jack_sparrow

VOR AUCTION - OPPORTUNITIES LOST & STILL THERE?

Recommended Posts

I think you are spot on Jack. What makes it tricky is the others mostly developed their brand and prestige over may years to create something that is valuable. Volvo finds itself with a fully developed branded money pit it wants someone else to deal with.

Perhaps they should run it sans brand for a bit to show it can be attractive.

Personally it seems there is a fair bit of strangling the cat going on these days. I don't think sailing will ever be a mainstream media sport and is approaching its glass ceiling. Sadly as has been mentioned if it don't have no big hits, crashes or at least some blood and gore Joe public aint interested.

Funny part of the whole sponsorship slash advertising malarky is that eventually we all pay for it. Just like taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An 'unbranded' race would see other car manufacturers becoming involved.

 

An audi sponsored team?

A maserati sponsored team?

Ldv?

 

All have been involved with sailing before........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, paps49 said:

I think you are spot on Jack. What makes it tricky is the others mostly developed their brand and prestige over may years to create something that is valuable. Volvo finds itself with a fully developed branded money pit it wants someone else to deal with.

Perhaps they should run it sans brand for a bit to show it can be attractive.

 

Thanks Paps.

Hindsight is a wonderfull thing but "only if" when the founders of this race sitting in that English pub in the early 1970's and when the Whitbread Brewing executive said; "I reakon we should call it the "Whitbread Race", the guy from the British Royal Naval Sailing Association simply said; "Fuck off you get principal sponsorship rights, but you don't get Naming Rights as it shouldn't have any....and btw its your shout"

Dare I say things might be different today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volvo 65's... Boxy but good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ease the sheet said:

An 'unbranded' race would see other car manufacturers becoming involved.

An audi sponsored team?

A maserati sponsored team?

Ldv?

All have been involved with sailing before........

Ease now that your have asked Randumb for a divorce (I hope no kids involved) it is a pleasure to reply to your post :-)

A great point about those in just in the motor vehicle market who are already fans of the sailing product, but have no interest in backing a Volvo branded race.

May I suggest it also goes beyond "direct sponsorship" but opens up opportunities for "indirect sponsorship" and financial engineering by those thinking of sponsoring a team in some capacity.

Best example I can think of in "indirect sponsorship" and possibly bean counters doing some maths is the 50th Anniversary of the Hobart in 1994. A local businessman who just happens to make some of the world's biggest cat style ferries and defence vessels wanted to enter a boat and get Line Honours. He is also a bloke of the mindset that if you look after the cents the dollars will look after themselves. Very successful guy, great business.

He was also a very lucky prick as the genisus to his ferry building business was on account 20 years previous in 1975 a ship took the bridge out connecting one side of Hobart with the other and he just happened to run the cross river ferry business.

Anyway with the target of Line Honours for the 50th Hobart in mind he was leaving nothing to luck. Some months previous Grant Dalton won (well sort of against W60's) the 1993/94 Whitbread in a IOR max rater. So guess what boat (chartered) the Ferryman showed up in at the Hobart starting line?

Now rememeber in that era advertising was just being accepted (another huge fuck up by the world of sailing) to the extent Lawrie Smith's British maxi Rothmans was stripped of Line Honours in the 1990 Hobart for flashing a logo bearing spinnaker outside the sight of land (because they had blown up the unbranded ones up), but was caught by a helicopter. 

Anyway by 1994 limited signage was allowed. However no sponsor handed over wads of cash for a signage controlled race like the S2H. The Ferryman's engine supplier was Catapillar, probably still is. So to the mm permitted by the SI's she was covered in black and yellow cat stickers

So back to financial engineering and indirect sponsorship opportunities in this race if it was to be "unbranded".  My guess is the Australian taxpayer owns a fair slice of the 94 Hobart Line Honours silverware sitting in the Ferryman's bookshelf. I'm sure other countries have a similar and legitamate accounting and taxation regime that equals or betters that.

Fuck I can go on...sorry

Share this post


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

Volvo 65's... Boxy but good!

You really need a Troll refresh course. Not many bites here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volvo 65's, broachy and wet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2018 at 2:23 PM, LB 15 said:

I doubt he gave a fuck. There are no other people like you. 

That is true.  I'm unique, one of a kind.  They broke the mould.

So you are the result of mass production.  So many fuckwits, so little time.

Share this post


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

In the interim the franchise owner has to drive this event forward in a manner far different than the one they have employed to date and which has essentially been one of skippers wandering the streets begging for money. 

I am not sure what's so wrong about skippers looking for money. Apart from the clipper race (which is mid way between charter and racing) , I can't think of a single successful offshore race which doesn't work this way. This system is proven and works. Skippers who aren't good at "the speaking to CEOs bit" work with professional fundraisers as anyway nowadays all skippers serious about professional offshore racing have teams behind them.

The reason why the VOR isn't working is that it's bad value for money for the boat sponsors, they can :

  1. reduce budgets till it's good value for money, 
  2. give more value for the same budget
  3. or a mix of the 2.

Option 1 means something like a 3 or 4 person crew on a class40, option 2 means keeping the same format and managing to be on prime time TV/mainstream internet in places where sponsors want audience and for option 3 there are many solutions racing IMOCAs being one of them (more entries => more exposure for everybody, boats and teams already sustained by an established circuit => less capital thus less costs, and smaller crew => less costs).

This idea of the race organisers finding the money and giving jobs to sailors so they can spend sponsor dollars they didn't fought for is akin to trying to reinvent communism on the sea IMHO.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am not sure what's so wrong about skippers looking for money. .

...I can't think of a single successful offshore race which doesn't work this way.

This idea of the race organisers finding the money and giving jobs to sailors ...

Skippers/Team promotors looking for money for their own Team is part and parcel with the job. It is a tough gig. What isn't fine and makes that task harder is them having do that in conjunction with marketing a multinational vehicle conglomerate who happens to be the RO.

The RO should be a cleanskin and take their brand off the race.

Those comparable and so professional offshore races you refer to are all "unbranded" races.

I'm not saying race organisers find the money and give jobs to sailors. Read my post above in reply to SX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paps49 said:

I think you are spot on Jack. What makes it tricky is the others mostly developed their brand and prestige over may years to create something that is valuable. Volvo finds itself with a fully developed branded money pit it wants someone else to deal with.

Perhaps they should run it sans brand for a bit to show it can be attractive.

Personally it seems there is a fair bit of strangling the cat going on these days. I don't think sailing will ever be a mainstream media sport and is approaching its glass ceiling. Sadly as has been mentioned if it don't have no big hits, crashes or at least some blood and gore Joe public aint interested.

Funny part of the whole sponsorship slash advertising malarky is that eventually we all pay for it. Just like taxes.

Interestingly, crashes and big hits aren't even enough anymore to attract fans in the US to some "sports", at least on TV: NASCAR viewership and interest has dropped precipitously and its ownership is considering selling the franchise; hockey struggles for fans (at least on TV; puck hard to see, I guess, for some...). Formula 1 has been plagued with fraud in its ownership. 

The VOR needs an audience. Virtually no one outside of racing or sailing in the US, for one, is aware of the race. That topic has been complained about in many threads on Ocean Racing Anarchy. I know people all over the US and not a single one who does not sail follows the VOR or any other race except possibly the AC. The VOR's PR is just terrible. I don't know what kind of ratings it had last year when it ran a weekly show on TV, but it was hard to find and not advertised at all, before, or during, the Race, at least I never saw any.   It could do a lot more with drones during the race. A 24/7 live tracker would be appreciated by the hard core fans. Less secret, more transparency, and has Jack and others agree about, it definitely needs someone with experience running a major corporation as its CEO. It does appear to have a sizable technical group to produce data and information, though it could use some fine tuning, and it needs to clone Conrad Colman. Information should not be so hard to find; a lot of the stuff SC posts I cannot find on the VOR website. This year the VOR used so any media platforms it was occasionally confusing to try to find out where things were. 

The non-sailing friends and family that I share VOR videos with are all amazed with the fabulous drone footage and helicopter videos of e.g in-port races. They exclaim over the closeness of the boats to one another, the sea conditions, the size of the boats, the maneuvers. Some became fans.  But without that being shown with any regularity they lose interest. 

The VOR  or its successor needs to tinker with its product if it wants to succeed. "America's pastime - Baseball-  is struggling now for a number of reasons. One is that it the games are so slow and take too long. MLB hasn't been as aggressive as it needs to be to speed up the game (and there are union issues). 

I am glad Jack has generated this discussion. I hope the VOR reads some of the posts. I am very curious to know what it plans to do to ensure there is another edition. I for one enjoy the crew aspect of the race and do hope it continues in some form.  

Share this post


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

Skippers/Team promotors looking for money for their own Team is part and parcel with the job. It is a tough gig. What isn't fine and makes that task harder is them having do that in conjunction with marketing a multinational vehicle conglomerate who happens to be the RO.

The RO should be a cleanskin and take their brand off the race.

Those comparable and so professional offshore races you refer to are all "unbranded" races.

I'm not saying race organisers find the money and give jobs to sailors. Read my post above in reply to SX.

The transat Jacques Vabre is branded and has been going on for more than 25 years. I don't think that the concept is inherently wrong, it is just badly applied and not bringing enough value to the sponsors.

Share this post


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

In effect the underwriting seed investors for each team do exactly that whether for their own campaign or collectively for the race itself.

If they can't get sufficient additional external capital they have a choice of either bailing out or continuing in the hope it can be picked up post the final comittment date (which could be the start) without having to tip in more of their own down the track. Brunel is probably a good example of that. My guess is this is the scenario Akzo found themselves in pre-race, but with no control and drove them to sack their Skipper/Team Promotor. That by the way is a great advertisement for the future of sponsorship in this race.

You then apply that team by team financial structuring to the whole race and quickly see that the whole event is teetering on a knifes edge literaly up until eve of the start. That is hardly an environment to be running around convincing 3rd party financiers/sponsors there is stability and their investment is well placed backing this event. Little wonder it is a struggle.

For instance would this edition have even have gone ahead with just four teams if late entries TTOP, Brunel, and Scally had not got off the ground? I suggest not.

Sorry.  I was responding to the suggestion that an owner/investor pay for the whole campaign out of pocket.  No.  A collective effort with intent put up by said investor/owner with additional funding through sponsorship.  Rather than expect a skipper to raise the funds, let the owner/investor do what he does best and leverage the relationships made available to him through business and social interactions. They all run in the same small circles.

But, and most importantly, an owner/investor needs a story to pitch and the current one is a B - Rated Horror flick.

The Vendee is still successful because it has always retained and vigorously defended equity in it's brand, mission and story.  The aura around the Vendee has never faded since taking the baton from the previous solo non stops.  Who cares if half the boats don't finish?  The story is that strong.  

The VOR on the other hand has given up equity in it's brand.  Life at the Extreme seems like a stretch these days.  Who believes it anymore?  What's the appeal?

The other thing the Vendee has done so very well has been keeping the conversation centered around the boat.  The boats are the stars of this picture.  Not the skippers, crew or sponsors.  It's all about the boat!  Whether we are discussing new designs, old designs, future designs, classic designs or rebuilds.  Boats are what get us off.  The stuff of dreams.  The femme fatales that ruin us with their beauty and promise.  The 65, sorry to say, is like the last girl standing at the bar.  It's late.  We'll take it.

Story and boat.  Isn't that why we are all here talking about any of this in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to hear those that think the Vendee Globe is so strong.  IMOCA and the RO are worried about it.

This time round will be the weakest fleet since 2004. Only 3 new boats, but still maximum entrants. More corinthians, less fully pro teams, less serious sponsors, less comms budget.

So even though it looks strong, there are worries that it is only on the surface, and that in fact the fleet is not as strong as it could be.  

Don't get me wrong, there are some serious contenders without new boats; eg Sam.  It is just interesting to note that the organisers are not as comfortable with the strength of the race, as perhaps some fans are.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Interesting to hear those that think the Vendee Globe is so strong.  IMOCA and the RO are worried about it.

This time round will be the weakest fleet since 2004. Only 3 new boats, but still maximum entrants. More corinthians, less fully pro teams, less serious sponsors, less comms budget.

So even though it looks strong, there are worries that it is only on the surface, and that in fact the fleet is not as strong as it could be.  

Don't get me wrong, there are some serious contenders without new boats; eg Sam.  It is just interesting to note that the organisers are not as comfortable with the strength of the race, as perhaps some fans are.

 

I think we're at a transition phase as well - foiling is obviously the way to go with the downwind focus, how many architects are out there who can do the work & also have the spare time to add another? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Potter said:

Only 3 new boats, but still maximum entrants.

I swear I saw an article saying 5 new builds.  But can't find it now.

Charlie Dalin

Alex Thompson

Armel Tripon

Share this post


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

The transat Jacques Vabre is branded and has been going on for more than 25 years. 

While that race has a commercial name, (coffee company) it was founded on a long standing and strong historical link, being the Sth American European coffee run. I think it is a bit of a stretch to indicate a race named after a vehicle manufacturer has the same integrity and therefore lacks the issues I have raised.

One way of dicing it up might be to ask what value would a potential buyer put on the name, Volvo Ocean Race if they were taking over the franchise? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

While that race has a commercial name, (coffee company) it was founded on a long standing and strong historical link, being the Sth American European coffee run. I think it is a bit of a stretch to indicate a race named after a vehicle manufacturer has the same integrity and therefore lacks the issues I have raised.

One way of dicing it up might be to ask what value would a potential buyer put on the name, Volvo Ocean Race if they were taking over the franchise? 

It is an interesting point. The TdF is organized by the ASO - media conglomerate. In the old days it was newspaper companies. 

The Volvo Ocean Race, being promoted and branded the way it is, basically means no auto manufacturer or marine industry that competes against Volvo branding will participate. 

It is a tough market for everyone in sports right now. Particularly ones where ticket & product sales don't pay the bills. WEC has seen all the manufacturer teams except Toyota bail for Formula E. Formula 1 is struggling to find balance between customer relevancy, top performance/cost/modernizing its product for a more digital era where ppl have more options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, southerncross said:

The boats are the stars of this picture.  Not the skippers, crew or sponsors. 

Southern if that premise was true and where the patient has been very unwell for nearly 20 years, why has it  been on life support since the inception of the V70 (and maintained for a greater part of that period), a rule boat you say still cuts the mustard?

Is it unreasonable to suggest it is time to seriously look beyond just the boat?

After all the hearse is just around the corner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH reading everyone's comments and thinking it through - but having more emotional connection with crewed offshore racing itself, I realized I don't really care if the event continues in the current format, under the Volvo name, or on any particular type of boats. I just want it to be competitive amongst the fleet and for the par (as opposed to trying to compare with boats outside the event).

The TDF has a lot of bike tech rolled out everywhere - but the UCI still regulates the sport in the way that basically I can go out tomorrow and build a lighter faster bike than the pro peloton is righting. IOW, it isn't about the bike.

It isn't about the boat.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

While that race has a commercial name, (coffee company) it was founded on a long standing and strong historical link, being the Sth American European coffee run. I think it is a bit of a stretch to indicate a race named after a vehicle manufacturer has the same integrity and therefore lacks the issues I have raised.

One way of dicing it up might be to ask what value would a potential buyer put on the name, Volvo Ocean Race if they were taking over the franchise? 

Not much, they would be buying the whitbread heritage.

If the race becomes unbranded it means higher entry fees so you have to balance this from the sponsor point of view. I suppose that some will prefer to pay higher entry fees others won't. I don't think that the fact that the race is named after a car manufacturer such a big issue, I think that it could work if they were clever enough to give good value for money to the boat sponsors to create a win-win situation.

Share this post


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

Southern if that was premise true and the patient has been very unwell for nearly 20 years, why has it  been on life support since the inception of the V70 (and maintained for a greater part of that period), a rule boat you say still cuts the mustard?

Is it unreasonable to suggest it is time to seriously look beyond just the boat as the hearse is just around the corner?

I agreed with a previous post of yours that although I prefer innovation, I think OD makes more sense and has more interest at the top end.  The cost savings and Boatyard set up are positives that work IMO.

A One Design can be an exciting, thrilling boat.

4 minutes ago, Miffy said:

It isn't about the boat.

Then why not follow the Clipper? 

Of course it's about the boat.  It's always been about the boat and always will be about the boat, since the Clipper ships to the new Ran 40.  If you've ever had your pulse on the wheel and know the difference between a dog and a beauty, then you know the boat has everything to do with it.  Put the TDF riders on beach cruisers.  Let's see how fun that is to watch.

7 minutes ago, Miffy said:

The TDF has a lot of bike tech rolled out everywhere - but the UCI still regulates the sport in the way that basically I can go out tomorrow and build a lighter faster bike than the pro peloton is righting. IOW, it isn't about the bike.

TDF is about the rider but also about the bike.  It's this event amongst others that inspires the weekend warrior to fork over $7K for a road bike he'll use ten times a year.

Share this post


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

If the race becomes unbranded it means higher entry fees

Why? The franchise holder has a multitude of other income sources to underwrite their costs other just entry fees. 

10 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

I don't think that the fact that the race is named after a car manufacturer such a big issue, I think that it could work if they were clever enough to give good value for money to the boat sponsors to create a win-win situation.

That exact model is running around now in its second edition. How is it going and does it have future if it remains unchanged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TdF isn't really about the bike anymore. The UCI minimum weight has been 6.8kg since as long as I can remember.

Yah there's been aerodynamic improvements on road bikes, and wheels are stiffer and better than ever. But as long as I can remember (going back 15+ years), the UCI weight limit has been 6.8 kg. I'm not a pro cyclist - I've had the same carbon frame since ~2003. And my bike, despite having my multitool & frame pump and nothing extreme - sits at 7kg. If I were racing, I can change my wheels and find 200 grams silly easy. I keep trucking along on my heavier wheels because I don't want to get stranded (having no motorcade following) and I like the road feel and the rotational weight makes good training. The pros on the most modern Giant frames, with the best and lightest Shimano Dura-Ace gear and latest carbon wheels (that have to pass certain UCI crash standards) - still have to add ballast to their bikes.

I remember in the 1990s & 2000s, companies would make extremely superlight stems/handlebars/seatposts to help folks do better in uphill stages/races - these days it is so easy to build a 6.8kg bike people just get the most comfortable handle bar/stem/saddle/seatpost because the weight isn't relevant anymore.

I don't think it is about the bike. I don't think it is about the boat.

Share this post


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

I don't think it is about the boat.

I respect your opinion but I can't fathom it.  Women and boats have been my weakness, curse and downfall since I can remember.  Saying it's not about the boat is like saying a marriage has nothing to do with the girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway.  Got to run.  Great discussions by all.  Please excuse my impassioned ideas but I think it's good to throw it all at the wall to see what sticks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it should be about the boat, like it isn’t about the bike. But then there need to be real characters who are given the freedom to be entertaining and make non sailors wish they were there.

we rarely get that in sailing. And when we do they tend to get too controlled by PR/HR etc so all that is left to be interested in is the boat.

Share this post


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

Saying it's not about the boat is like saying a marriage has nothing to do with the girl.

It is when her daddy has a 3 masted 200 footer.

Bye SX...btw you must stop saying horrible things about that last girl standing at the bar. Far better than the one passed out on the floor beside her.

Share this post


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

That exact model is running around now in its second edition. How is it going and does it have future if it remains unchanged?

Seems to have worked at least as well for the sponsors second time around as it did first time. As us and we will all agree it needs changing. But ask the guys writing the cheques and I bet they will ask why you been to change. From a sponsors perspective they do what Volvo has asked for. The problem is that they don’t seem to know what they want to ask for next time around to expand the appeal.

Share this post


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

. But ask the guys writing the cheques and I bet they will ask why you been to change.

Isn't it more a case of asking the guys who are not writing cheques why not?

Share this post


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

Why? The franchise holder has a multitude of other income sources to underwrite their costs other just entry fees.

There isn't a thing such as a free lunch... Why should they underwrite the costs if they don't get value from it?

That exact model is running around now in its second edition. How is it going and does it have future if it remains unchanged?

If it works for others and not for them, it just means that they aren't doing it right....

Share this post


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

There isn't a thing such as a free lunch... Why should they underwrite the costs if they don't get value from it?

Pano I'm a bit lost. No different than types of sources where say Vendee RO gets its financial support from. N.B. A branded race like the Volvo struggles in this arena beyond race related equipment and service providers. A race with stopovers the RO gets big bucks from host cities, corporates etc.etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is now wrong with the VOR?

1.  There is now not enough kudos associated with winning it. It means far more to a Skipper and his/her fans to win the VG or the Figaro Solitaire.

2.  The technical performance of the yachts in the race is in recession/standstill (Unlike mini, Imoca, Class 40 etc. etc.)

3.  The event is not creating role models for the public (Unlike VG, Big Multihulls, even Minis).

4.  The competitors are not being treated well enough. ( Unlike golfers, racing drivers, footballers, athletes! etc.) Crews are kept low profile, probably not being paid enough,  and the business men and their stopover guests(!!!) are being seen as more important

5.  The real top sailors don't want to/need to, do it again!

6. That one-design, organiser-owned fleet! Dreadful concept, boring, too restrictive (Nothing like it in other sports?, even in darts you can choose your "arrows".)

7. Perversely, it seems having relatively sluggish one designs sailed by crews of comparable high ability, actually means that luck now affects results more and not less. i.e. the Newport finish! To come consistently near the back maybe you do need to be bad. To win you need to be lucky!

But as Jack and lots of others here say, the money for anything better isn't likely to materialise any time soon. Result? Death of a thousand cuts, I am very sad to conclude.

I always read what Jack and Francis have to say with great interest but on this subject I think they are both way off the mark. It has to be a race first and a business, way second. I am more aligned with Random.

... and what am I watching right now? The nail biting finish of the Bermudes1000!

Share this post


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

Pano I'm a bit lost. No different than types of sources where say Vendee RO gets its financial support from. N.B. A branded race like the Volvo struggles in this arena beyond race related equipment and service providers. A race with stopovers the RO gets big bucks from host cities, corporates etc.etc. 

The VG is (or was?) funded by the local government. This was a brilliant strategy as it brought lot of money in the area well beyond the investment. And by the way the Vendée Globe is yet another "named" race as the local government is Vendée and they are now owning the race organisation indirectly (it was Jeantot's and went bust about 20 years ago) so that it can't be moved to another place such as Brittany. They get the money they invest back, they aren't underwriting it at a loss.

On the other hand the Tour de France Voile is a true commercial operation, you pay your entry fees, they sell some advertising, get some money from the stops and make (hopefully!) a profit out of it.

The VOR is more like the Vendée Globe, the big difference being that the boat sponsors of the Vendée Globe get a lot more value for a lower budget and there are opportunities for semi Corinthian gigs to take part making sure that they fill all the spots (the local government just want many people to turn up in Vendée and the mainstream media to talk about it). That's why I think that the VOR either need to lower dramatically the budgets (can they make it say half price of a VG) or increase value (can they convince the mainstream media to talk about it?).

The route du rhum is a bit midway, it is a commercial operation which get funding from the local area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Jack's bleats here,  indicate that the numbers on the event aren't what they were looking for.

Yeah?

Share this post


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

This time round will be the weakest fleet since 2004. Only 3 new boats, but still maximum entrants. More corinthians, less fully pro teams, less serious sponsors, less comms budget..

...there are some serious contenders without new boats;

So how exactly is a collection of mostly newer and much faster boats, with the numbers of wannabe entrants exceeding the departure port capacity, a "weak" fleet? let alone weakest since 2004?

And how do you define a "corinthian"? in the context of the 2020 Vendee Globe?

.....and what are the actual numbers you are comparing which lead you to the conclusion there are fewer fully-pro teams?

I would be interested to see your list of "not fully pro teams", so I can understand your definition of "pro". I don't know many folk who work on the VG boats who are unpaid.

I find it rather hard to accept a description of anyone making an attempt to race around the world single handed in a 60 foot race boat in the Vendee Globe race as not being a "serious contender". Check the history of the race. You do not need a new boat to win or come very close to the top.

Share this post


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

So what is now wrong with the VOR?...

 ..It has to be a race first and a business, way second. 

That is a big list of all things wrong. I'm just concentrating on the RO structure and the funding format for the moment because without a foundation nothing can be built.

I'm sorry Staysail but it has been both a race and a business since it's inception, the latter varying in intensity over time. For instance when it started the professional sailor did not exist yet Whitbread were not funding a race because they liked giving money away.

In your list of all things wrongs, you make no mention of the RO or the money and where it comes from and more importantly where it could come from.

To ignore that your list good or bad then simply becomes utopian "build it and they will come" scorcery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Build it and the will come' is how this all started!

Unfortunately,  now, the cost of participation is much higher than the prize.....

Share this post


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

The 65, sorry to say, is like the last girl standing at the bar.  It's late.  We'll take it.

LOL..... perfect description.

 

9 hours ago, southerncross said:

Story and boat.  Isn't that why we are all here talking about any of this in the first place?

Every other time I've followed the VOR closely, I never had a favourite team, it's the story and the boat that had my interest. Knowing that the VO65 is slower frustrates me as a fan. I want to know that the new generation boat is faster than the last, although I would accept it if they went smaller but due to design advances, no speed was lost. 

If Formula 1 went to One Design, even if it meant there were 20 Ferraris that were faster than the current F1, then I'd lose interest even faster than I am now. Although, if they were powered by a 3 litre V12 that shattered your ear drums, then I might reconsider.  

I only have a favourite this time around because of the BS around the Witty video and the witch hunt by idiots in the real world and in the virtual world Random and his fanboys... 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

'Build it and the will come' is how this all started!

Unfortunately,  now, the cost of participation is much higher than the prize.....

Ease not quite true. Even for the inaugural race The Royal Naval Association canvassed opinion amount potential entrants etc before Whitbread wrote the first cheque. They did come, the eventual winner leaving with his wife who went along for the ride. She got off in Cape Town not liking it that much.

Things change with time be it yacht racing or what a cup of coffee now looks like.

The maxi Steinlager 2 the only boat to win to all legs outright (in a 20+ boat race) had the 24 hour record I think of nearly 350 mile. These OD 65 footers now do 500 plus mile days with ease.

We all applaud this advancement but some suddenly object because it costs too much and ignore the simple fact that more means to fund it have to be found for it to exist.

"Can't have your cake and eat it" applies very aptly to this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Panoramix said:

The reason why the VOR isn't working is that it's bad value for money for the boat sponsors, they can :

  1. reduce budgets till it's good value for money, 
  2. give more value for the same budget
  3. or a mix of the 2.

4. Improve the product to the extent that sponsors are willing to spend even more money.

As far as sponsors are concerned, VOR only attracts B or C grade companies. Not one team sponsor is a household name or even known outside of their limited market places. The VOR needs to be a product that will attract some of the top 100 or even 1000 most valuable brands or companies and given it's global reach, VOR should be attracting global sponsors.

The stopover in Melbourne was piss poor. They could not generate any media interest even with so many Aussies on the boats. Clearly VOR made little effort to generate interest. 

If they keep dumbing down the boats VOR will soon be the VGGR (Volvo Golden Globe Race)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VOR and people here should stop looking at Vendee Globe and IMOCA to make VOR more successful. It reminds me of when a TV station launches a new program that is a hit and then it's rivals rehash the idea and produce their own pathetic clone.

VOR should be looking at the Americas Cup for inspiration. It's a big money event that attracts A grade companies as sponsors. They should look at how the sponsors got their ROI and see how VOR can be packaged to gain the same relative ROI. Even a bells and whistles VOR campaign will cost a fraction of the AC, so the value of the benefits of VOR does not need to be at the same level.

I found 

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/09/26/cost-compete-34th-americas-cup/ Published on September 26th, 2013

 

Quote

 

Jim Clark, co-founder of Netscape and Silicon Graphics, was in San Francisco as a spectator of the America’s Cup. Clark has been successfully campaigning his J Boat Hanuman, but has no interest in joining the modern era of the event.

“I’ve got enough money,” said Clark, whose wealth is estimated at $1.35 billion. “But I’m not going to blow $200 million to get my name put on a trophy. If it was in the 50-75 [million-dollar] range and I could put a good team together I would give it some thought, but at the moment I’m not contemplating anything like that.”

 

VOR needs to make the event one in which people like Jim Clarke will want the trophy on his mantle piece. One Design is not how to do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

4. Improve the product to the extent that sponsors are willing to spend even more money.

As far as sponsors are concerned, VOR only attracts B or C grade companies. Not one team sponsor is a household name or even known outside of their limited market places. The VOR needs to be a product that will attract some of the top 100 or even 1000 most valuable brands or companies and given it's global reach, VOR should be attracting global sponsors.

The stopover in Melbourne was piss poor. They could not generate any media interest even with so many Aussies on the boats. Clearly VOR made little effort to generate interest. 

If they keep dumbing down the boats VOR will soon be the VGGR (Volvo Golden Globe Race)

 

 

Akzo Nobel, MAPFRE and Dongfeng have larger market positions than you are suggesting. Vestas is the largest wind turbine company in the world. 

I agree there's an issue of attracting marketing - but they're not exactly "B or C grade companies" - whatever your exp in Melbourne was, those teams aren't the issue.

MAPFRE sponsors multiple sporting endeavours all over Europe. They're branded on Formula 1 cars. Dongfeng is a Chinese state owned auto company - and it has basically huge cash with limited marketing goals and knowhow - they're better at manufacturing Renault/Nissan cars and Dong Feng trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paps if you want to concentrate on indicating I'm factually incorrect instead of formulating an argument to counter that, or putting one up yourself, forgive me but I will continue to correct you.

8 hours ago, Panoramix said:

The VG is (or was?) funded by the local government. This was a brilliant strategy as it brought lot of money in the area well beyond the investment.

The RO is the municipality of Les Sables d’Olonne and the Conseil Départemental de la Vendée, or department/region. They are not for profit public entities that source race funding from a vast variety of sources and do not rely solely on the public purse as I have already indicated.

Key partners or sponsors include the company SODEBO and the Région des Pays de la Loire and Tourism Boards. There also around 30 odd private company's or commercial entities plus many "contra" or "in kind" contributers.

The RO for the VOR on the other hand is commercial entity and other than race related suppliers it's only source of commercial funding outside that from competitors is from Stopover Host Cities/Tourism Boards and associated stopover income.

It only receives a fraction of what the VG RO receives largely because corporates are not attracted to funding another corporates marketing endeavours. Team sponsorship financial support is another box of monkeys, albeit it will never incorporate a light or heavy vehicle manufacturer for obvious reasons. NB. Dongfeng is a Volvo related entity.

8 hours ago, Panoramix said:

And by the way the Vendée Globe is yet another "named" race as the local government is Vendée and they are now owning the race organisation indirectly

I already mentioned this in my OP along with some other race examples to avoid confusion. Race Name/RO attached to the VG is a not for profit local government or statutory region. It is not the name of a multinational conglomerate in the light, heavy vehicle and marine propulsion business.

Share this post


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

 

Akzo Nobel, MAPFRE and Dongfeng have larger market positions than you are suggesting. Vestas is the largest wind turbine company in the world. 

I agree there's an issue of attracting marketing - but they're not exactly "B or C grade companies" - whatever your exp in Melbourne was, those teams aren't the issue.

MAPFRE sponsors multiple sporting endeavours all over Europe. They're branded on Formula 1 cars. Dongfeng is a Chinese state owned auto company - and it has basically huge cash with limited marketing goals and knowhow - they're better at manufacturing Renault/Nissan cars and Dong Feng trucks.

Re the Melbourne experience, the sponsers and race are very eurocentric.

This fact is super important.  Us non euros are discussing what has become a very euro race.

I'm not sure our markets are considered important enough for advertisers to care. ....

Share this post


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

Ease not quite true. Even for the inaugural race The Royal Naval Association canvassed opinion amount potential entrants etc before Whitbread wrote the first cheque. They did come, the eventual winner leaving with his wife who went along for the ride. She got off in Cape Town not liking it that much.

Things change with time be it yacht racing or what a cup of coffee now looks like.

The maxi Steinlager 2 the only boat to win to all legs outright (in a 20+ boat race) had the 24 hour record I think of nearly 350 mile. These OD 65 footers now do 500 plus mile days with ease.

We all applaud this advancement but some suddenly object because it costs too much and ignore the simple fact that more means to fund it have to be found for it to exist.

"Can't have your cake and eat it" applies very aptly to this debate.

If going faster prices the race out of existence,  then what?

You've brought up steinlager and nz endeavour. Do you really think the boats of today will be remembered like them?

I still want a swan 65 ketch.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, hoppy said:

VOR should be looking at the Americas Cup for inspiration. It's a big money event that attracts A grade companies as sponsors. They should look at how the sponsors got their ROI and see how VOR can be packaged to gain the same relative ROI. Even a bells and whistles VOR campaign will cost a fraction of the AC, so the value of the benefits of VOR does not need to be at the same level.

I found 

“I’ve got enough money,” said Clark, whose wealth is estimated at $1.35 billion. “But I’m not going to blow $200 million to get my name put on a trophy. If it was in the 50-75 [million-dollar] range and I could put a good team together I would give it some thought, but at the moment I’m not contemplating anything like that.”

 

Good point Hoppy. You then say.

50 minutes ago, hoppy said:

VOR needs to make the event one in which people like Jim Clarke will want the trophy on his mantle piece. One Design is not how to do it.

Noting that Clark did commission at a cost of $30M and campaign for a number of years (probably min 20% build cost pa) the worlds fastest offshore mono, isnt the question why didn't he?

It can't have been the current OD platform because for a decade before the V70 was on show?

If not the boat then, why didn't he have a crack?

I think it was Miff who answered that question very well up thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

You've brought up steinlager and nz endeavour. Do you really think the boats of today will be remembered like them?

Rememberence of those two is probably the domain of the over 50's where a coffee is black two sugers and their next major financial outlays will be the retirement home, then the undertaker. The frugal ones will cut out the middleman.

The younger generation knowing the Pan colour code of Mapfre's paint job will probably say "Steinlager 2..is that coffee with or without milk?

Share this post


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

Noting that Clark did commission at a cost of $30M and campaign for a number of years (probably min 20% build cost pa) the fastest offshore mono isnt the question why didn't he?

I think the distinction being made is between $200MM and $30MM.

Just catching up.  Great ideas.

Share this post


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

I think the distinction being made is between $200MM and $30MM.

Ketchup mate..Clark said of the AC  "If it was in the 50-75 [million-dollar] range I could put a good team together."

Share this post


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

Ketchup mate..Clark said  "If it was in the 50-75 [million-dollar] range I could put a good team together."

Yeah.  I understand that.  I don't think I understood your post.

But now we're getting somewhere.  $50 - 75MM.  There might be interest. But at what price point and for what kind of trophy?  Gets the wheels spinning.

So here when I said "build it and they will come", it was really a continuation of what you originated -  that there needs to be a fresh start and rethink.

Clean slate.  Target market.  What's the offering?

What's going to get the Jimmy's of the world to pass up on a masterful blow job aboard their luxury yacht and fork over $20MM for a shot at a trophy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, southerncross said:

What's going to get the Jimmy's of the world to pass up on a masterful blow job aboard their luxury yacht and fork over $20MM for a shot at a trophy?

They have a $20M blow-job budget and have to use that money to afford funding a VOR campaign?? Wrong guys, pockets aren't deep enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Noting that Clark did commission at a cost of $30M and campaign for a number of years (probably min 20% build cost pa) the worlds fastest offshore mono, isnt the question why didn't he?

It can't have been the current OD platform because for a decade before the V70 was on show?

If not the boat then, why didn't he have a crack?

I think it was Miff who answered that question very well up thread.

 

The reason for this thread is part of the reason why he didn't try for the VOR trophy. It has a jaded star and is the poor cousin to the Vendee Globe. Even if the VO70 was exciting enough, the event has probably been poorly managed and marketed.

But the biggest reason, was that in 2013 when the comment was made, VOR were already preparing to build the VO65 for the next edition. OD is great for sailors as it takes the boat out of the question for the trophy hunt, but the guys who are interested enough in yacht racing that they might be potential benefactors, did not get as wealthy as they are from going into business on a level playing field.    

 

Share this post


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

OD is great for sailors as it takes the boat out of the question for the trophy hunt, but the guys who are interested enough in yacht racing that they might be potential benefactors, did not get as wealthy as they are from going into business on a level playing field.  

Hoppy the problem with that assumption that OD has precluded wealthy privateers is it is not supported by history. Other than a handful they have never been interested, even when it wasn't an even playing field (max rater then box rule) and the last one to front up was 30 years ago.

Furthermore belting the OD horse with stick is not even supported by the media metrics which have trended upwards, some substantially since introduction of OD.

The issues lie elsewhere. As already articulated in detail, I believe it to be the RO/Financial Model, which in essence hasn't really changed, even under OD and is now extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ease the sheet said:

'Build it and the will come' is how this all started!

Unfortunately,  now, the cost of participation is much higher than the prize.....

Its not the cost. 99% of the sailors through the history of the event could surely never have financed it?  Its the rich and powerful people in the world that have changed, and they have much more money than in the past. They could easily afford to stage the event and compete in it if they wanted to. That is the big "if".

When I was young, enough of the rich people of this world were still human, liked and understood ocean racing, and enjoyed making it all happen. Maybe they reckoned to make money from it? Maybe they didn't care too much so long as the racing was great?

Can you imagine the same spirit from the likes of Gates, Zuckerberg, etc. The wealthy people are not now simply "rich", they are "mega-rich"

However you look at it this race, done in the style it is worthy of now, and not the present lame immitation, is going to cost a lot, much more than what is currently being spent, and the accountant mentality is not well suited to "having fun", managing any kind of real adventure. If a predicatble profit on a balance sheet has to be a major factor in the planning of this event sadly I think its doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll reiterate the point about personal time. Running an AC campaign would suit Jim Clarke well. The actual races are only a commitment of a few weeks, and you get to sleep in a luxury bed on your mega yacht at night. The rest of the time you are running a high tech development effort. Something Jim loves. He can do this from home. When the racing starts he gets to be aboard  during the races and bask in the glory. And the AC remains the  big prize in sailing. For all its faults and problems this remains true and probably always will. 

The idea of a triple crown - Olympic, AC, VOR keeps being trotted out. However right now the VOR is a very poor cousin to the other two. As a cut across the sport the trio makes a lot of sense. Success at all three pretty well marks you out as something really special.  But talk to the average guy in the street. Everyone knows about the Olympics, even if they have only a faint idea that sailing is an Olympic sport. Many people have heard of the AC, if only for the occasional controversy and nationalistic elements. Here in Oz when we were challenging for the first win you would need to be dead or living in a cave not to know what was going on. Everyone was an expert and winged-keels became part of popular culture. 

But ocean racing? In Oz that's the S2H isn't it? Oh, and the times we sent a frigate down into the SO to fish some silly sailor out of their inverted boat after the keel fell off. 

AC and Olympics. Chalk and cheese. Here in Oz most of the funding for Olympic athletes is federal government, and it wasn't that long ago tha the funding body announced that sailing was being cut - the sailing medals that came back rather creating some embarrassment. Funding is literally done on a medals for the dollar basis. If your sport isn't in the hunt for medals, zip funding. AC is a different problem. Oz doesn't have much in the way of global brands to promote past Qantas and Fosters. So it is left to local money, and that comes with a whole host of history. Not the least of which is the spectre of Alan Bond.

The point is that the VOR really is vastly below the level of the AC or Olympics in stature. Sad but true. Asking why Jim Clarke would consider the AC but not the VOR is in much the same league as asking why he doesn't sponsor a whole list of lower profile events. The VOR is very Eurocentric, and that remains a weakness. OTOH, the Dutch, Spanish and French continue an involvement. Traditional seafaring nations, they have a lot of pride in this beyond what those of us in the new world can muster. It is interesting how the UK has fallen away. No UK teams in a very long time. Yet the race started there. Lots of global brands, but the easy money went when tobacco went. Land Rover are backing Ben Ainslie, but the irony is that they are Indian owned now. And of course they are blocked from the VOR by Volvo (although they once shared parent owner, and shared platforms.) 

One thing that VOR can't fix is part of what makes the AC and Olympics so different.  History. It takes a very long time to build up the background. The VOR is a youngster in very aged company. No amount of tweaking the format can change that.

IMHO one of the important aspects of the VOR remains national team identity. Sure, right now it is a bit weak, but we all know what notional nation each boat sails for. Part of the packaging of teams must continue to embrace this. It is critical to get buy in from ordinary punters. It is the basic nature of the AC and Olympics. Funding an AC team isn't just about you, you win the cup for your country. Heck you might even be in line for a gong in those countries that still hand them out. 

The VOR (especially if it were no longer the Volvo Ocean Race) could be the international ocean race, and stand amongst the AC and Olympic as something other than just a commercial opportunity. Jack is exactly right - for it to flourish it needs to move away from a sponsor branded event. Whilst it is, it will never gain the traction it needs. However bridging this gap takes us across murky depths. 

Look at F1. Countries pay, and pay big, for the right to host a round of the F1 championship. The event itself is awash with money, with Bernie Ecclestone becoming a billionaire on the back of it. Teams are serious money making entities, or the commercial owners (ie Red Bull, Mercedes, Renault) are more than comfortable with the ROI they get. The key of course was TV rights. Sadly in sailing events pay to get on the TV, not the other way around. The usual answer is "the Internet" and social media to the rescue. Currently the only companies to work out how to get rich from that are Google and Facebook. The current coverage of the VOR is  amateurish. The VOR web site is a disaster, the app little better, and the daily live rudderless, with occasional flashes of brilliance. They at least realised that pissing of the fans with idiocy like 6 hour updates and stealth mode is counterproductive. Baby steps. That they need people like JCB to curate their media offerings and fans to create better trackers really shows how far they need to come.  All this costs money, and that is perhaps where the "you can't there from here" problem comes from. MT tried to get buy in from Volvo to fund a big change, and they balked. Getting the VOR to a point where it is solvent and can deliver what is needed to grow isn't trivial. Perhaps the rumour of a consortium bid for the race is the best we can hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Jack is exactly right - for it to flourish it needs to move away from a sponsor branded event.

Thanks Francis, but an expanatory just to be clear if some don't understand that.

What I have said is the removal of Race Naming Rights so the sponsorship pool can be expanded and encouraged to open their cheque books under a vastly different RO/Financial Model that can sustain the ideal product everyone seems to want. It may even morph into a permanent national teams event if teams elected to do so.

The only one wanting to persevere with a outdated and amateur like funding race model is Handbrake Volvo and even they are now questioning why they should be at the wheel.

Share this post


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

Paps if you want to concentrate on indicating I'm factually incorrect instead of formulating an argument to counter that, or putting one up yourself, forgive me but I will continue to correct you.

 

Jeeze Jack, you're a hard marker.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, paps49 said:

Jeeze Jack, you're a hard marker.

 

Sorry paps..I just scrolled up..that should have said. Pano. 

Share this post


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

4. Improve the product to the extent that sponsors are willing to spend even more money.

As far as sponsors are concerned, VOR only attracts B or C grade companies. Not one team sponsor is a household name or even known outside of their limited market places. The VOR needs to be a product that will attract some of the top 100 or even 1000 most valuable brands or companies and given it's global reach, VOR should be attracting global sponsors.

The stopover in Melbourne was piss poor. They could not generate any media interest even with so many Aussies on the boats. Clearly VOR made little effort to generate interest. 

If they keep dumbing down the boats VOR will soon be the VGGR (Volvo Golden Globe Race)

 

Well yes that would definitely be a possibility.

But is it realistic? I doubt it, sailing is not a mainstream sport so it would be really hard to be relevant when there are events like the olympics, football, tennis, golf etc...

To sustain it with the kind of budget they have now, they would already need to up their game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have a way of infiltrating peoples minds Jack.

 

Edited by paps49
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are the numbers?

Aren't you close enough the the action to know?   Ahhhh that's it then, you got no fucking idea.

Share this post


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

Paps if you want to concentrate on indicating I'm factually incorrect instead of formulating an argument to counter that, or putting one up yourself, forgive me but I will continue to correct you.

The RO is the municipality of Les Sables d’Olonne and the Conseil Départemental de la Vendée, or department/region. They are not for profit public entities that source race funding from a vast variety of sources and do not rely solely on the public purse as I have already indicated.

Key partners or sponsors include the company SODEBO and the Région des Pays de la Loire and Tourism Boards. There also around 30 odd private company's or commercial entities plus many "contra" or "in kind" contributers.

The RO for the VOR on the other hand is commercial entity and other than race related suppliers it's only source of commercial funding outside that from competitors is from Stopover Host Cities/Tourism Boards and associated stopover income.

It only receives a fraction of what the VG RO receives largely because corporates are not attracted to funding another corporates marketing endeavours. Team sponsorship financial support is another box of monkeys, albeit it will never incorporate a light or heavy vehicle manufacturer for obvious reasons. NB. Dongfeng is a Volvo related entity.

I already mentioned this in my OP along with some other race examples to avoid confusion. Race Name/RO attached to the VG is a not for profit local government or statutory region. It is not the name of a multinational conglomerate in the light, heavy vehicle and marine propulsion business.

If you want to be nitpicking, do it well.... The RO is not the municipality but the "SAEM Vendée - Vendée Globe". SAEM stands from "Société anonyme d'économie mixte" which means that it is a limited company (so a commercial company) with some public capital in it.

You keep focusing on some form of systemic failure (named events don't work, corporate race organiser flawed....) when there are examples (transat Jacques Vabre, Vendée Globe...) showing that there are other races with not too dissimilar arrangements that work. So I think that you are mistaken. I might be wrong but I am certainly free to express my point of view and you need to try harder if you want to shut me off.

As I have said upthread, I think that the real issue is that the race organiser offer poor value for money to the boat sponsors and as a result there aren't enough entries. It is a vicious circle as it goes less entries => less coverage => less value for money => less entries. I even gave options to solve this. By the way this is how the tour de France Voile in its old format died (with yet another Farr one design boat which was very wet!), when they went for the cheaper boats option (after trying the more expensive boat option without success) to revive it thrived again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, random said:

So Jack's bleats here,  indicate that the numbers on the event aren't what they were looking for.

Yeah?

 

2 minutes ago, random said:

So what are the numbers?

Aren't you close enough the the action to know?   Ahhhh that's it then, you got no fucking idea.

Wrong..and if you ceased trolling you might find out why if you have a genuine interest. Take your pick, you can't have it both ways.

Share this post


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

 

Wrong..and if you ceased trolling you might find out why if you have a genuine interest. Take your pick, you can't have it both ways.

Cc8fafFW4AARrnZ.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

If you want to be nitpicking, do it well.... The RO is not the municipality but the "SAEM Vendée - Vendée Globe". SAEM stands from "Société anonyme d'économie mixte" which means that it is a limited company (so a commercial company) with some public capital in it.

How many cars, trucks, earthmoving equipment and marine power plants etc or the equivalent with some other product(s) in revenue terms did they sell last year? Nitpicking..fuck give me a break.

Share this post


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

How many cars, trucks, earthmoving equipment and marine engines or the equivalent in some other product(s) did they sell last year? Fuck give me a break.

True but Jacques Vabre sells coffee...

Share this post


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

True but Jacques Vabre sells coffee...

Don't you get giddy / étourdi ??

 

Share this post


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

 

Wrong..and if you ceased trolling you might find out why if you have a genuine interest. Take your pick, you can't have it both ways.

Oh I'm sorry Jack, I apologise.  Promise I won't troll any more ...

So what are the numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, random said:

Oh I'm sorry Jack, I apologise.  Promise I won't troll any more ...

So what are the numbers?

Words are cheap.

Give me your daily quota of upvotes now to offset some your and your sock Brian Hancock's downvote barrage with an undertaking to not undo or repeat and then I will think about your request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Give me your daily quota of upvotes now to offset some your and your sock Brian Hancock's downvote barrage with an undertaking to not undo or repeat and then I will think about your request.

Why do you persist in trying to hold a civil discourse with him? 

Either Random is a normal sentient human being, yet feels compelled to act like an idiot, or he this is a true projection of his character. 

Either option is worthy of a psychological study. 

Share this post


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

Words are cheap.

Give me your daily quota of upvotes now to offset some your and your sock Brian Hancock's downvote barrage with an undertaking to not undo or repeat and then I will think about your request.

Sorry Jack,  I was watching Tame Impala on youtube  ... of course you can trust me, now give me the fucking numbers or I will down-vote you 100 of the best!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Why do you persist in trying to hold a civil discourse with him? 

Either Random is a normal sentient human being, yet feels compelled to act like an idiot, or he this is a true projection of his character. 

Either option is worthy of a psychological study. 

I have found he gets very uncomfortable with civil discourse preferring abuse it would seem.

As for a psychological study I think one could launch a VOR campaign with the fees that would be charged.

Share this post


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

...now give me the fucking numbers or I will down-vote you 100 of the best!

Go for it then if you don't want to comply with my disclosure conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:
21 minutes ago, random said:

...now give me the fucking numbers or I will down-vote you 100 of the best!

Go for it then if you don't want to comply with my disclosure conditions.

I was only joshing with ya ... it's your VOR mates who are experts at the down vote as you can see.

Listen closely though, I really don't care about the VOR numbers.  No one releases them anyway.  That would affect the market they are thinking about unloading it to.

When you get a whiff of something past it's use-by date, you don't need a second opinion, or numbers.

PROD-Sniffing-milk.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I was only joshing with ya ... 

Listen closely though, I really don't care about the VOR numbers.  

As I suspected... just all piss and wind and folded like a cheap suit, so only interested in keeping your troll stick happy on this thread. 

unnamed.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 10:25 AM, hoppy said:

The big money teams will build the latest and greatest to go for the win and the more modest budget teams will refit and update an on VO70. The bigger the fleet, the better the spectacle.  

 

You're not going to get any "refit" teams except for a one time novelty. If you want to win, you need to build a boat. Nice on paper, stupid in reality. 

Also why is everyone obsessed with the public perception of the VOR? Its not for you anymore. This is all corporate interest. All the title sponsor tents and spectator boats are for corporate hospitality, not you. The swag (really nice swag) and a couple booths is all you get. But they're not actually interested in other than catering to the host cities and giving them an ROI.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hoppy the problem with that assumption that OD has precluded wealthy privateers is it is not supported by history. Other than a handful they have never been interested, even when it wasn't an even playing field (max rater then box rule) and the last one to front up was 30 years ago.

You are right that most rich guys have never been interested in VOR, HOWEVER if Clarke or someone else had even the slightest interest in collecting a VOR trophy, then the OD aspect killed any potential interest.

Share this post


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

You are right that most rich guys have never been interested in VOR, HOWEVER if Clarke or someone else had even the slightest interest in collecting a VOR trophy, then the OD aspect killed any potential interest.

Maybe you heard of a guy named Lee Seng Huang? He's got a few bucks.

By the way, there's a Visit Hong Kong booth at all the VOR stopovers this time around.

Share this post


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

You are right that most rich guys have never been interested in VOR, HOWEVER if Clarke or someone else had even the slightest interest in collecting a VOR trophy, then the OD aspect killed any potential interest.

Seriously, that is little more than a bland statement with no backup. Proof by vigorous assertion as we used to call it. Open design appeals to those who enjoy the technical challenge. Maybe Jim Clarke - being a geek at heart - would prefer a box rule. Asserting that OD kills it for any rich person is another matter. The Olympics is exclusively OD. There are many OD classes that attract very wealthy patrons. RC-44, Melges 32 for a start. If you want to prove your sailing abilities, rather than swing your checkbook on the end of your dick, OD tends to attract even the very wealthy. Dick swinging contests based on money abound, the ponys is a good place to start. Making the VOR just yet another snout in the trough isn't a good plan.

Share this post


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

Hoppy the problem with that assumption that OD has precluded wealthy privateers is it is not supported by history. Other than a handful they have never been interested, even when it wasn't an even playing field (max rater then box rule) and the last one to front up was 30 years ago.

Furthermore belting the OD horse with stick is not even supported by the media metrics which have trended upwards, some substantially since introduction of OD.

 

28 minutes ago, hoppy said:

You are right that most rich guys have never been interested in VOR, HOWEVER if Clarke or someone else had even the slightest interest in collecting a VOR trophy, then the OD aspect killed any potential interest.

Thanks Hoppy I try to reply to replys either as a fact checker or encouraging debate feeling some responsibility as this threads OP and it continues to be constructive.

However this one of yours has me stumped for a reply so I have just highlighted our respective posts and added the second paragraph you chopped off for completeness.

Share this post


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

Maybe you heard of a guy named Lee Seng Huang? He's got a few bucks.

First rich privateer to appear in the last 30 years. Don't you think then an aberation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites