Kiwing

How many challengers will there be?

How many challengers?  

127 members have voted

  1. 1. How many challengers will race the Prada Cup?

    • 3 - that is no new challengers
    • 4 that is one new challengers
    • 5 that is two new challengers
    • 6 that is three new challengers
    • more than three new challengers


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rennmaus said:

Re. your last paragraph: Hasn't the first challenge been accepted before a protocol was in place? Hence the CoR challenge cannot be "deemed to be received at the same time". Again, LR was not "chosen", their challenge undisputedly came first and can be deemed to have been initiated by them.

Re. your second paragraph: There is no selecting of the CoR out of a mass of already entered challengers. The CoR has challenged before all the other challengers came on board, it was clear from the beginning, who the CoR is.
All other challengers need to comply to the DoG rules for challengers, in case they are "next in line" due to others losing during the CSS. They all could potentially face the Defender for The Match, therefore the Defender needs to - at least - be able to check, whether the DoG mandated requirements are met by all challengers. This is the part of the Defender in the CSS, and should be its only part there.

Re. your first paragraph: This is tricky. As long as only the respective CSS loser leaves the competition, it doesn't matter, who The Challenger (CoR) is at a given time.
But should another CoR withdrawal occur, it looks like the RNZYS could indeed choose the next CoR. Which is totally against the DoG and the spirit of the AC. There should have been a better, automated or otherwise more Defender independent succession plan.

On a Deed perspective LR was the first because chosen by TNZ, as any hip pocket.

On a protocol perspective, written later, they were all accepted at the same time: "For the purposes of the Deed of Gift, all challenges accepted by RNZYS (“Challenges”) shall be deemed to have been received by the RNZYS at the same time, being the time of the conclusion of the Final Race 2017."

In case of a withdrawal of the present CoR the new one is voted by the challengers but subject to the veto of the Defender, so the new CoR can also be chosen by the defender, I agree with you, it is against the DoG.

Coming back to Gladwell point, if they are deemed accepted at the same time and all comply with the Deed and  protocol, they have to accept them.

 

Share this post


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

@Wolkenzug 23 metre mono hull with soft lower-able sails !

Then ETNZ pushed it to AC75 (I wonder why feet rather than metres?)

If so LR is crazy, or perhaps, they think: "My way or we jump off the boat" as they did last AC.

Share this post


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

To be perfectly honest with you T-C I'm not very fond of Richard Gladwell. For me this guy is still a totally, purely partisan New Zealand hack often destroying New Zealands good Media Reporting on Sailing in general with his partisan writings. There are tons of better Sailing Journalists in NZ than him.

During the last Cycle claiming Ainslie's British Squad crashing into ETNZ to keep them out of the Cup was the last straw for me.

If I would live in NZ I would totally mob the guy on Social Media for his behaviour.

Gladwell is clearly relaying messages for GD and my guess is that the last one was for the italians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only encouraging cyber-bullying and co-ordinated social media attacks was a ban-able offence... I might just look into it...

Share this post


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

On a protocol perspective, written later, they were all accepted at the same time

 

26 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Coming back to Gladwell point, if they are deemed accepted at the same time and all comply with the Deed and  protocol, they have to accept them.

To get really technical, and hypothetical, this theory of the case would depend in part on how the New York courts would view the protocol agreement. If New York law views both the deed and the protocol as carrying equal weight, then your case is probably correct. But if, as I suspect is the case, New York views the deed as superior to the protocol, then ultimately the deed governs. The deed does three things that are relevant:

  • It gives precedence a challenger based on when the challenge is received, and
  • It allows the challenger and defender to set the rules for their match
  • It prevents the defender from accepting ANY other challenge until the accepted challenge is settled.

It does not, strictly speaking, allow the defender and the challenger to set terms related to other challengers. That is done via the protocol, the terms of which the defender and challengers have voluntarily agreed to abide by.

The protocol may say that the defender MUST accept challenges that meet the minimum requirements; but from the perspective of the deed there is only ONE challenger now and may be only one challenger at any given time and anything else the challenger may be doing on the side (the Prada cup regatta, essentially) is unrelated. 

Gladwell wrote "If your club complies with the Deed of Gift, and Protocol - provided that the Protocol does not over-ride the provisions of the Deed of Gift, then the Challenge has to be accepted by the Defender." I believe he is incorrect. I believe that the defender may not accept any challenge at this point. I believe a correct statement would have been "If your club complies with the Deed of Gift, and Protocol - provided that the Protocol does not over-ride the provisions of the Deed of Gift, then the Challenge has to be accepted by the Defender Challenger" as it is the Challenger, not the Defender, running the Prada Cup. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

To get really technical, and hypothetical, this theory of the case would depend in part on how the New York courts would view the protocol agreement. If New York law views both the deed and the protocol as carrying equal weight, then your case is probably correct. But if, as I suspect is the case, New York views the deed as superior to the protocol, then ultimately the deed governs. The deed does three things that are relevant:

  • It gives precedence a challenger based on when the challenge is received, and
  • It allows the challenger and defender to set the rules for their match
  • It prevents the defender from accepting ANY other challenge until the accepted challenge is settled.

It does not, strictly speaking, allow the defender and the challenger to set terms related to other challengers. That is done via the protocol, the terms of which the defender and challengers have voluntarily agreed to abide by.

The protocol may say that the defender MUST accept challenges that meet the minimum requirements; but from the perspective of the deed there is only ONE challenger now and may be only one challenger at any given time and anything else the challenger may be doing on the side (the Prada cup regatta, essentially) is unrelated. 

Gladwell wrote "If your club complies with the Deed of Gift, and Protocol - provided that the Protocol does not over-ride the provisions of the Deed of Gift, then the Challenge has to be accepted by the Defender." I believe he is incorrect. I believe that the defender may not accept any challenge at this point. I believe a correct statement would have been "If your club complies with the Deed of Gift, and Protocol - provided that the Protocol does not over-ride the provisions of the Deed of Gift, then the Challenge has to be accepted by the Defender Challenger" as it is the Challenger, not the Defender, running the Prada Cup. 

 

Agreed for the first part, however, a challenge cannot be accepted by a challenger, it is not envisioned by the Deed, therefore the NYSC could not rule on what is not part of the Deed.

So, theoretically a challenger could go to the NYSC to either ask to:

- respect the protocol as it must be Deed compliant, and challenges are deemed to have been received at the same time

- or respect the Deed itself as the defender declared that present challenges were received at the same time

- or cancel the protocol as it is not Deed compliant because we know challenges were not received at the same time.

Share this post


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

You can't know this.
Probably it went like always: The CoR approached the soon-to-be Defender, of course before the soon-to-be Defender, resp. its team crossed the finish line, and agreed that it would challenge in case the soon-to-be Defender wins. There was no choice involved, it's still a challenge, as the initiative came from the CoR. It's not like several YCs were fighting each other to lodge their challenge, at least not to out knowledge.
I assume that there weren't any other YCs/teams around that wanted to be CoR anyway. Usually it's not a position a YC/team wants to be in.

If rumour is correct, an officer of the RYS was in fact in Bermuda attempting to lodge a challenge and if they had, I suspect we would not be seeing AC36 sailed in AC75s. But even the dogs in the street knew that if ETNZ won, LR would be CoR. The whole thread of the relationship between the teams through the last two cycles led in that direction. LR was the chosen CoR for AC36, it was a thank you for services rendered through the last two cycles and there is nothing wrong with that. I find it a bit bizarre that you are denying it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not denying it (the prearrangement), I find it bizarre that you think I do, as I've never contested it. However, I  don't agree that the Challenger was chosen. It was agreed upfront between LR and ETNZ that LR will be CoR, but this does not imply a choice. An agreement yes, but not a choice.  

I'll rest my case now, because I'm clearly lacking the eloquence to get my point across. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a choice because RNZYS could have made themselves available to accept a challenge from the RYS who. apparently, were prepared to be CoR. By pre-arrangement, they chose to instead make themselves available to the Circolo della Vela Sicilia. Same as OTUSA chose their CoRs in the previous two cycles and other defenders have done ever since, IIRC, the Mercury Bay "ambush".  

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What seems to be harangued above is the difference between (1) a rigged jumble  "choice" draw of marbles out of a bowl, rummaging around to find the chosen one and (2) an "agreement" as to whose marble is the ONE in the bowl being drawn from. I have always thought it was the latter.  

Personally, I still prefer my suggestion of lining the Commodores up a la Survivor and letting them race to get their envelope there first.

Share this post


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

Of Course some Kiwi Posters, who are sitting in a NZ Glass House will never understand it.

Who cares? We all saw the footage of the ETNZ RiB racing across the Great Sound presumably either from or to a meeting with the Italians. We all saw the footage of the RYS member standing there feeling like a goose with a folder in his hands. So ETNZ and LR are close, big deal. The boat and event layout they've come up with looks positively inspired, and I'm totally on board with it. Examining the minutia of the protocol and Deed is incredibly fucking boring. AC36 is shaping up to be amazing. Credit to Dalts, the Italians and whomever else.

Share this post


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

@dogwatch,

Thanks for coming up with some reasonable Posts how this all went down. Much appreciated! Of Course some Kiwi Posters, who are sitting in a NZ Glass House will never understand it.

Also, this comes back what I've said that Dalts choose the Circolo della Vela Sicilia as CoR.

They have a relationship, and CVS was the first to lodge a challenge. Challenger of Record. Simple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Course Layout & the Boat are great = I'm totally onboard with you on that although I'd prefer the boat a little less expensive and complex to built.

Dalts trying to put up a good show for everyone = I agree with you on that as well

Ditching Louis Vuitton for PRADA and chosing a CoR that is more acting in self-interest than in all the Challengers interest = Definitly you get a NO from me on that.

Ask yourself why we only have 5 Challengers? I agree with T-C. I think Bertelli is in all likelyhood blocking Dalts here. If Grant could have his way there would be more Teams but I'm guessing that at least 2-3 of the Challengers still being vetted have ACWS conditions which means Dalts needs approval from Mr. Bertelli and the Italians having no desire to amend the Protocol.

Bottom Line: I can't stand the Italians.

So you'd prefer a dumbed down AC.

Dalts is and will put on a good show.

"I think Bertelli is in all likely hood blocking Dalts here" It doesn't matter what you think.

5 Challengers is a good thing considering the damage Ellison and Coutts have done to the event.

Bottom line: Buckle up buttercup. The Italians are here to stay.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Ditching Louis Vuitton for PRADA and chosing a CoR that is more acting in self-interest than in all the Challengers interest = Definitly you get a NO from me on that.

 

I have a few serious questions I am hoping someone will kindly answer. I am not a history expert for AC.

1) did LVMH actually WANT to continue for AC36?  

2) which Challengers of Record acted in the best interests of all challengers?  Not just said they were to cover up stuff in their own self interest. 

3) of the ones that DID how did that work out for them?

Thanks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NeedAClew Now I think you will get a hugely diverse range of answers to those questions.

Being a ETNZ fan the hairs on the back of my neck bristle!

However I guess somewhere in the middle will be the truth.

I hope us NZ fans don't come out fighting but try to give a balanced view.

Unfortunately like LandRover I think LV where out bid.

I think all CORs have some bias depending on your point of view.  Hopefully the sailing does most of the talking.

My pennys worth.

Share this post


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

I have a few serious questions I am hoping someone will kindly answer. I am not a history expert for AC.

1) did LVMH actually WANT to continue for AC36?  

2) which Challengers of Record acted in the best interests of all challengers?  Not just said they were to cover up stuff in their own self interest.

I will answer with questions.

1) Was Prada willing to have LV ? Was LV happy to see their bags tossed ? are they now happy to sponsor Sail GP ?

2) Poodles who could who allowed a competitor forumb, ut do we have a poodle this time ? if the answer is yes, who is he ?

Share this post


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

I will answer with questions.

1) Was Prada willing to have LV ? Was LV happy to see their bags tossed ? are they now happy to sponsor Sail GP ?

2) Poodles who could who allowed a competitor forumb, ut do we have a poodle this time ? if the answer is yes, who is he ?

Nice going.  You've got to the heart of the matter.

1.  Unlikely that an Italian fashion empire and a French one would co-exist.  The bag tossing had no relevance outside a few tossers here.  However LV was unhappy with its treatment in Bermuda by Oracle.  Finally at the end of the day LV are merchants and believe sailing sponsorship is worthwhile, thus SailGP.

2. No!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Nice going.  You've got to the heart of the matter.

1.  Unlikely that an Italian fashion empire and a French one would co-exist.  The bag tossing had no relevance outside a few tossers here.  However LV was unhappy with its treatment in Bermuda by Oracle.  Finally at the end of the day LV are merchants and believe sailing sponsorship is worthwhile, thus SailGP.

2. No!

So why was LV unhappy with OTUSA during the cup  but happy to sign up with SailGP.  Isn't it the same people?

Share this post


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

I have a few serious questions I am hoping someone will kindly answer. I am not a history expert for AC.

1) did LVMH actually WANT to continue for AC36?  

2) which Challengers of Record acted in the best interests of all challengers?  Not just said they were to cover up stuff in their own self interest. 

3) of the ones that DID how did that work out for them?

Thanks.

 

 

Bruno Trouble may have wanted to continue with the America's Cup involvement with LVMH (it is his job after all)  but in all reality Prada is a direct competitor, at least in a number of LVMH's markets so the likelihood of them sponsoring an event where a main competitor would be receiving much of the spin off publicity should always have been seen to be an unlikely. Sponsorship is all abut corporate dollars not altruism. It would be rather like General Motors sponsoring an event where BMW would be a major exposure beneficiary.

It needs to be remembered that the CoR of record and multiple challengers is a relatively (in the long history of the Cup) recent thing. I doubt very much - given the huge corporate spend in sponsorship and the huge potential return to the challenger if victorious - that the CoR didn't have at least SOME self interest in decisions made. Plus of course in the current Cup the defender and CoR have much closer ties than in previous cups with the reported financial support Mr Bertelli gave ENTZ in AC35.

Just hypothesising.

SS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I asked if there was a poodle and if it was the case, who.

I was part of those thinking that TNZ might have been the poodle, but thinking twice,

- as LR signed a protocol where they accepted that all challengers challenged at the same time

- as the Protocol is subject to the Deed

- as the defender will remain the defender until losing the cup

Could TNZ cherry pick another CoR is they had a deadlock with the present CoR ?  Then, who is the poodle ?

 

Share this post


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

If rumour is correct, an officer of the RYS was in fact in Bermuda attempting to lodge a challenge and if they had, I suspect we would not be seeing AC36 sailed in AC75s. But even the dogs in the street knew that if ETNZ won, LR would be CoR. The whole thread of the relationship between the teams through the last two cycles led in that direction. LR was the chosen CoR for AC36, it was a thank you for services rendered through the last two cycles and there is nothing wrong with that. I find it a bit bizarre that you are denying it.

DW...Very close description to what happened in Bermuda

The back story will eventually come out so here is the scoop.  As everyone knew ETNZ had agreed ahead of time that if they won the AC , they would accept a challenge from LR as part of the terms of their funding from LR.  Strictly speaking the deed specifies that whoever lodges the first challenge is COR and LR would be on the ETNZ spectator boat to hand over the challenge as ETNZ crossed the finish line.

As ETNZ made their way steadily to the finals, Artemis, OTUSA, BAR and Softbank discussed if there was any way round this. The French were not part of the discussion because they would only have trusted the foreign legion to get the job done properly.  Anyway, the plot was hatched and RYS was selected to do the deed because the Vice Commodore had connections with the British special forces.

A unit of the SBS was detached to Bermuda. The RYS officer that you mention was actually  an officer from M squadron, SBS.  The plan was to use a shallow water combat submersible (SDV 11) to approach the ETNZ's support boat. If ETNZ was clearly winning, then the mission would get the  green light,. As ETNZ turned on the final leg (and obviously all eyes forward distracted by the race) two SBS SCs would hop aboard and quick as flash abduct the Italians.   Then the RYS launch would come alongside and present an unexpected challenge.  

Unfortunately, somehow ETNZ got wind of the plan. Someone had not realized that with so many kiwis milling around as part of all the teams, there was bound to be a leak. ETNZ sent out a decoy boat with a body double for Dalts. If you look closely at the videos of the final race, you can see that although it looks like Dalts was out on the water watching, the body double is heavier and shorter. Anyway, it was all very embarrassing for the Brits who ended up kidnapping two Puerto Rican waiters wearing Prada blazers, while Dalts accepted a challenge from LR in a private villa overlooking Great Sound. It was all hushed up by the Ministry of Defense who dont like to talk about SBS operations while ETNZ and LR agreed to say nothing provided RYS/BAR lodged a challenge.

I have this straight from the same reliable sources who for sure know that OTUSA cheated in the prior cup....so it must be good info.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

I have this straight from the same reliable sources who for sure know that OTUSA cheated in the prior cup....so it must be good info.

That's a good yarn, entertaining to say the least.

Share this post


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

So why was LV unhappy with OTUSA during the cup  but happy to sign up with SailGP.  Isn't it the same people?

That's a fair question.  i thought about that before posting. 

Different cast of Oracle characters, ie not everything flows directly from Larry. Of course, as best we know Bruno no longer in the mix. Assurances  from Coutts, perhaps.  LV in the box seat when negotiating new sponsorship, once bitten twice shy, negotiated better terms for contract this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows about these polls can people change their votes?

Remember it is who sails in the Prada Cup that counts!

We have a few dark horses, some well know starters and some notorious Vaders !

Share this post


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

^

you didn't mention the bag toss, which seems to be the factual part of your argument. 

I think people read to much into the "Bag Toss".  I'm pretty sure it was a spontaneous impulse like throwing caps at the end of a graduation ceremony that was probably followed up with a group of overpaid sailors get their balls ripped off by their partners followed by an expensive shopping trip. 

Share this post


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

I think people read to much into the "Bag Toss".  I'm pretty sure it was a spontaneous impulse like throwing caps at the end of a graduation ceremony that was probably followed up with a group of overpaid sailors get their balls ripped off by their partners followed by an expensive shopping trip. 

hahaha, you are right, i didn't use the SA sarcasm colour in my post. I was speaking to TC's post as he is fully into tin hat mode ATM  http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/205685-how-many-challengers-will-there-be/&do=findComment&comment=6442446

Share this post


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

6 Challengers. That was my pick. Anything from now on is a bonus.

I'm with you on six challengers.  Of course they all have to make it to the Prada Cup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 7:02 AM, dg_sailingfan said:

I think that's about it with the "Challengers". At this Point I'd be shocked if a 6th Challenger emerges unless the RNZYS is willing to accept a "Fringe Challenge".

So you're "Shocked" now? lol

Share this post


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

And they won't, trust me.

Coming from you ...... Pretty well guaratees they will then

Share this post


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

These AC 75 Monsters ain't easy to built.

Ain't easy to build. I disagree though, the boat itself is just a 75ft composite structure. Foil, sail design, and sailing these boats are going to be the tricky aspects.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I've got a couple of questions.

The first, and most important is related to the late entries. There is a late entry fee that I believe is due on New Years day 2019, does that signal the final cut off for entries, even if they may not immediately announce their intentions?

Second question is dg_sailingfan now accepted as A4E incognito. If so, I can safely ignore that users comments.

Thanks in advance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, laser 173312 said:

Hi guys, I've got a couple of questions.

The first, and most important is related to the late entries. There is a late entry fee that I believe is due on New Years day 2019, does that signal the final cut off for entries, even if they may not immediately announce their intentions?

Second question is dg_sailingfan now accepted as A4E incognito. If so, I can safely ignore that users comments.

Thanks in advance.

 

2. 100% - please do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, laser 173312 said:

Hi guys, I've got a couple of questions.

The first, and most important is related to the late entries. There is a late entry fee that I believe is due on New Years day 2019, does that signal the final cut off for entries, even if they may not immediately announce their intentions?

Second question is dg_sailingfan now accepted as A4E incognito. If so, I can safely ignore that users comments.

Thanks in advance.

 

 

1 minute ago, rh2600 said:

2. 100% - please do

Great, that’s saves me a lot of time. Though it’s probably better to kick him than the cat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

laser, I'm not A4E. barfy and all the other NZLers are harrassing me.

lol

Share this post


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

 

Great, that’s saves me a lot of time. Though it’s probably better to kick him than the cat. 

This forum is no place for hate speech.  Do not kick cats under any circumstances, well, maybe if they kick first with claws out but even so...

:)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are We all honestly thinking there will be 5 or 6 challengers in the Prada Cup?

Anyway Merry Xmas to you all !!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are We all honestly thinking there will be 5 or 6 challengers in the Prada Cup?

 

Hard to say. None of the recently announced challenges has revealed where the $$ is coming from. S&S seems the best founded if, as they say, they are building a boat. I am hoping the NL challenge is for real and tend to believe it given who is involved. Malta looks most questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that even ETNZ aren't confident of 6 , as evidenced by their statement to the Auckland council regarding bases which they would not have made if they were confident in all the teams now "entered".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dg_sailingfan where did that come from. Usually the challengers are all spying on everyone else trying to make the best of their $ Euros or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 3:17 AM, dogwatch said:

Hard to say. None of the recently announced challenges has revealed where the $$ is coming from. S&S seems the best founded if, as they say, they are building a boat. I am hoping the NL challenge is for real and tend to believe it given who is involved. Malta looks most questionable.

Not sure why you say Malta is most questionable as they seem to have the cash. I would think meeting the residency requirements would be tough for them but I can't understand why even a millionaire/billionaire would spend the money on the entrance fee if he hadn't done the rather simple math on the residency days. 

SS and NL are in my mind (pardon the pun) in the same boat, which is to say that they have solid sailors leading the organization with a ton of question marks around money, design, and team.

It has been a while but it certainly used to be the norm for teams to challenge but fail to make the starting line of the challenger regatta because they simply couldn't get that far. Yes, LE lost challengers, but they were more than capable of getting there and chose not to for very different reasons. But historically, especially in the IACC days, there were announced teams that just plain did not make it to the regatta. 

Share this post


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

Not sure why you say Malta is most questionable as they seem to have the cash.

What leads you to believe that? Those who have looked at the team backer seem less certain than you are.

"Yes, LE lost challengers, but they were more than capable of getting there and chose not to for very different reasons."

Not really. Onorato failed to raise the money. HIYC failed to raise the money.

Share this post


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

HIYC failed to raise the money.

That's not strictly true. The Oatley's could have afforded it but chose not to. They were "sold' an an AC that would cost a certain amount and the reality was that the price doubled so they chose not to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A Class Sailor said:

That's not strictly true. The Oatley's could have afforded it but chose not to. They were "sold' an an AC that would cost a certain amount and the reality was that the price doubled so they chose not to continue.

That's certainly a narrative that has circulated and paints the Oatleys in a flattering light. Whether it is plausible is a matter of opinion. It requires us to believe they were sufficiently naive to believe that AC35 was going to be "cheap", which would have been a historical first. Another explanation is they believed they would sign up funding partners but failed to find them. Noting the non-entry of AUS in AC36, personally I find that second explanation more plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re winning the Sydney Hobart is more the Oatley's style. It's a known quantity for them, and something their boy Richo has proved he can manage, even if he does fuck it up sometimes. An AC challenge would be a huge leap into the unknown for them, and the Oatley's recognise it's beyond the skill set of Richo.

Share this post


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

That's certainly a narrative that has circulated and paints the Oatleys in a flattering light. Whether it is plausible is a matter of opinion. It requires us to believe they were sufficiently naive to believe that AC35 was going to be "cheap", which would have been a historical first. Another explanation is they believed they would sign up funding partners but failed to find them. Noting the non-entry of AUS in AC36, personally I find that second explanation more plausible.

The first "fact" is that they wanted fund the whole team themselves from a mix of their own personal wealth and the cash flow/sponsorship of their businesses. When  they first started out looking at the AC, they did not intend to bring in any sponsors from outside of their business empire because they wanted to retain control of the narrative. Anybody who knows them would know that is their way. The Oatley's, as a family, work very differently from many, and even today run their business empire like a small family business. It has never been a case of an egotistical businessman doing what he wants. The AC was very simple. Yes, they wanted to do it as an Australian team with the Australian sailors they have supported for many years, and at the original anticipated cost, it made business sense because of the global publicity it could bring to their businesses.

The original deal that Iain Murray was sold by Ellison and Coutts, which he on sold to the Oatley's, was there would be only 1 boat built with major parts being one design and only 1 surrogate, with the foil count on that being part of the overall total. While the Oatley's knew that some teams could and would spend big. it was calculated that it would be significantly cheaper than 2013. The problem was that when it came to negotiating the actual protocol, OR went back on their word and added elements that pushed the costs up, not least not having a limit on the number of surrogates. The Oatley's weren't the only ones to complain about costs, but unlike almost any other team except maybe Artemis, they didn't have to be part of it and once it was going to cost more than they were prepared to spend, they pulled they pin. The key words are "more than they were prepared to spend", which is very different from them not being able to afford it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you may be correct. On the other hand, there was plenty of speculation in the early period of AC35 from the AUS contingent here that other corporate sponsors were being sought. So as far as that goes, I am not the only person who took that view. What you say is interesting but I think on balance I'm unconvinced, not least because it is easier to blame perfidious Oracle than the failure of corporate Australia to want to play the AC game,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 4:38 PM, Kiwing said:

We were close to 50% for 2 new making 5 and 20% 3 new making 6.

Now we are dropping towards 40% for 2 making 5 and rising to 30% for 3 making 6!

Interesting eh!

We are now steady on 38% on 2 making 5, and 35% on 3 making 6.

The more experienced seem to be saying we are far to optimistic and 0 or 1 is more realistic !!!

Wow we have some rationalising to happen ??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Catsailing news: https://www.catsailingnews.com/

Defender and Challenger Of Record progress AC36 planning  5th March 2019
The plans for the 36th America's Cup presented by Prada are progressing, with clearer guidelines now set for the future.

Following on from meetings held in Auckland last week between the Defender and Challenger of Record, an agreement has been reached to resolve a series of issues in the best interest of the event.

Patrizio Bertelli, CEO of the Prada Group and Chairman of the Challenger of Record met with the Defender, Emirates Team New Zealand, in Auckland and an agreement was reached to resolve a number of pending issues, some of which were already before the Arbitration Panel.

Together they have agreed all current outstanding issues including a mutually agreed settlement to the America’s Cup Arbitration case filed on the 12th of February 2019 regarding the dispute on the validity of late entries. Under the settlement agreement an amendment to the Protocol allowing the deferred payment of the late entry fee has been agreed and the validity of the three late entry challenges accepted.

The settlement therefore clears the way for the Defender and Challenger of Record to continue to work progressively on planning the 36th America’s Cup presented by Prada as well as all associated events between now and the end of the event in March 2021.

“We welcomed Mr. Bertelli and his team to Auckland and appreciated his positive engagement to the event. We share an overarching desire for this event in 2021, as well as all lead up events, to be remembered as the best America’s Cup ever,” said Emirates Team New Zealand CEO, Grant Dalton.

“It is no secret there have been some outstanding issues that needed to be resolved, but the fact that Mr. Bertelli took the time to personally come down to Auckland is testament of the mutual respect between us, which bodes well for the event in general. The path is therefore now clear for the late entries to continue building their respective campaigns to try to participate and the Defender and Challenger of Record will give whatever support they can.”

Mr Bertelli and Grant Dalton also met with the Hon David Parker and Mayor of Auckland, Phil Goff to discuss the plans for the event and presented Mr. Bertelli’s vision for the America’s Cup village which were well received, details of which will be released in due course.

“It was an honour and a pleasure to meet the Hon David Parker MP and Mayor Goff, to share the Challenger of Record’s vision for the Event Village of 36th America's Cup. This time spent in Auckland was very important for me to understand how to best integrate our event with the New Zealand culture and with its unique waterfront. It sends a strong signal of friendship and cooperation for the months to come,” said Patrizio Bertelli.

Download Amendment 03 to the Protocol of the 36th America's Cup

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a negotiation, TNZ got the late entries, LR got a $ 1 Million additionnal late entry fees.

First installement of 250 000 is due within 25 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Additional?  :lol:

It's the same $$ as from the beginning, just with a rescheduled payment plan.

April fool.......

Share this post


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

^ Additional?  :lol:

It's the same $$ as from the beginning, just with a rescheduled payment plan.

April fool.......

Last amendement.

image.thumb.png.24fb0cef7b6fb3cfbb922491b5a5214e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Exactly: we knew from day 1 that there was a late entry fee IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD FEES, but nothing 'additional' has been included* in Amendment 3 - to Patrizio's or anyone else's benefit, as you suggested councillor

I'm reasonably sure others (reported/teams et al) would have spotted that $change$ before you and barked about it

 

Check Ver 2 - if still in doubt......

 

* well time of course :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a lot of time being wasted for teams that probably won't make the start line:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Class Sailor said:

Seems like a lot of time being wasted for teams that probably won't make the start line:ph34r:

Seems like the fastest way to get to closure... and generated $6m in the process...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh2600 said:

 and generated $6m in the process...

If you think of the late entry fees I don't know how you get to these maths, first there are only 3 lates teams, Netherlands, Malta and one US team.

Also, they have to pay 250 000 for April 1st and 750 000 by October 1. Do you seriously believe they will all make it up ?

And if there was no negotiation this time, then P$B accepted unconditionally all GD conditions or... made some secret deal. As we are in the AC I would tend to believe the second option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a $1m performance bond due April 30.  

 

Share this post


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

If you think of the late entry fees I don't know how you get to these maths, first there are only 3 lates teams, Netherlands, Malta and one US team.

Also, they have to pay 250 000 for April 1st and 750 000 by October 1. Do you seriously believe they will all make it up ?

And if there was no negotiation this time, then P$B accepted unconditionally all GD conditions or... made some secret deal. As we are in the AC I would tend to believe the second option.

3

"And if there was no negotiation this time, then P$B accepted unconditionally all GD conditions or... made some secret deal. As we are in the AC I would tend to believe the second option. "

Looking for shady bargains again,T-C? 

We don't know the extent of talks, negotiations, whatever in Auckland last week.

Inconceivable that a couple of recognized hard-nosed characters would simply talk the issue through and come up with a fair-minded outcome?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

If you think of the late entry fees I don't know how you get to these maths, first there are only 3 lates teams, Netherlands, Malta and one US team.

Also, they have to pay 250 000 for April 1st and 750 000 by October 1. Do you seriously believe they will all make it up ?

As @NeedAClew pointed out, my maths was wrong - it should actually be more - $9million.

My calculations are ($1m entry fee + $1m performance bond + $1m late entry fee) x 3 late entered teams.

If their late entry wasn't accepted, then none of the money would be forthcoming, not just the late fee. So by getting agreement, the windfall is up to $9.

Plus if these teams make it to any ACWS regattas they need to splunk another $350,000 per team per regatta so there's another $5.25m of revenue there too..

Certainly worth a plane flight from Italy to enjoying our cracking summer weather at the moment, let alone sorting out this little deal :-)

6 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

And if there was no negotiation this time, then P$B accepted unconditionally all GD conditions or... made some secret deal. As we are in the AC I would tend to believe the second option.

The AC sure can attract scoundrels, but it doesn't make them... many people can at times conduct themselves in reasonable ways and act in good faith... granted we haven't had much of it recent AC history, but that says more about those individuals than it does about the AC itself...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W'll only know the real figure at the end of the dead lines, for what it's worth, which means nothing in an AC budget.

If they had conducted themselves in a reasonable way, in good faith, they would not have had to resort to arbitration first.

 

 

Share this post


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

W'll only know the real figure at the end of the dead lines, for what it's worth, which means nothing in an AC budget.

If they had conducted themselves in a reasonable way, in good faith, they would not have had to resort to arbitration first.

 

 

Quelle surprise "nothing is real until it's real"

Quelle surprise again "some people will never be happy"

Share this post


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

So maybe this was part of the discussion between GD and PB - doubt it's something arbitration would have been able to work worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interested in what they do come up with for the foil arm supplied parts. Wonder if early boats get modified ones later on if they are still a work in progress?

I think I am sticking with my vote/guess of 5 sailing in Prada Cup.  Not sure 5 will finish though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is NOT a setback,, its was pretty clear since last year.

They did not have to renegotiate the protocol either, as the possibiity was mentionned.

a)      possibly an initial one or two events during the second half of 2019 counting towards the America's Cup World Series regattas ("ACVVS") at venues determined by COR/D and announced on or before 31 March 2019;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Ironically the Ides of March was known in Roman times as the deadline on which all debts must be settled.

The date, perhaps better known as that of Julius Caesar's assassination, seems to have acquired a new poignance in the context of 36th America's Cup”

https://www.sail-world.com/news/215254/Am-Cup-Ides-of-March-deadline-for-Entry-Fee-debt

Good piece, clarifies a lot. So, the three late challengers haven’t paid a cent so far, but have to make very substantial payments by March 15 or they’re out. That should clear the air

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,  it seemed obvious to me that some if not all of them will not survive the ides of march, or later assination deadlines.

More interesting would be to know how sir Ben is amused by the postponements while he will be, IMO, the first to be sailing his AC75.

And, will the foil arm be ready in time ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they scrape up the March-April payments, they need to build boats and pay people.  How much do you think an AC 75 costs to build?

Share this post


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

Well,  it seemed obvious to me that some if not all of them will not survive the ides of march, or later assination deadlines.

More interesting would be to know how sir Ben is amused by the postponements while he will be, IMO, the first to be sailing his AC75.

And, will the foil arm be ready in time ?

4

"And, will the foil arm be ready in time?"

And there we have the clincher, the burning question.

Seems delivery of foil arms will decide launch times, regardless of the readiness of individual syndicates.

Is there a waiting list, with assigned order of delivery times, or will a batch of arms be shipped all at the same time?

Share this post


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

"And, will the foil arm be ready in time?"

And there we have the clincher, the burning question.

Seems delivery of foil arms will decide launch times, regardless of the readiness of individual syndicates.

Is there a waiting list, with assigned order of delivery times, or will a batch of arms be shipped all at the same time?

As we know that time is the most precious asset in the AC this is a key issue for all teams.

I would assume that could be the real reason of PB travel to NZ.

1) if assigned by a waiting list, I wonder what would be a fair criteria: date of entry ? date the yacht is ready to launch ?

2) if they ship it by batch it would fairer IMO.

Unless.... all the fuss was to negotiate late entries with PB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Wow - it's ALL conspiracies with you isn't it.....are people around you really such scumbags? Oh hang on

Funny how you spot imaginary ones and yet manage to miss the real ones :blink:

Entertaining anyway

Share this post


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

^ Wow - it's ALL conspiracies with you isn't it.....and yet manage to miss the real ones :blink:

 

You spend nearly a decade pretending the uncover Oracle and US conspiracies among which the Herbie and now you come to give lessons.

Pathetic, mainly as you still pretend there are some real ones. Can you make up your mind nav ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 2:25 AM, KiwiJoker said:

"And, will the foil arm be ready in time?"

And there we have the clincher, the burning question.

Seems delivery of foil arms will decide launch times, regardless of the readiness of individual syndicates.

Is there a waiting list, with assigned order of delivery times, or will a batch of arms be shipped all at the same time?

 

Once arm structural design / fabrication process has been validated, there’s nothing preventing farming out construction to more than one supplier, if need be. I’m sure all teams will provide ply-by-ply monitoring of their respective arms, anyway

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You spend nearly a decade pretending the uncover Oracle and US conspiracies among which the Herbie and now you come to give lessons.

Pathetic, mainly as you still pretend there are some real ones. Can you make up your mind nav ?