Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

 

There was no vote. There was the group who would later go on to sign the London Agreement, and there was the rest.

Luna Rossa had rights to veto, as they were Challenger of Record at that time. They waived their right to veto in favor of a "Challenger Committee" and publicly stated they did so in the name of "Goodwill and working together" as they did not want the stigma of litigation continuing on from the Oracle/ Alinghi feud of 2010. Once this happened, the Challenger Committee then conspired against Luna Rossa and formed their own committee of Oracles friends to eliminate the two strongest challengers, and the two challengers who they knew would never agree to their future Framework Agreement.

Subsequently Luna Rossa withdrew and the Qualifier regatta was pulled out from under ETNZ - illegally - (who were heavily reliant on the income gained from that regatta) because the Challenger committee "Didn't want to do it anymore". 

Everyone knows this was the case, it was the reason why 1) Luna Rossa withdrew, and 2) Harvey Schiller was forced to step down as Commissioner of Ac35 before AC35 even began, and 3) ACEA ended up having to financially compensate, or pay out ETNZ because they breached the qualifier agreement contract, and also why they had to keep the whole embarrassment quiet.

Again, Mutual Agreement exists between the Defender and Challenger of Record. 

 

Share this post


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

 

"Yes but Ernesto and Larry did much better than TNZ" - Sure they did. Alinghi tried to create a fictitious challenger, and Oracle went through 3 Challenger Of Records because of dodgy practices.

Share this post


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

There was no vote. There was the group who would later go on to sign the London Agreement, and there was the rest.

Luna Rossa had rights to veto, as they were Challenger of Record at that time. They waived their right to veto in favor of a "Challenger Committee" and publicly stated they did so in the name of "Goodwill and working together" as they did not want the stigma of litigation continuing on from the Oracle/ Alinghi feud of 2010. Once this happened, the Challenger Committee then conspired against Luna Rossa and formed their own committee of Oracles friends to eliminate the two strongest challengers, and the two challengers who they knew would never agree to their future Framework Agreement.

Subsequently Luna Rossa withdrew and the Qualifier regatta was pulled out from under ETNZ - illegally - (who were heavily reliant on the income gained from that regatta) because the Challenger committee "Didn't want to do it anymore". 

Everyone knows this was the case, it was the reason why 1) Luna Rossa withdrew, and 2) Harvey Schiller was forced to step down as Commissioner of Ac35 before AC35 even began, and 3) ACEA ended up having to financially compensate, or pay out ETNZ because they breached the qualifier agreement contract, and also why they had to keep the whole embarrassment quiet.

Again, Mutual Agreement exists between the Defender and Challenger of Record. 

 

you really think that luna rossa were one of the two strongest challengers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, inebriated said:

you really think that luna rossa were one of the two strongest challengers?

At the time...Of Course they were!! The two strongest at that time were ETNZ and Luna Rossa, why?? Because ETNZ were the first to foil in the Americas Cup, and had one of the two fastest AC72's on the planet, not to mention the history behind them of innovation. Luna Rossa had a tech sharing agreement with ETNZ in San Francisco, and a fully operational and well funded team with what was at that time, the only two boat campaign with an aim of being competitive in AC35. Land Rover BAR were a first time team, Japan and France were the same, first time teams, and Artemis were coming off a disastrous campaign in San Francisco. So YES, Luna Rossa and ETNZ were the two strongest challengers at that time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

At the time...Of Course they were!! The two strongest at that time were ETNZ and Luna Rossa, why?? Because ETNZ were the first to foil in the Americas Cup, and had one of the two fastest AC72's on the planet, Luna Rossa had atech sharing agreement and a fully operational and well funded team with what was at that time, the only two boat campaign. Land Rover BAR were a first time team, Japan and France were the same, first time teams, and Artemis were coming off a disastrous campaign in San Francisco. So YES, Luna Rossa and ETNZ were the two strongest challengers at that time. 

ok, fairo.

i wonder how similar they would have come out if they didn't leave to ETNZ

Share this post


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

Yes. That could happen this time too, ETNZ and Prada Steve reserving that same right. But this time, there is not even a majority vote allowed on a Protocol change they might pull.

’COR/D’ can be as wreckless as they want, other Challengers have no say at all. Would you call that fair?

:lol:

Certainly fairer than the last couple of cons...cry me an river

The COR and the Defender have earned the right to make the decisions - and they have seen how badly the 'democratic option' has been abused.

None of that BS this time. Who is it you are so very concerned about anyway?

 

If only you and the WCM hadn't enabled so much cheating, rule rigging and unsportsmanlike behavior!

 

 

 

Share this post


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

There was no vote. There was the group who would later go on to sign the London Agreement, and there was the rest.

Luna Rossa had rights to veto, as they were Challenger of Record at that time. They waived their right to veto in favor of a "Challenger Committee" and publicly stated they did so in the name of "Goodwill and working together" as they did not want the stigma of litigation continuing on from the Oracle/ Alinghi feud of 2010. Once this happened, the Challenger Committee then conspired against Luna Rossa and formed their own committee of Oracles friends to eliminate the two strongest challengers, and the two challengers who they knew would never agree to their future Framework Agreement.

Subsequently Luna Rossa withdrew and the Qualifier regatta was pulled out from under ETNZ - illegally - (who were heavily reliant on the income gained from that regatta) because the Challenger committee "Didn't want to do it anymore". 

Everyone knows this was the case, it was the reason why 1) Luna Rossa withdrew, and 2) Harvey Schiller was forced to step down as Commissioner of Ac35 before AC35 even began, and 3) ACEA ended up having to financially compensate, or pay out ETNZ because they breached the qualifier agreement contract, and also why they had to keep the whole embarrassment quiet.

Again, Mutual Agreement exists between the Defender and Challenger of Record. 

 

You are mixing up everything, yes LR had veto rights but they let it go because, that was the general consensus at the time, they mixed up the unimity vote for the rule with the majority for the prot. So, yes, there were 2 votes.

And perhaps because there was a long history of competitor forum. You confuse the Deed rights and the MC use.

Share this post


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

"Yes but Ernesto and Larry did much better than TNZ" - Sure they did. Alinghi tried to create a fictitious challenger, and Oracle went through 3 Challenger Of Records because of dodgy practices.

And despite all the fuss around it had less impact on competitors than giving them no right.

Share this post


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

And despite all the fuss around it had less impact on competitors than giving them no right.

Less impact? How do you figure? 3 CoR's withdrew, 3! Every other Cup, there was a CoR that retained Veto rights, and no arguments. Oracle comes along, and suddenly three CoR's have withdrawn, already established Class Rules are being changed mid cycle, event management staff are resigning before the event begins, contracts are being broken and challenging teams are being financially compensated in secret. Oracles shenanigans have had more of an impact (and not in a good way) than any other cup cycle, which is why its a good thing they have been eliminated. Luna Rossa have proved to be a team who are willing to work together. But there needs to be a leader, a person who makes the decisions in the best interests of the challenger group and the Cup. It takes away the opportunity for challengers to create factions inside the challenger group to manipulate the proceedings as was evident in Bermuda.

Share this post


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

You are mixing up everything, yes LR had veto rights but they let it go because, that was the general consensus at the time, they mixed up the unimity vote for the rule with the majority for the prot. So, yes, there were 2 votes.

And perhaps because there was a long history of competitor forum. You confuse the Deed rights and the MC use.

They "Mixed it up" hahahaha what? the only one "mixed up" is you. They PUBLICLY stated their wishes for the challenging group to work together with each other to prevent the situation Oracle went through with Alinghi, which was close to killing the AC off. That was the reason they waived their right to veto, because they thought the challengers would be able to work together in the best interests of the group. They did, those interests just didn't involve Luna Rossa. The Deed makes provision for a Defender and a Challenger of Record. Mutual consent exists between a CoR and a Defender only, not a group of challengers.

Share this post


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

decisions in the best interests of the challenger group

I think we will see LR doing the right thing, taking on board input on decisions from all Challengers and hopefully by majority vote, again this time. Which is what has been the tradition and is exactly what happened during every multi-Chall Cup LE participated in too, including as CoR in AC32.

TC is right that Challs voted in their own best interests last time, whether or not OR agreed some of those votes.

The idea that teams were under some kind of financial threat from LE to vote they way they did has always been hostile conspiracy theory allegations made to try to explain away and defend ETNZ’s opposition to some of those decisions. Ironic, since much of ETNZ’s opposition was grounded in their own indebtitude and secret deal already-done with another team. They were actually the team guilty of the exact accusation being made.

Speaking of ‘cheating’ the terms of this same relationship were protested in AC34 by AR, ETNZ was found Guilty of cheating, and so GD was forced to walk back from most of the LR-ETNZ signed deal that he’d described at the first AC45 ACWS event, in Cascais, on video. He hated AR for that!

Share this post


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

I think we will see LR doing the right thing, taking on board input on decisions from all Challengers and hopefully by majority vote, again this time. Which is what has been the tradition and is exactly what happened during every multi-Chall Cup LE participated in too, including as CoR in AC32.

TC is right that Challs voted in their own best interests last time, whether or not OR agreed some of those votes.

The idea that teams were under some kind of financial threat from LE to vote they way they did has always been hostile conspiracy theory allegations made to try to explain away and defend ETNZ’s opposition to some of those decisions. Ironic, since much of ETNZ’s opposition was grounded in their own indebtitude and secret deal already-done with another team. They were actually the team guilty of the exact accusation being made.

Speaking of ‘cheating’ the terms of this same relationship were protested in AC34 by AR, ETNZ was found Guilty of cheating, and so GD was forced to walk back from most of the LR-ETNZ signed deal that he’d described at the first AC45 ACWS event, in Cascais, on video. He hated AR for that!

Link or it didn't happen.

Share this post


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

Link or it didn't happen.

It’s a fact, ETNZ was found to be cheating. Find it yourself, was pretty big news at the time since it hurt GD’s pocketbook (fundraising) and prompted a hostile, aggressive reaction.

Share this post


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

It’s a fact, ETNZ was found to be cheating. Find it yourself, was pretty big news at the time since it hurt GD’s pocketbook (fundraising) and prompted a hostile, aggressive reaction.

Searched "ETNZ was found to be cheating" Even Google can't seem to find it, plenty on Oracle cheating though.

Share this post


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

Searched "ETNZ was found to be cheating" Even Google can't seem to find it, plenty on Oracle cheating though.

You have to know how to use Google. This one took me 3 seconds to find


VSail.info: A recent development in the America’s Cup was a Jury decision regarding the alliance between Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa. If I’m not mistaken your team was the first to ask the Jury to rule on that cooperation between the two challengers. I have to admit I’m not aware of the details of that issue or what is at stake. Can you talk about it? Are you satisfied with the Jury’s ruling?

Paul Cayard: Yes, we are satisfied. The Jury ruled in line with our thinking which is that Luna Rossa and Emirates Team New Zealand cannot do what they said they would do. You haven’t read a lot about it because, basically, the ruling went against them and Grant Dalton hasn’t been speaking about that one as much as he’s speaking about the ones that go his way. It’s a big knock against them and they can’t sail the two boats against each other. It’s a big knock against their plans but it’s completely logical and it’s what Oracle Racing and we always believed to be the case and now the Jury confirmed that.

https://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Americas-Cup--Paul-Cayard-on-the-latest-Cup-developments/-92877?source=google

Share this post


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

They "Mixed it up" hahahaha what? the only one "mixed up" is you. They PUBLICLY stated their wishes for the challenging group to work together with each other to prevent the situation Oracle went through with Alinghi, which was close to killing the AC off. That was the reason they waived their right to veto, because they thought the challengers would be able to work together in the best interests of the group.

Yes, they thought that would happen with the AC62, they did not understand that only majority was sufficient to change the boat, which was in the interest of most competitors. Pretty stupid move in the AC world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stingray

Don't be a complete dickhead. What you are quoting is nothing to do with cheating. ETNZ and Luna Rossa were very public about how they were going to cooperate and before they did anything, there was a ruling that some of their cooperation was not allowed by the rules. They did nothing wrong at all.

To the NZ fanboys

The change of the boat rule was agreed by the majority as stipulated by the protocol. Get over it. It was 100% legal. If you want to believe that teams like Artemis and BAR voted for the change because they were indebted to Oracle, so be it, but the idea is laughable. Just as laughable is the idea that the rule change was to hamstring LR. All the technology and ideas for the 62 would have worked for the 50, as evidenced by ETNZ who picked up the best of LR's technology and continued to develop their boat into a winner. Bertelli simply spat the dummy and in the process, probably lost his best chance ever of winning the AC.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Less impact? How do you figure? 3 CoR's withdrew, 3! Every other Cup, there was a CoR that retained Veto rights, and no arguments. Oracle comes along, and suddenly three CoR's have withdrawn, already established Class Rules are being changed mid cycle, event management staff are resigning before the event begins, contracts are being broken

The CoR changed because they were not real competitors and changes were made at the majority vote, which did not please TNZ, as it can happen in any democracy.

The new AC is a dictatorship: spend $ 100 M and  you have no right whatsoever, and we can change the rules at will.

Share this post


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

there was a ruling that some of their cooperation was not allowed by the rules. They did nothing wrong at all.

But that’s the point. It was not allowed by the rules, they entered into an illegal agreement. They ‘cheated.’

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Harpo and Groucho - a couple of disenfranchised idiots firing into the crowd

Share this post


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

You have to know how to use Google. This one took me 3 seconds to find


VSail.info: A recent development in the America’s Cup was a Jury decision regarding the alliance between Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa. If I’m not mistaken your team was the first to ask the Jury to rule on that cooperation between the two challengers. I have to admit I’m not aware of the details of that issue or what is at stake. Can you talk about it? Are you satisfied with the Jury’s ruling?

Paul Cayard: Yes, we are satisfied. The Jury ruled in line with our thinking which is that Luna Rossa and Emirates Team New Zealand cannot do what they said they would do. You haven’t read a lot about it because, basically, the ruling went against them and Grant Dalton hasn’t been speaking about that one as much as he’s speaking about the ones that go his way. It’s a big knock against them and they can’t sail the two boats against each other. It’s a big knock against their plans but it’s completely logical and it’s what Oracle Racing and we always believed to be the case and now the Jury confirmed that.

https://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Americas-Cup--Paul-Cayard-on-the-latest-Cup-developments/-92877?source=google

So basically, it was a clarification of the rule, not cheating lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But that’s the point. It was not allowed by the rules, they entered into an illegal agreement. They ‘cheated.’

The agreement was legal, it was the details surrounding the agreement that were vague and left to interpretation ie training the race boats together, which is what ETNZ intended to do, but ultimately didn't after the ruling. A clarification was sought and thats what they got. It wasn't cheating.

Share this post


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

The agreement was legal

Can you read? The terms entered into were illegal. Illegal = cheating.

Am I going to go on and on about it, years later? No, because despite it being potentially a far more impactful deal than the AC45 corrector weight fiasco, that’d be simply idiotic. 

 

Share this post


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

Can you read? The terms entered into were illegal. Illegal = cheating.

 

Bit 'aggressive' wouldn't you say Stingers? ;-)

By this rationale, any time any part of a boat failed MC that would be cheating.

Furthermore any time an IR ruling or appeal stopped a team from doing something they would have been cheating too.

Share this post


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

Can you read? The terms entered into were illegal. Illegal = cheating.

Am I going to go on and on about it, years later? No, because despite it being potentially a far more impactful deal than the AC45 corrector weight fiasco, that’d be simply idiotic. 

 

Wrong again. All it was, was the two boat training Luna Rossa and ETNZ intended to enter into. The Jury ruled they were not allowed to train the two boats together, so they didn't. It was clarification only, sheesh. 

Share this post


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

The Jury ruled they were not allowed to train the two boats together

Yep, the illegal agreement was to cheat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the case it was headed " Request for Interpretation of Protocol to ensure a possible agreement  with a Challenger or  Defender Candidate is compliant with the Rules that govern the Event".

You obviously can't understand the difference between a Request for Interpretation and a Protest or are just pushing some personal agenda against ETNZ. Which is it?

 

Share this post


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

You obviously can't understand the difference between a Request for Interpretation and a Protest or are just pushing some personal agenda against ETNZ. Which is it?

Neither, but nice try!

The Jury said the Agreement was illegal, it was all about cheating.

 

Share this post


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

Neither, but nice try!

The Jury said the Agreement was illegal, it was all about cheating.

 

Wow, I never thought I would see the day! the incomparable Stingray has joined the Troll train! 

Share this post


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

Neither, but nice try!

The Jury said the Agreement was illegal, it was all about cheating.

 

There's a chasm of difference between doing something you believe is with in the rules, vs something you know isn't...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yep, the illegal agreement was to cheat.

Lol, you know the lie won't come true even if you repeat it a million times right? No matter how many times you repeat the lie, its still a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were two cases AC06 where OTUSA asked the Jury for an interpretation as to whether they could sign an agreement with another Challenger or Defender candidate.

Having got a response on AC06, AC07 was lodged by Artemis Racing as to whether the cooperation agreement between ETNZ and LR and the "planned relationship may violate certain clauses of the Protocol."

The Int Jury viewed the ENTZ and LR cooperation agreement and limited its application in some aspects. That is all.

 

Share this post


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

The Int Jury viewed the ENTZ and LR cooperation agreement and limited its application in some aspects.

Because it was about Cheating, or the Int Jury would obviously not have found them guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/03/2018 at 1:33 PM, surfsailor said:

I heard rumblings that there was discussion of walking back the giant spider monkey design concept

Frankly I hope so.

Something that is believable to work out of the box & be good to watch sailing.

Preferably also smaller & shallower to make base-building easier/cheaper. Shrink it to 60' with a sensible draught and the base options open up.

 

23 hours ago, sclarke said:

Correct Me if I am wrong, but isn't that exactly what happened with the 62?

Big difference is the AC62 was replaced nearly a year after the Rule had been published, Competitor group was established & a lot of design work had been done.

Switching/altering the concept before actually publishing the rule is a very different thing.

Share this post


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

Because it was about Cheating, or the Int Jury would obviously not have found them guilty.

In all seriousness, it wasn't cheating. It was clarification about what was a vague interpretation of the rules. That is far from cheating. By your logic, anyone who seeks clarification regarding a rule is a cheater? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spinray's logic is like asking a policeman directions to the bus-stop and then the bobby turns around and charges you with trying to steal it.

 

Share this post


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

In all seriousness, it wasn't cheating

The International Jury found GD guilty. His deal with P$B was illegal and they got busted for it. Yawn

A bigger question this time around given that history (the above misdeed dates to way back to June ‘11) is around if ‘COR/D’ will again work to disadvantage other Challengers.

Share this post


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

The International Jury found them guilty. 

Yawn

The International Jury did nothing of the sort. Still grasping at straws huh? The desperation to try and pin something on ETNZ is showing. Seriously, Google search "ETNZ get caught cheating" and see what comes up. Then Google search "Oracle Team USA get caught cheating" and see what comes up. There was cheating from one team, and we all know it wasn't the Kiwi's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD signed an illegal cooperation agreement between ETNZ and LR, they got busted for the cheating after Cayard callled them out on it, and they were forced to retreat - by the Jury. Guilty as charged.

 

Share this post


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

GD signed an illegal cooperation agreement between ETNZ and LR, they got busted for the cheating after Cayard callled them out on it, and they were forced to retreat - by the Jury. Guilty as charged.

 

Stingray has officially lost the plot people. He's lost his marbles. Once the voice of reason, he has been seduced..by the dark side of the Force.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Stingray has officially lost the plot people. 

Just because you are unable to recall or even find the facts of the matter does not alter the fact they were found guilty.

It was a big discussion here in the forum too. GD tried to sell an intimate, illegal deal with P$B and now they are COR/D. That’s not even worth a serious think about? 

Share this post


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

Just because you are unable to recall or even find the facts of the matter does not alter the fact they were found guilty.

It was a big discussion here in the forum too. GD tried to sell an intimate, illegal deal with P$B and now they are COR/D. That’s not even worth a serious think about? 

Its not just me who is unable to find it...its everyone. Everyone except you. 

There was nothing Illegal about it. All Paul Cayard said was "The Jury accepted ETNZ are not allowed to do what they said they would do" Which means they intended to do something in the future, but after clarification of the rule, the jury ruled it wasn't allowed, therefor it didn't happen. No cheating on the part of ETNZ, nothing at all, the jury decision you speak of is a non issue, its nothing. Its definitely not cheating. How about Artemis? They cheated right? Outteridge, Percy, and even Cayard himself, the man who this all hinges, they competed in AC34 in a boat which did not even meet the AC72 class rule. Did they cheat? Come on Stingray...consistency mate lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Its not just me who is unable to find it...its everyone. Everyone except you. 

There was nothing Illegal about it. All Paul Cayard said was

You are really ignorant and should stop posting BS, this has nothing to do with Paul Cayard but everyting to do with the prot.

Article 35.5 b of the first version of the prot was very clear: "competitors shall not sail an AC62 in a coordinated manner with a competitor"

It was later amended with authorization for the host city of the AC

I would not got to say they cheated but they did not respect the prot, and it has nothing to do with the interpretation, it was very clear.

Share this post


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

 The Deed makes provision for a Defender and a Challenger of Record. Mutual consent exists between a CoR and a Defender only, not a group of challengers.

Wrong again, and time to learn the basics before posting BS, the Deed only considers the challenger, the CoR only exists to make the difference with the other competitors in case of MC.

The MC is decided with the CoR but he can give upt its veto rights to the competitor forum.

Share this post


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

You are really ignorant and should stop posting BS, this has nothing to do with Paul Cayard but everyting to do with the prot.

Article 35.5 b of the first version of the prot was very clear: "competitors shall not sail an AC62 in a coordinated manner with a competitor"

It was later amended with authorization for the host city of the AC

I would not got to say they cheated but they did not respect the prot, and it has nothing to do with the interpretation, it was very clear.

"Article 35.5 b of the first version of the prot was very clear: "competitors shall not sail an AC62 in a coordinated manner with a competitor"

Wrong Protocol, before you accuse someone of not getting the basics right, make sure you get the basics right yourself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Wrong Protocol

Did you read article 29.2 of AC34 protocol ? there were very strict limits of periods to sail the AC72 and what they tried to do with LR was not within the prot.

Share this post


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

Wrong again, and time to learn the basics before posting BS, the Deed only considers the challenger, the CoR only exists to make the difference with the other competitors in case of MC.

The MC is decided with the CoR but can give upt its veto rights to the competitor forum.

" the challenger" is the Challenger of Record.

"CoR only exists to make the difference with the other competitors in case of MC." Which is exactly what I just said.

Luna Rossas rights to make the decision for challengers makes the difference in the case of MC. So whats the problem?

 

Share this post


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

" the challenger" is the Challenger of Record.

"CoR only exists to make the difference with the other competitors in case of MC." Which is exactly what I just said.

Luna Rossas rights to make the decision for challengers makes the difference in the case of MC. So whats the problem?

 

Jeezzz, the CoR word does not exist in the Deed.

The CoR only rights are the ones they agree with the defender in the MC. You  are completely wrong to say they have intrinsic rights, they have what the negociate. How long before you get it ?

Share this post


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

Jeezzz, the CoR word does not exist in the Deed.

The CoR only rights are the ones they agree with the defender in the MC. You  are completely wrong to say they have intrinsic rights, they have what the negociate. How long before you get it ?

The Challenger of Record is the Official Yacht Club who challenges the Defender. "The Challenger" The protocol is negotiated between the CoR and the Defender. The Challenger of Record holds veto rights over the rest of the Challengers, and reserves the right to make the decisions for the challengers, which is why it is so important to be challenger of record. 

https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-be-Challenger-of-Record-in-Americas-Cup

Share this post


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

It really shows your ignorance. Jack Griffin is an excellent and knowledgeable person, but please read the Deed before making your uninformed comments.

Why? Please shut the fuck up. The Challenger of Record is the Official Challenger, they reserve the right to make decisions for the challengers. Thats the way it is.

We all know what it means to be the CoR. Quit playing Dumb.

 

Share this post


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

Why? Please shut the fuck up. The Challenger of Record is the Official Challenger, they reserve the right to make decisions for the challengers. Thats the way it is.

Did you read the Deed, you didn't. Please quote it with the "challenger of record". :lol:

Share this post


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

Did you read the Deed, you didn't :lol:

The Deed makes provision for "The Challenger"

Share this post


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

Yes, thanks to make me right. So, where is your "challenger of record" ? :lol:

"Challenger of Record" is "The Challenger"

Share this post


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

Yes, thanks to make me right. So, where is your "challenger of record" ? :lol:

No, if i was up to you, they'd be reading the wrong protocol wondering why they're not allowed to sail two boats together that have nothing to do with the Americas Cup! lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Did you read article 29.2 of AC34 protocol ? there were very strict limits of periods to sail the AC72 and what they tried to do with LR was not within the prot.

And they were within those limits. The request was whether they could train the two boats together, which was what the jury ruled on. Still grasping at straws lol

Share this post


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

Your understanding limits makes the discussion useless.

Coming from the guy who tried to prove his point and insult someone to cover your tracks because you got it wrong. You have no credibility.

Share this post


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

Because it was about Cheating, or the Int Jury would obviously not have found them guilty.

STOP IT!!! I'm laughing so hard, Laughing tears :lol::lol::lol:
Still catching up, and I hope there's more trolling along the way, as this is the funniest thread since the end of ACBermuda.
Thanks!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

STOP IT!!! I'm laughing so hard, Laughing tears :lol::lol::lol:
Still catching up, and I hope there's more trolling along the way, as this is the funniest thread since the end of ACBermuda.
Thanks!!!

That's German sarcasm, hopefully ...

Share this post


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

That's German sarcasm, hopefully ...

That's a slightly perverted joy in good trolling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Neither, but nice try!

The Jury said the Agreement was illegal, it was all about cheating.

 

You really are an obnoxious piece of work, as bad, if not worse, than any other fanboy. Some tell me there was a time when you were an informed and made a significant contribution to this forum. I find it hard to believe.

What do you really not understand? ETNZ and LR did not undertake any activity that was illegal. They signed an agreement, which in itself cannot be cheating. The terms of that agreement were very public and before they acted on the agreement, the IJ interpreted that agreement. In the light of the interpretation, the agreement wasn't actioned. To me, all of that is the exact opposite of cheating. Cheats do not tell the world what they are doing. They do not take part in a process to understand if what they intend to do is legal. 

If what ETNZ and LR did was cheating, then every team that has ever asked for an interpretation that was told was against the rules must be guilty of cheating as well. So STFU and stop being a total dick.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Neither, but nice try!

The Jury said the Agreement was illegal, it was all about cheating.

 

Did you get that, Clarkey? They 

C H E A T E D !

Those bastards. And for the appropriate punishment handed down GD got mercilessly rogered with a kingpost. That’s where that whole damn thing all originated.

Learn to Google .. sheesh! 

Share this post


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

Yes Sir!

lol.. you pompous prick

I'd rather be called a pompous prick by you than be considered a complete dickhead by everybody, like you are.

Share this post


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

Did you get that, Clarkey? They 

C H E A T E D !

Those bastards. And for the appropriate punishment handed down GD got mercilessly rogered with a kingpost. That’s where that whole damn thing all originated.

Learn to Google .. sheesh! 

Nope. Lol still fucking things up huh Stinger!! Still haven't gotten over Bermuda, the PTSD has kicked in.

Share this post


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

I'd rather be called a pompous prick by you than be considered a complete dickhead by everybody, like you are.

Ooh, you hurt so good!

Your always-personal attacks are always like water off a duck’s back. 

If you could debate subjects without all the vindictiveness you might be worth reading. 

Bye bye

Share this post


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

If you could debate subjects without all the vindictiveness you might be worth reading. 

 

You know what Team_GBR, on that he has a point.

And "for the appropriate punishment handed down GD got mercilessly rogered with a kingpost" is actually pretty funny.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we just start a "Bitching About Anything" thread and get you guys to just carry on in there?  Some of us check this site every couple of days hoping to catchup on any AC info, but every thread is full of the same 6-7 posters bitch slapping each other.

4Vv51_s-200x150.gif

Share this post


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

"Challenger of Record" is "The Challenger"

Good, so the Challenger is entitled to veto rights, and the CoR too, as you were saying. Now can you explain why LR could not keep the AC62 ?  Please enlight us with your prose.

Share this post


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

Good, so the Challenger is entitled to veto rights, and the CoR too, as you were saying. Now can you explain why LR could not keep the AC62 ?  Please enlight us with your prose.

The Challenger of Record is the challenger. Why did LR not keep their Veto rights? Because they thought it would be better given the history of Litigation, to waive their veto rights and put together a challenger committee to get the teams working together. Instead what happened was the other challengers saw an opportunity to vote in their best interests. So they did, the challengers formed their own committee, within the challenger committee and banded together to oust Luna Rossa and ETNZ by voting to throw out the already agreed Class Rule and establish a new class rule, which suited teams like France and japan (co incidentally two teams given a helping hand by Oracle to get their campaigns off the ground). The Class Rule COULD NOT BE CHANGED without unanimous vote, but the protocol superseded the Class Rule and only needed a majority vote to get over the line. Coincidentally, Japan, France and Artemis, teams who voted in favor of changing the class rule are no longer part of the Americas Cup along with their defender Oracle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Herfy said:

 Some of us check this site every couple of days hoping to catchup on any AC info

Check back every couple of weeks instead. There isn't much happening.

 

Share this post


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

The Challenger of Record is the challenger. Why did LR not keep their Veto rights? Because they thought

Because if the Challenger of the Deed can negociate an MC and, if involving multiple challengers, is called to CoR to make the difference, and can negotiate the conditions of the match, involving their role and responsabilities.

Share this post


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

Because if the Challenger of the Deed can negociate an MC and, if involving multiple challengers, is called to CoR to make the difference, and can negotiate the conditions of the match, involving their role and responsabilities.

No one can "challenge the deed" 

Share this post


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

The Challenger of Record is the challenger. Why did LR not keep their Veto rights? Because they thought it would be better given the history of Litigation, to waive their veto rights and put together a challenger committee to get the teams working together. Instead what happened was the other challengers saw an opportunity to vote in their best interests. So they did, the challengers formed their own committee, within the challenger committee and banded together to oust Luna Rossa and ETNZ by voting to throw out the already agreed Class Rule and establish a new class rule, which suited teams like France and japan (co incidentally two teams given a helping hand by Oracle to get their campaigns off the ground). The Class Rule COULD NOT BE CHANGED without unanimous vote, but the protocol superseded the Class Rule and only needed a majority vote to get over the line. Coincidentally, Japan, France and Artemis, teams who voted in favor of changing the class rule are no longer part of the Americas Cup along with their defender Oracle. 

well BAR is back, who was in with sweden, france and japan.

plus, Artemis could well be back for another

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, inebriated said:

well BAR is back, who was in with sweden, france and japan.

plus, Artemis could well be back for another

BAR is the only confirmed team of the committee. Looking at the base plan that was released, it makes provision for 5 challengers and Luna Rossa. So we have BAR, NYYC, Adelasia of Torres, a possible Chinese Team, and one more place for either Artemis or Japan. And with Dean Barker going to NYYC, its highly unlikely Japan will enter.

Share this post


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

BAR is the only confirmed team of the committee. Looking at the base plan that was released, it makes provision for 5 challengers and Luna Rossa. So we have BAR, NYYC, Adelasia of Torres, a possible Chinese Team, and one more place for either Artemis or Japan. And with Dean Barker going to NYYC, its highly unlikely Japan will enter.

yeah, for sure

how likley is Adelasia of torres and a chinese team in the scheme of things?

japan is long gone though, half the team with others , and no oracle to lean on

Share this post


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

Learn to Google .. sheesh! 

Learn to swear!

Share this post


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

^^ Where did you read that ?

You said "the challenger of the deed" 

Share this post


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

Which is not "challenge the deed".

Yes it is, if you say "The challenger of the..." it means that challenger you speak of is challenging what ever it is you are talking about. If its not what you meant, Then you should've said "The Challenger the Deed refers to, or is referring to" 

Share this post


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

Nope. Lol still fucking things up huh Stinger!! Still haven't gotten over Bermuda, the PTSD has kicked in.

Says the one who hasn't gotten over San Francisco.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Did you get that, Clarkey? They 

C H E A T E D !

Those bastards. And for the appropriate punishment handed down GD got mercilessly rogered with a kingpost. That’s where that whole damn thing all originated.

Learn to Google .. sheesh! 

Classic spinbot annual melt down.....the Pinot kicks in hard and he goes mental....tosser...

Share this post


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

Says the one who hasn't gotten over San Francisco.

I'm well over it! Its your mate shitsailor who keeps bringing it up cos he wants to get to 100 pages.

Share this post


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

Yes it is, if you say "The challenger of the..." it means that challenger you speak of is challenging what ever it is you are talking about. If its not what you meant, Then you should've said "The Challenger the Deed refers to, or is referring to" 

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites