNZ will be a formidable defender.

Share this post


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

^ Is 'bollox' a form of Botox for the um 'family jewels'?!

Stick to bitchin surfsailor, I'll do the jokes!

Share this post


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

^ Nobody wanted ETNZ to 'fold' in AC35. That's just paranoid butthurt from you and your ilk. What everybody - all the other teams plus, apparently, many of ETNZ's sailors - wanted was for ETNZ to sign onto the framework agreement and keep the foiling cats going for another cycle or two. Everything OR did was designed to increase the number of teams, and that's exactly what happened - there were 6 teams in Bermuda.

Anyway, it's all spilt milk at this point - AC is moving forward, I'm sure the monos will be very cool boats, and I'm sure ETNZ will be a formidable defender.

That is all fine until you consider:

1. That is MUCH less than any (non DoG) cup in recent history with the except of the OTHER Orifice cluster fuck in San Fran.

2. One of the teams was an Orifice mini me, one was incredibly weak and neither compensated for the loss of Luna Rossa who have historically been a very strong team.

Regardless of whether Orifice intentionally fucked up the last AC, the end result is that they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This is just bullshit spin.

1) AC34 was the best AC I ever watched - that's just my opinion, but there are a lot of people who agree with me. Racing was fucking epic, and oh yeah - the greatest comeback in history.

2) The 'poodle' argument is completely hypocritical unless you acknowledge that LR has been the biggest poodle of them all over the last two cup cycles.  LR was a good team in the past, but certainly not in AC34, and in any case they were well represented in this cup cycle by ETNZ, with whom they were financial and technological partners. 

There were 6 teams in Bermuda. You call some of them 'weak' - that's your opinion. I saw 6 teams foil nearly 100% around a race course at speeds that often exceeded 40 kts - it was pretty fucking amazing, by any metric.  And it gets better - one of the challengers won, and a second team (Artemis) would've had a very good shot had they made the final. That's pretty much ALL the boxes checked for a successful AC - awesome technology, two very strong teams emerging from the challenger ranks, and a final that saw the faster boat win, just like it always does. 

 

Share this post


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

Stick to bitchin surfsailor, I'll do the jokes!

You guys have 'bitching' pretty well covered. Shoots - half your crew is still whinging about 2013!

<_<

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 167149 said:

there ya go......fixed it for you

Just another fucking fucking Aucklander?

I don't think so. Still, you're not alone in your misconception. ;)

Share this post


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

^ This is just bullshit spin.

1) AC34 was the best AC I ever watched - that's just my opinion, but there are a lot of people who agree with me. Racing was fucking epic, and oh yeah - the greatest comeback in history.

2) The 'poodle' argument is completely hypocritical unless you acknowledge that LR has been the biggest poodle of them all over the last two cup cycles.  LR was a good team in the past, but certainly not in AC34, and in any case they were well represented in this cup cycle by ETNZ, with whom they were financial and technological partners. 

There were 6 teams in Bermuda. You call some of them 'weak' - that's your opinion. I saw 6 teams foil nearly 100% around a race course at speeds that often exceeded 40 kts - it was pretty fucking amazing, by any metric.  And it gets better - one of the challengers won, and a second team (Artemis) would've had a very good shot had they made the final. That's pretty much ALL the boxes checked for a successful AC - awesome technology, two very strong teams emerging from the challenger ranks, and a final that saw the faster boat win, just like it always does. 

 

Its no more bullshit spin that your opinion.

But lets cover some stuff off.

Was LR a total poodle over the last 2 cups? AC 34 - absolutely. AC 35, I think you need to sort that one out with Stinger because he is referring to them as the "puppet masters". More likely, the did what they needed to do to get the cup away from Orifice.

 

Ignoring whether the racing was epic in AC34, because this is pure opinion, the reality is that there was only a single challenger there (ETNZ) that had ANY hope at all of making it to the match, let alone successfully challenging. For me, when the challenger is pre-ordained, it rather takes the shine of proceedings.

 

Regarding the teams in Bermuda, I don't think you can put them being weak down to my opinion. The results point very firmly to two of the teams (BAR and GTF) being VERY VERY weak. GTF regularly lost by more than a minute and by more than 2 minutes on at least 2 occasions. BAR gave ETNZ a 30 second lead in the quarters and got mowed down easily.

So whilst these teams foiled for nearly 100% of the time, it does NOT mean that they weren't weak.

Yes, Artemis had a good chance of beating Orifice had ETNZ not been in Bermuda and so that is a step up from AC34, but that DOES NOT mean it was a great event.

Share this post


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

Dalts is really becoming a class A #########

For years he has been going on about cost reduction and fairness for all challengers. If as you claim he has identified the "issue", then what he has done is forced some teams to spend far more money than other teams while getting far less sailing time than other teams. If you are from, say, Sweden, how long will it take you to ship your boats back and forth? You will lose 3 moths a year in shipping. If you are from a country where you can sail all year round, you can do what ETNZ did, stay at home, save significant money and not lose any time shipping. 

The nationality clause is total rubbish. Please can somebody explain to me how having 2 national out of a crew of say 10-12 improves the national appeal of a team. You can stick them in non glam positions such as grinding and nobody will ever hear their names. You will still have a Foreign helm and foreigners in the key positions.

What i cannot work out is whether the nationality rule is simply poorly thought out, or whether it got so compromised in the writing and they didn't realise it, or whether it is intentionally aimed at disadvantaging a few teams.

If you are *from* Sweden, on a Swedish team, you've got no problems! Geddit?

Share this post


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

Dalts is really becoming a class A #########

For years he has been going on about cost reduction and fairness for all challengers. If as you claim he has identified the "issue", then what he has done is forced some teams to spend far more money than other teams while getting far less sailing time than other teams. If you are from, say, Sweden, how long will it take you to ship your boats back and forth? You will lose 3 moths a year in shipping. If you are from a country where you can sail all year round, you can do what ETNZ did, stay at home, save significant money and not lose any time shipping. 

The nationality clause is total rubbish. Please can somebody explain to me how having 2 national out of a crew of say 10-12 improves the national appeal of a team. You can stick them in non glam positions such as grinding and nobody will ever hear their names. You will still have a Foreign helm and foreigners in the key positions.

What i cannot work out is whether the nationality rule is simply poorly thought out, or whether it got so compromised in the writing and they didn't realise it, or whether it is intentionally aimed at disadvantaging a few teams.

Oh FFS! Its really really simple. you represent a country, you either are from that country, or you live in that country. Its really not that complicated, and everyone is in the same boat (excuse the pun) so everyone faces the same problem. Thats perfectly fair.

Share this post


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

 and everyone is in the same boat (excuse the pun) so everyone faces the same problem. Thats perfectly fair.

A few thousand words have been written detailing why everyone does not face the same problem.

 

Share this post


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

Oh FFS! Its really really simple. you represent a country, you either are from that country, or you live in that country. Its really not that complicated, and everyone is in the same boat (excuse the pun) so everyone faces the same problem. Thats perfectly fair.

You really are rather one eyed and your comprehension skills are very poor. It seems very clear from what people have said on here and from what Clean suggests that Dalton said that it is not the same for all teams. The real question that hasn't been properly addressed is whether the need to take different approaches if you are from a climate where you cannot sail all year around is fair and reasonable. 

If Dalton's solution really is that some teams will need to spend half the year in Auckland and half at home, while others can either spend the whole time in Auckland or the whole time at home, then I personally believe that is penalising teams because of where they are from, which is unfair All teams should be able to use all options if they wish

I have been looking at the protocol and I think there are hints of revenge in it. The sailing club eligibility clauses look designed to screw Ellison. The nationality clause as written would really screw Alinghi more than any other team. Coincidence? Maybe, but it is amusing.

Share this post


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

^ This is just bullshit spin.

1) AC34 was the best AC I ever watched - that's just my opinion, but there are a lot of people who agree with me. Racing was fucking epic, and oh yeah - the greatest comeback in history.

2) The 'poodle' argument is completely hypocritical unless you acknowledge that LR has been the biggest poodle of them all over the last two cup cycles.  LR was a good team in the past, but certainly not in AC34, and in any case they were well represented in this cup cycle by ETNZ, with whom they were financial and technological partners. 

There were 6 teams in Bermuda. You call some of them 'weak' - that's your opinion. I saw 6 teams foil nearly 100% around a race course at speeds that often exceeded 40 kts - it was pretty fucking amazing, by any metric.  And it gets better - one of the challengers won, and a second team (Artemis) would've had a very good shot had they made the final. That's pretty much ALL the boxes checked for a successful AC - awesome technology, two very strong teams emerging from the challenger ranks, and a final that saw the faster boat win, just like it always does. 

 

 

I fully agree - but AC35 was also great. The only sporting event I ever paid to watch.

I guess a few major factors are important. (i) Sailing close to the shore (i.e. the boats cannot have a depth more than a meter or two). (ii) high speed (this makes a small mistake costly), (iii) Technology (the lines in the water etc were fantastic in AC35).

 

Hopefully it will be similar in Auckland

Share this post


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

Oh FFS! Its really really simple. you represent a country, you either are from that country, or you live in that country. Its really not that complicated, and everyone is in the same boat (excuse the pun) so everyone faces the same problem. Thats perfectly fair.

 

Countries - are old fashioned. Who cares? We are a global world. More people support Barcelona or Manchester United than Spain of England - and certainly most of the supporters do not live in Barcelona or Manchester.

Share this post


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

Its no more bullshit spin that your opinion.

But lets cover some stuff off.

Was LR a total poodle over the last 2 cups? AC 34 - absolutely. AC 35, I think you need to sort that one out with Stinger because he is referring to them as the "puppet masters". More likely, the did what they needed to do to get the cup away from Orifice.

 

Ignoring whether the racing was epic in AC34, because this is pure opinion, the reality is that there was only a single challenger there (ETNZ) that had ANY hope at all of making it to the match, let alone successfully challenging. For me, when the challenger is pre-ordained, it rather takes the shine of proceedings.

 

Regarding the teams in Bermuda, I don't think you can put them being weak down to my opinion. The results point very firmly to two of the teams (BAR and GTF) being VERY VERY weak. GTF regularly lost by more than a minute and by more than 2 minutes on at least 2 occasions. BAR gave ETNZ a 30 second lead in the quarters and got mowed down easily.

So whilst these teams foiled for nearly 100% of the time, it does NOT mean that they weren't weak.

Yes, Artemis had a good chance of beating Orifice had ETNZ not been in Bermuda and so that is a step up from AC34, but that DOES NOT mean it was a great event.

BAR and to a lesser extent JPN were 'weak' due to design decisions made months and months before any of the boats even hit the water. GTF was the only team that might have been hurt by being underfunded. The fact that they went down the wrong path and were slower in no way invalidates the legitimacy of those challenges. Shit happens when you have a development class.

Share this post


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

 

I fully agree - but AC35 was also great. The only sporting event I ever paid to watch.

I guess a few major factors are important. (i) Sailing close to the shore (i.e. the boats cannot have a depth more than a meter or two). (ii) high speed (this makes a small mistake costly), (iii) Technology (the lines in the water etc were fantastic in AC35).

 

Hopefully it will be similar in Auckland

AC 35 was awesome - you'll get no argument from me!

Share this post


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

 

Countries - are old fashioned. Who cares? We are a global world. More people support Barcelona or Manchester United than Spain of England - and certainly most of the supporters do not live in Barcelona or Manchester.

In Football perhaps although the FIFA World Cup isn't insignificant is it? Olympics? F1 Constructors vs Drivers? the list goes on and on... there's still a place for national representation, and clearly one of those places is the AC where it's almost as if it was written in to the actual deed...

Share this post


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

You really are rather one eyed and your comprehension skills are very poor. It seems very clear from what people have said on here and from what Clean suggests that Dalton said that it is not the same for all teams. The real question that hasn't been properly addressed is whether the need to take different approaches if you are from a climate where you cannot sail all year around is fair and reasonable. 

If Dalton's solution really is that some teams will need to spend half the year in Auckland and half at home, while others can either spend the whole time in Auckland or the whole time at home, then I personally believe that is penalising teams because of where they are from, which is unfair All teams should be able to use all options if they wish

I have been looking at the protocol and I think there are hints of revenge in it. The sailing club eligibility clauses look designed to screw Ellison. The nationality clause as written would really screw Alinghi more than any other team. Coincidence? Maybe, but it is amusing.

Plenty of countries are disadvantaged due to geography, whether it be seasons where the water freezes over, or the lack of a fucking ocean at all. If this disadvantage is further increased by having to import sailors then maybe that's telling you something about how well you will do competing in the terms of the AC.

Alinghi have never had *any* right in the AC - EB bought himself into a competition he had no right participating in. So I'm not sure why you put their continued laughable eligibility down to to revenge as opposed to a consequence of their continued total lack of credibility in a sport requiring a significant degree of national representation - which they don't have, they don't even have a fucking ocean.

ETNZ won with a belief in a country-based effort, as the deed originally intended, they won the cup, and so its totally justified for them to try and return it back to this - arguably more justified than perverting the cup's original spirit in the way these egotistical arseholes have over the past several years.

Share this post


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

BAR and to a lesser extent JPN were 'weak' due to design decisions made months and months before any of the boats even hit the water. GTF was the only team that might have been hurt by being underfunded. The fact that they went down the wrong path and were slower in no way invalidates the legitimacy of those challenges. Shit happens when you have a development class.

I didn't say they weren't legitimate. I said they were WEAK.

A million GTFs and BARs couldn't compensate for the loss of one LR or ETNZ.

The only challenger that showed any promise aside from ETNZ was Artemis and in the end, ETNZ sandbagged their way past them on the way to the match.

Therefore my point stands that Orifice failed to deliver a competitive A.C. Not nearly as bad as A.C. 34 but still not very good either.

Share this post


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

Plenty of countries are disadvantaged due to geography, whether it be seasons where the water freezes over, or the lack of a fucking ocean at all. If this disadvantage is further increased by having to import sailors then maybe that's telling you something about how well you will do competing in the terms of the AC.

Alinghi have never had *any* right in the AC - EB bought himself into a competition he had no right participating in. So I'm not sure why you put their continued laughable eligibility down to to revenge as opposed to a consequence of their continued total lack of credibility in a sport requiring a significant degree of national representation - which they don't have, they don't even have a fucking ocean.

ETNZ won with a belief in a country-based effort, as the deed originally intended, they won the cup, and so its totally justified for them to try and return it back to this - arguably more justified than perverting the cup's original spirit in the way these egotistical arseholes have over the past several years.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! This (bold) is exactly what I wanted to say all the time, but you put it down more eloquently.

Share this post


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

Thank you, thank you, thank you! This (bold) is exactly what I wanted to say all the time, but you put it down more eloquently.

Any whispers of any German interest in AC36?

Share this post


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

Just another fucking fucking Aucklander?

I don't think so. Still, you're not alone in your misconception. ;)

well if we cant educate the provincial pinheads there's always the humor them option

Share this post


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

ETNZ won with a belief in a country-based effort, as the deed originally intended, they won the cup, and so its totally justified for them to try and return it back to this - arguably more justified than perverting the cup's original spirit in the way these egotistical arseholes have over the past several years.

Total bullshit.You do know that when the deed was written, the boats were all crewed by foreigners, so stop with the "this is what the deed intended" crap. All the deed cared about was where the club was from and nothing else.

If ETNZ really believed in country based efforts they wouldn't have this stupid 20% rule as the sole "national" effort. Imagine there is a crew of 12. That means you only need 2 from your home country. As we are back to monohulls, stick them out of sight down in the sewer or give them a minor job somewhere and nobody will even know they exist. The metaphoric "John Smith" can still helm and be the star of a challenge from, say Italy, or China.  

If ETNZ were serious about the issue, they would not have any team sailing around with the name of another country splashed large across the boat. I have actually heard non sailors refer to them as the Emirates team. Maybe it's fine in a country like NZ who knows the history of their team and can look past it, but think about it if we are talking about a new team from a country that either has never challenged or hasn't for some time. The example has been used before, but there is nothing to stop a team from the USA or Europe or Asia from having 20% local sailors and being sponsored by, say Abu Dhabi. How about a German team sponsored by Air France. Both unlikely? Maybe, but we already have a NZ team with emirates all over the boat.

The nationality rule is so poor and ineffective that it's hard to believe that is the best they could come up with. I would therefore begin to think what other reasons why they should bring in such a rule. Who is it really aimed at?

Share this post


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

Total bullshit.You do know that when the deed was written, the boats were all crewed by foreigners, so stop with the "this is what the deed intended" crap. All the deed cared about was where the club was from and nothing else.

If ETNZ really believed in country based efforts they wouldn't have this stupid 20% rule as the sole "national" effort. Imagine there is a crew of 12. That means you only need 2 from your home country. As we are back to monohulls, stick them out of sight down in the sewer or give them a minor job somewhere and nobody will even know they exist. The metaphoric "John Smith" can still helm and be the star of a challenge from, say Italy, or China.  

If ETNZ were serious about the issue, they would not have any team sailing around with the name of another country splashed large across the boat. I have actually heard non sailors refer to them as the Emirates team. Maybe it's fine in a country like NZ who knows the history of their team and can look past it, but think about it if we are talking about a new team from a country that either has never challenged or hasn't for some time. The example has been used before, but there is nothing to stop a team from the USA or Europe or Asia from having 20% local sailors and being sponsored by, say Abu Dhabi. How about a German team sponsored by Air France. Both unlikely? Maybe, but we already have a NZ team with emirates all over the boat.

The nationality rule is so poor and ineffective that it's hard to believe that is the best they could come up with. I would therefore begin to think what other reasons why they should bring in such a rule. Who is it really aimed at?

^ bold: The protocol says under 10.3 at least 20% or 3 sailors of the total crew (which ever is higher).

Share this post


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

^ bold: The protocol says under 10.3 at least 20% or 3 sailors of the total crew (which ever is higher).

Ahhh Rennie don't let facts and actual knowledge of the detail stop GBR having a confused whinge ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW! Sorry about getting the minimum of 3 wrong. So 3 out of 12 is going to make all the difference:lol: It's still a joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites