Wess

ILCA gives LPE the boot... seeking new Laser builder

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, bill4 said:

Rum? You have piqued my interest. But I must admit the application of FRAND remains a bit of a mystery to me. Who is it that chooses/dictates FRAND compliance? Is this at WS's request ? An IOC requirement? A commercial necessity? Note getting boats/parts in this part of the world has been so sluggish, I have no idea what the current pricing is anyway. 

It’s a mystery to everyone! It’s was comical to listen to the WS Equipment Evaluation meeting today and hear them all talk about and clearly they all have different views. What is and isn’t required is a guess that I don’t think even WS is prepared to answer in detail. 

All I know is especially if we are out of the Olympics I sure wouldn’t want my class to be the FRAND trial balloon. All pain for no gain. Ditch LPE; hell yea!  Adopt FRAND (when WS can’t even say what it is and apply it equally to all); hell no!

Oh and hell yea to rum too! Dark and Stormy.... yummy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone good at translation from Italian to English?

Quote

 

COSA PUO' SUCCEDERE COL LASER - Oggi alcuni osservatori pensano che alla fine ci sarà un compromesso tra ILCA e LaserPerformance, anche per evitare le azioni legali di quest'ultima, e l'apertura di altri fronti dopo l'antitrust. Con questo possibile esito: 1) WS conferma Laser olimpico (Standard maschile e Radial femminile); 2) vengono adottate politiche antitrust e concesse licenze ad altri cantieri per costruire il Laser; 3) Si mantengono delle royalties allo storico LP; 4) Poi, con tempi più o meno rapidi, passeranno i nuovi rig albero-boma-vele, che cambieranno faccia al Laser e obbligheranno centinaia di migliaia di laseristi a diventare clienti di un enorme mercato.

Non male come piano, no? A orchestrarlo ci sarebbe il segretario esecutivo di ILCA Eric Faust (enigmatico di nome e di fatto), alleato con il citato Spillane, il tutto benedetto dal potente (non si riesce a far cadere) CEO di World Sailing Andy Hunt. Guarda caso la società pronta a beneficiare di tutto questo si chiama Global Sailing, da noi già definita una sorta di Spectre della vela...

 

Am picking up on some phrases that may show some bias. (Source = http://www.saily.it/article/ws-arriva-il-mid-year-con-altre-sorprese?fbclid=IwAR3p0MgO8fqhirREYNcWZa0EoROT1HQdkmG_amG3q4lBuJeQ7DEsJf3DbAg)

Share this post


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

It’s a mystery to everyone! 

The thing is its not necessarily FRAND, what they have to do is comply with European anti monopoly legislation. Having FRAND supply is one option, but its possibly not the only one. AIUI there are a lot of nuances to the law, and its by no means clear what needs to be done to comply. I imagine, too, Rastregar's idea of FRAND will be that all suppliers including LPE pay Velum the same fee for use of the trademark, and LPE will sell boats at a break even price at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EU competition law doesn’t require FRAND but WS policy for Olympic classes does.  This is a call WS made and I fear it may come back to bite them - mind you they may not be solvent by that point.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

EU competition law doesn’t require FRAND but WS policy for Olympic classes does.  This is a call WS made and I fear it may come back to bite them - mind you they may not be solvent by that point.  

So the Laser/ILCA dinghy and its builders needn’t comply. (Barring unforeseen events where the Laser/ILCA somehow gets in).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely.  Obviously ILCA may still decide its in their best interest to go FRAND or multi-builder or anything other than what they have, but that would be their call entirely.  FRAND is not a legal obligation and even WS only requires it for Olympic classes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those not aware.....Bill Crane quit Laser Performance 5 days ago......the last good guy standing. 

If there are any sailors left in senior management I don’t know who they are. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Anyone good at translation from Italian to English?

Am picking up on some phrases that may show some bias. (Source = http://www.saily.it/article/ws-arriva-il-mid-year-con-altre-sorprese?fbclid=IwAR3p0MgO8fqhirREYNcWZa0EoROT1HQdkmG_amG3q4lBuJeQ7DEsJf3DbAg)

I haven’t used Italian since communicating with Grampa Piazza in the sixties,  but it goes Something about like this. 

I DID NOT WRITE IT AND IT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF MY OPINIONS!!!!

 

WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH LASER - Today some observers think that in the end there will be a compromise between ILCA and LaserPerformance, also to avoid the latter's legal actions, and the opening of other fronts after the antitrust. With this possible outcome: 1) WS confirms Olympic Laser (Male Standard and Female Radial); 2) antitrust policies are adopted and licenses are granted to other sites to build the Laser; 3) Royalties are maintained for the historic LP; 4) Then, with more or less rapid times, the new shaft-boom-boom rigs will pass, which will change to the Laser and will oblige hundreds of thousands of laserists to become customers of a huge market.

 
Not a bad plan, right? To orchestrate it there would be the ILCA executive secretary Eric Faust (enigmatic in name and in fact), allied with the aforementioned Spillane, all blessed by the powerful (you can't topple) CEO of World Sailing Andy Hunt. As it happens the company ready to benefit from all this is called Global Sailing, we have already defined a sort of Specter of sailing ...
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

For all those not aware.....Bill Crane quit Laser Performance 5 days ago......the last good guy standing. 

If there are any sailors left in senior management I don’t know who they are. 

Thanks for posting this news.

Wondering when or if this will impact the ILCA Advisory Council, as Bill Crane is still listed there. It is possible that he is no longer on the Advisory Committee, since LPE is no longer a builder, however I don't know for sure the dates involved. (It is easy to assume that LPE's demise as an official builder and Bill Crane's resignation are effective immediately - but that is an assumption.)

Wondering if PSJ's Takao Otani will take his place, and whether that would be an interim measure as Takao already serves on the Technical and Measurement committee.

 

ILCA Advisory Council 19 May 2019.png

Share this post


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

I haven’t used Italian since communicating with Gramoa Piazza in the sixties,  but it goes Something about like this. 

WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH LASER - Today some observers think that in the end there will be a compromise between ILCA and LaserPerformance, also to avoid the latter's legal actions, and the opening of other fronts after the antitrust. With this possible outcome: 1) WS confirms Olympic Laser (Male Standard and Female Radial); 2) antitrust policies are adopted and licenses are granted to other sites to build the Laser; 3) Royalties are maintained for the historic LP; 4) Then, with more or less rapid times, the new shaft-boom-boom rigs will pass, which will change to the Laser and will oblige hundreds of thousands of laserists to become customers of a huge market.

 
Not a bad plan, right? To orchestrate it there would be the ILCA executive secretary Eric Faust (enigmatic in name and in fact), allied with the aforementioned Spillane, all blessed by the powerful (you can't topple) CEO of World Sailing Andy Hunt. As it happens the company ready to benefit from all this is called Global Sailing, we have already defined a sort of Specter of sailing ...

Thanks Gouv. I don't trust the translation engines so much, particularly if sarcasm is used.

Yes, "enigmatico" (in reference to Eric Faust) means enigmatic, but also can be translated to mean puzzling or cryptic. In common use language, it can be used to mean incomprehensible. But my Italian is very poor, I was in Italy in 2017 and I needed a translator for sure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gantt said:

Thanks for posting this news.

Wondering when or if this will impact the ILCA Advisory Council, as Bill Crane is still listed there. It is possible that he is no longer on the Advisory Committee, since LPE is no longer a builder, however I don't know for sure the dates involved. (It is easy to assume that LPE's demise as an official builder and Bill Crane's resignation are effective immediately - but that is an assumption.)

Wondering if PSJ's Takao Otani will take his place, and whether that would be an interim measure as Takao already serves on the Technical and Measurement committee.

 

ILCA Advisory Council 19 May 2019.png

Yes, Takao was nominated and is now on the Council. Website needs updating.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

Yes, Takao was nominated and is now on the Council. Website needs updating.

It is unfortunate that ILCA, ILCA NA is not more proactive in getting information, accurate information  out to its member. Last update on the ILCA NA website was a month ago April 19. There are other options other than just a class website. 

Last ILCA announcement was May 4 

https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/category/news/announcements/important-announcements/

 

Anyway  another great day of racing 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It is unfortunate that ILCA, ILCA NA is not more proactive in getting information, accurate information  out to its member. Last update on the ILCA NA website was a month ago April 19. There are other options other than just a class website. 

Last ILCA announcement was May 4 

https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/category/news/announcements/important-announcements/

 

Anyway  another great day of racing 

 

 

Sorry VWAP (?), didn't realize putting out the news of the change of a member of the Advisory Council was for some reason crucially important to class members.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aroy210677 said:

Sorry VWAP (?), didn't realize putting out the news of the change of a member of the Advisory Council was for some reason crucially important to class members.

aroy210677(?) It was regarding all current information not specifically changes to the advisory council 

At the current event I am at there is a lot of discussion about the lack of information from ILCA ,ILCA NA  as to what is going on with the class.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It is unfortunate that ILCA, ILCA NA is not more proactive in getting information, accurate information  out to its member. Last update on the ILCA NA website was a month ago April 19. There are other options other than just a class website. 

Last ILCA announcement was May 4 

https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/category/news/announcements/important-announcements/

 

Anyway  another great day of racing 

 

 

WS could be a little more proactive in updating their website.

http://www.sailing.org/worldsailing/secretariat/technical_and_offshore.php

 

The equipment committee is supported by WS's Technical Director......who unbeknownst to at least one page of WS website, left 7 months ago!!!

1344411665_WSOrgStructure.PNG.ba1e247adf8a4732cabeae6c7cf2ea58.PNG

 

513001153_CarlosdeBeltran.PNG.fff3fbee9675d368cde63addb134788d.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is amusing about the exchange above is that when the ILCA do make significant announcements, they are often ignored. Many come in the form of the Handbook, which is updated annually. 

Here's a little gem from the 2019 Handbook about how the the Laser Construction Manual (LCM) has and continues to change:

Quote

Several years ago, the ILCA undertook a major revision of the LCM to bring it into compliance with current practice. Wherever possible tolerances were reduced, more detailed descriptions were added and the whole manual was put into a properly secured electronic form. The LCM is continuously reviewed as part of an ongoing process to further tighten tolerances and specifications where possible. During the revision of the LCM much thought was given to the basic principles on how the Laser should evolve. The following principles were approved by all the builders and the ILCA and are now part of the LCM:

Evolution in quality and ease of use:

The builders have made and will continue to make a sustained effort to improve the quality, durability and ease of use of the Laser – but without changing its basic performance. Where tolerances exist in the quality assurance procedures for incoming materials and for the manufacturing process, a continued effort will be made to reduce them, but avoiding significant cost increases.

Source = http://www.laserinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Handbook_2109.pdf

It's clear from comments here on this forum that many 'forget' that the Laser has evolved and will continue to evolve. My first Laser was from the 1970s era, and has very little in common with the latest one I bought in 2011 - other than the hull form and performance attributes. The original kicker (ugh!) and today's power vang are completely different. The sail is more durable than it was originally, and the hull is built to a higher standard. More changes are planned.

The ILCA is a big, international class association, possibly second only in size in the world to the International Optimist Association. (It is possibly worth noting that the Optimist Association is not an Olympic class, but I digress.) Due to it's size, that the Laser is sailed in 120 or so countries - means changes are less frequent and harder to make. Most changes must be approved two thirds ILCA members, achieved by regular votes.

Right now the ILCA is faced with four major potential changes. These are in my view:

  • A name change for the class
  • New builders
  • New rigs
  • No longer being an Olympic class

Perhaps in time, and if carefully managed, the world Laser championships may be continue to be viewed as one of the most prestigious world championships to win in sailing - much as they were in the 1980s before the class became an Olympic Class. At the 2018 World Laser champs, 66 countries were represented (53 countries for women) - now that is an achievement in itself - and more countries than in the Olympics (2016 had 46 men, 37 women). While the class is viewed as a stepping stone to other classes, the popularity of the Masters make it a for many a final destination class - an element which saw 499 individual entrants at the 2014 masters world champs in Hyeres, France.

What made and continues to make the Laser / ILCA dinghy a success is it's simplicity, and it's relative ubiquity. This will be true for many years to come.

These are the things that make the class great, and will continue to drive it's popularity.

We have seen what a lack of a builder of new boats does for North America, Asia and South America - yet somehow the class still hangs on - and has even grown a little in Asia. Imagine what the class can do when supported by local builders, if the ILCA plans to appoint new builders come to fruition. (Maybe we'll even see another North American world champ, something that has been missing for quite some time.)

I'd suggest that over the next few months will see a bedding down of the way forward for the ILCA - including fewer concerns about potential legal actions  - and as a consequence - better communications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is somebody hijacking the  Gannt screen name ?? I remember when a fellow who was not a class member used to post under this  name. 

   Old Gannt used to evaluate and honestly critique  the actions of the Laser Class Officers 

 Has Kellyannt Conway taken over the screen name?? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, aroy210677 said:

Sorry VWAP (?), didn't realize putting out the news of the change of a member of the Advisory Council was for some reason crucially important to class members.

@aroy210677 - There is merit in what VWAP is saying no?  Nobody, except the officers seems to know what the class is up.  You certainly get no push back from me about replacing LPE with a better builder but the letter to WS makes it clear you guys are undertaking MAJOR changes to how the class worked... and as the Olympics seems to be gone... its not clear why.  SMOD was a basic bedrock principle now tossed aside.  And I will offer you the same friendly wager of a bottle rum I made earlier.  I bet you can't land a boat in my town for the same price LPE does after this FRAND thing is all done.  Basic economic theory says the boats are going to be more expensive by a lot, charter boats few and far between, and charter fees much higher.  If I am wrong then ILCA needs to say so and frankly I would love to be wrong.  Tell us why FRAND is good... not for the Olympic sailor who is leaving ILCA now to go buy an Aero, but for the Laser Masters sailor who travels to events or the club sailor who does not.

And I find I have to eat crow and agree with @Gouvernail.  Vote now!!!  You folks are headed into a major meeting with all players to negotiate the future of the class.  We have folks from ILCAEU there... obviously opposed to dropping LPE... but is that really the view of EU sailors??  No way to know.  Others from ILCA are there... obviously in favor of dropping LPE.... but is that really the view of US or other region's sailors?  And now that the ILCA letter to WS makes clear what ILCA thinks FRAND means for the class (and why should we read that first on SA and not from ILCA to VWAP's point???????) shouldn't there be some more - A LOT MORE - information flowing out of ILCA to class sailors about the whole picture of what you guys think is best for the class and why and then even if its informal... some means of getting class member feedback?

  * How do you represent class members in a negotiation that seal their fate when they don't know what is going on, never mind get asked to vote... or at least provide feedback. 

This is a major change.  Opti is the closest thing to what I think (?) you folks are proposing to do and come on... there are issues there and its clearly not the SMOD Laser model we all know.  And now with the Laser voted out of the Olympics (get it might be voted back in) the landscape in which those changes are proposed has changed. I for one have always and still do believe that the class officers have the class's best interest at the front.  But this is an odd and radical enough change that different officers (EU for NA for example) have clearly different and opposing views.  So why not get the full story out, answer all questions, and take a vote even if its informal and for guidance? 

Thanks for considering an alternate view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One has to pause and consider from 10,000 feet what has actually happened here...to realize how badly the Laser class and their builders have played their cards.

1.  The only class in the world that is found in the dinghy park of almost every sailing club, used by almost every junior sailing program, every college and university, raced by more people every week on a recreational basis with allegedly 250,000 + boats still in existence has been deemed less "universal" than a similar dinghy with allegedly 3,000 boats built.

2.  The same class was found to be the best boat in terms of design for performance and athletic ability for Olympic sailing in a sail off between 4 contending tenders.

3. The class has produced the highest number of sailor athlete competitors from the greatest number of countries year after year in the Olympics. The competition is among the fiercest in the Olympic games producing medalists who are widely acknowledged as some of the best sailors of their generation...and importantly producing more medalists from more countries than any other class.

4. After a thorough review, the class was one of two boats that was still endorsed as suitable for the Olympics.

5. A class, that I bet there are good odds that almost every world class sailor athlete , and indeed most sailors at WS have sailed at least once in their lives.

6. With three builders in three global locations producing  > 4 times the number of boats than the next closest boat's perceived (not actual) capacity from a single location , the Laser has been deemed as less qualified in terms of supply ability. This despite the proven ability to supply hundreds of provided boats for major competition in almost any location in the world. 

With these cards.....the Laser finds itself on the verge of being deselected from the Olympic games?  

I am going to be bold and say that I could have done a better job advocating for the Laser and put up a better fight than that.

The missteps of both the infighting builders consortium and the Class Association almost beggar belief!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Not sure why you're double posting in both threads, but....
As I responded in the other thread:

The answer to the simple question you pose is LaserPerformance.  Full stop.

Share this post


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

@aroy210677 - There is merit in what VWAP is saying no?  Nobody, except the officers seems to know what the class is up. 

Nothing new about that: it was pretty much the same when the pro LPE fundamental rule change was voted on. I still regard the way ILCA went about that vote as being dubious in the extreme.

I hope the Laser can avoid the Optimist model. I think to have Laser builders competing on quality/boat speed would be a major loss for the sport as a whole worldwide. What's required is something more innovative. Something using ISO9001 type techniques to ensure all boats are built as similarly as possible and with a much narrower range of variation than the current LCM. The trouble is I am not entirely enthusiastic about the biggest class in the world being used to trial an entirely novel (well not entirely - the Arup Skiff had a similar proposal in the Womens skiff trials) means of builder control, although at the same time the numbers make it the best vehicle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@aroy210677 - There is merit in what VWAP is saying no?  Nobody, except the officers seems to know what the class is up.  You certainly get no push back from me about replacing LPE with a better builder but the letter to WS makes it clear you guys are undertaking MAJOR changes to how the class worked... and as the Olympics seems to be gone... its not clear why.  SMOD was a basic bedrock principle now tossed aside.  And I will offer you the same friendlDo y wager of a bottle rum I made earlier.  I bet you can't land a boat in my town for the same price LPE does after this FRAND thing is all done.  Basic economic theory says the boats are going to be more expensive by a lot, charter boats few and far between, and charter fees much higher.  If I am wrong then ILCA needs to say so and frankly I would love to be wrong.  Tell us why FRAND is good... not for the Olympic sailor who is leaving ILCA now to go buy an Aero, but for the Laser Masters sailor who travels to events or the club sailor who does not.

And I find I have to eat crow and agree with @Gouvernail.  Vote now!!!  You folks are headed into a major meeting with all players to negotiate the future of the class.  We have folks from ILCAEU there... obviously opposed to dropping LPE... but is that really the view of EU sailors??  No way to know.  Others from ILCA are there... obviously in favor of dropping LPE.... but is that really the view of US or other region's sailors?  And now that the ILCA letter to WS makes clear what ILCA thinks FRAND means for the class (and why should we read that first on SA and not from ILCA to VWAP's point???????) shouldn't there be some more - A LOT MORE - information flowing out of ILCA to class sailors about the whole picture of what you guys think is best for the class and why and then even if its informal... some means of getting class member feedback?

  * How do you represent class members in a negotiation that seal their fate when they don't know what is going on, never mind get asked to vote... or at least provide feedback. 

This is a major change.  Opti is the closest thing to what I think (?) you folks are proposing to do and come on... there are issues there and its clearly not the SMOD Laser model we all know.  And now with the Laser voted out of the Olympics (get it might be voted back in) the landscape in which those changes are proposed has changed. I for one have always and still do believe that the class officers have the class's best interest at the front.  But this is an odd and radical enough change that different officers (EU for NA for example) have clearly different and opposing views.  So why not get the full story out, answer all questions, and take a vote even if its informal and for guidance? 

Thanks for considering an alternate view.

1. "Nobody, except the officers seems to know what the class is up (to?)."  Wess, you must know that there is a very good reason why all issues can't be fully communicated while in process. 

2. "The Olympics seem to be gone".  The fat lady has not yet sung.  The MNAs (most, and particularly the smaller nations) are STRONGLY against changing the singlehanded dinghy, and this is of course being taking seriously by the WS Board.  I received this morning a copy of a letter from the Malaysian Sailing Association sent to the Board (one of many similar). It is a very powerful letter. 

And, a message we (ILCA) just received from my counterpart from South America: "We are putting all the best of us so that our class remains Olympic. We form a good team, solid, united and convinced to achieve the objective. There are only a few hours to see the result. It is no longer in our hands ... but we trust the work we've done"

  I'm betting we stay in - bottle of rum?  (min. 12-year old)

3.  There is only one reason why we're pursuing FRAND compliance and that is because WS informed us it is necessary for Olympic selection. (BTW, the WS Board are very impressed with our FRAND proposal).

Regardless of the outcome, and as my friend Carlos from Argentina said,  I'll know we did everything possible to be retained as the Olympic boat. Certainly staying status quo would have failed.  Will the boat and class remain strong if a no vote - of course it will!  But with the universality of this little boat, and with so many nations having invested and built their youth and high performance sailing programs around it, there is no question our duty was to do everything we could to remain Olympic.

4. I don't understand why you believe having more builders competing and being able to sell into any region will raise the price of the boat.

5.  ILCA has not been in "favor of dropping LPE". We have held out numerous olive branches and pushed for the meeting on the 22nd to try to reach a solution. But what position would you support, Wess, if you were a member of the WC and the primary builder has breached a critical requirement in the LCMA, and is also insisting on a significant and what we believe is an unnecessary and potentially class damaging change to the 1998 trademark agreement?

6.  Again, there are obvious reasons why a vote before now (i.e., soon) would not have been the right action.

7. Seal their fate ...   Seriously? 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aroy210677 said:

1. "Nobody, except the officers seems to know what the class is up (to?)."  Wess, you must know that there is a very good reason why all issues can't be fully communicated while in process.  

I get the legal reason but also an unfair cloak to hide behind.  Is your legal position compromised by the WS letter?  No!  Then why do we read it first here?

2. "The Olympics seem to be gone".  The fat lady has not yet sung.  The MNAs (most, and particularly the smaller nations) are STRONGLY against changing the singlehanded dinghy, and this is of course being taking seriously by the WS Board.  I received this morning a copy of a letter from the Malaysian Sailing Association sent to the Board (one of many similar). It is a very powerful letter. 

And, a message we (ILCA) just received from my counterpart from South America: "We are putting all the best of us so that our class remains Olympic. We form a good team, solid, united and convinced to achieve the objective. There are only a few hours to see the result. It is no longer in our hands ... but we trust the work we've done"

  I'm betting we stay in - bottle of rum?  (min. 12-year old)

I view it as a negative from a club's sailors perspective but get that a good portion of membership would disagree.  Good luck but I honestly think the whole of the class would be better without especially given the changes being pushed in the name of the Olympics and FRAND.  If given I vote I would vote no but that is just an n of 1.

3.  There is only one reason why we're pursuing FRAND compliance and that is because WS informed us it is necessary for Olympic selection. (BTW, the WS Board are very impressed with our FRAND proposal).

Regardless of the outcome, and as my friend Carlos from Argentina said,  I'll know we did everything possible to be retained as the Olympic boat. Certainly staying status quo would have failed.  Will the boat and class remain strong if a no vote - of course it will!  But with the universality of this little boat, and with so many nations having invested and built their youth and high performance sailing programs around it, there is no question our duty was to do everything we could to remain Olympic.

Agree and disagree and it should be the members call not that of the officers.  Most members may agree we should try to stay Olympic.  But given the costs and mess and FRAND its also possible they vote no.  Until the release of the WS letter by others the class member don't even get to know what the approach and costs might be.  ASnd there I have to disagree.

4. I don't understand why you believe having more builders competing and being able to sell into any region will raise the price of the boat.

Of course the simplistic counter argument is that a monopoly is always worse.  I am not so sure here.  We know the Opti model which you propose to adopt and the problems.  With Laser we know the annual volume and retail costs now and can estimate margins and builders costs.  Now you plan to spread that same already small volume over a lot of builders all of whom have to make significant capital investment just to get started, and then have to learn and so are going to have higher wastage (or bad boats released to public), and are not going to have any economy of scale, and never mind being already cash starved in terms of the product line to not be able to front the cash for a large supply of event boats, they don't have ANY reason to because they have no territory.  Happy to be wrong.  Happy to hear that the tender and contracts commit the builders to hit a retail price target and supply X number of event boats at Y charter fee. Nothing secret here that impacts the ILCA legal position.  So pray tell... how does ILCA in the FRAND world ensure we don't have big price increases in boats, lower quality and less or no event boats?  Tell me how ILCA has this covered and of course I and anyone else would vote yes to FRAND.  Your last word on this was something to the effect of they will cross that bridge when they come to it!  Seriously??!!??

5.  ILCA has not been in "favor of dropping LPE". We have held out numerous olive branches and pushed for the meeting on the 22nd to try to reach a solution. But what position would you support, Wess, if you were a member of the WC and the primary builder has breached a critical requirement in the LCMA, and is also insisting on a significant and what we believe is an unnecessary and potentially class damaging change to the 1998 trademark agreement?

Bad choice of words on my part in saying in favor of dropping. I agree when they open the door you have to walk through.  That can always be walked back.  With you there.  Have to disagree re the trademark but I have a personal bias here.  Don't care about the name and don't think the class should be spending time and money on IP that matters 100 X more to builder than to class.  Its about the only thing I agree with LPE on.  I get it would benefit from a tweak here and there but I just don't see the agreement that was posted here as being the end of the world for the class or even anything close.  I get that others would disagree.  But again there is no info out there from ILCA... just from others.  And...

In that WS letter ILCA does not come out smelling exactly like a rose even with your own account of what was what with the out of spec PSA boats.  And again we hear from everyone but ILCA.

6.  Again, there are obvious reasons why a vote before now (i.e., soon) would not have been the right action.

Sorry but I have to disagree as noted above.  I was with you prior but not after seeing the WS letter.  Don't misunderstand I may well still favor FRAND but need some info from ILCA first and that ain't been forthcoming.

7. Seal their fate ...   Seriously? 

Yes, seriously.  Can you really not see that FRAND as you folks propose it (which ain't necessary absent the Olympics and if what the ASero proposes is acceptable - and it must be at least not a on the face show stopper given the WS Equip Committee vote - how ILCA thinks of FRAND may not be required even for Olympics) is a really fundamental shift in how the Laser class has worked??? And you can't see any possible downsides to FRAND... its all clearly purely just peaches and cream to you???  So yea I think seal their fate is fair.  It may be a great fate.  I can keep an open mind.  But I got no info from ILCA.  Sadly I got more from the front page of SA and man that is a sad sad thing.  And if you read back you know there is another reason I will not spell out that I think fate is sealed even before a vote.

 

 

Responses above...

Bottom line is that I continue to believe that those running the class have class members best interests at heart.  But even those running the class clearly have some differing views on what should be happening.  In that situation I can only hope you folks are more open with what the problems and options for solutions are.  You may find most agree with you.  But its hard to agree when in the dark and hearing everything from others only.  YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

1. "Nobody, except the officers seems to know what the class is up (to?)."  Wess, you must know that there is a very good reason why all issues can't be fully communicated while in process. Agreed.  It is a delicate balancing act. Every legal instinct in my bones is urging you to say nothing at all (Im sure your lawyers must be asking you to say as little as possible ) but at the same time this is also a battle being waged in the court of public opinion and you represent a democratic class association so you have to contribute what you can to the debate. Its a tough position but you are not the first or last to be in it...hopefully with good advice.

2. "The Olympics seem to be gone".  The fat lady has not yet sung.

Good to hear.   Although I dont have a dog in the fight, I was incredible underwhelmed by the presentation and discussion in the Equipment Committee meeting. As I shared in response to a private message from TCat (who seems to know Dina quite well and shared some scathing criticism of the process that selected the Nacra 17), if I had been in that meeting I would have asked some much more probing questions and I would certainly have asked for the supporting documentation, including the questionnaires and answers submitted by the sailors who tested the equipment ...before coming to judgement and voting.

However.....the vote in equipment committee was undeniably unfavorable.   I hope the debate, enquiry and fact finding at the board and council level is more probing.  

  The MNAs (most, and particularly the smaller nations) are STRONGLY against changing the singlehanded dinghy, and this is of course being taking seriously by the WS Board.  I received this morning a copy of a letter from the Malaysian Sailing Association sent to the Board (one of many similar). It is a very powerful letter. 

And, a message we (ILCA) just received from my counterpart from South America: "We are putting all the best of us so that our class remains Olympic. We form a good team, solid, united and convinced to achieve the objective. There are only a few hours to see the result. It is no longer in our hands ... but we trust the work we've done"

  I'm betting we stay in - bottle of rum?  (min. 12-year old)

I'll leave you and Wess to enjoy your rum. No offense but 12 year old rum doesnt excite my wagering instincts.....if you made it an 18 year old Glenmorangie, I would join the fray.

3.  There is only one reason why we're pursuing FRAND compliance and that is because WS informed us it is necessary for Olympic selection. (BTW, the WS Board are very impressed with our FRAND proposal).

Regardless of the outcome, and as my friend Carlos from Argentina said,  I'll know we did everything possible to be retained as the Olympic boat. Certainly staying status quo would have failed.  Will the boat and class remain strong if a no vote - of course it will!  But with the universality of this little boat, and with so many nations having invested and built their youth and high performance sailing programs around it, there is no question our duty was to do everything we could to remain Olympic.

4. I don't understand why you believe having more builders competing and being able to sell into any region will raise the price of the boat.

History and looking at every other class with multiple builders.  Successful modern one designs are increasingly based on the SMOD model because it provides stricter one design identical boats,  better support for sailors and class activities and cheaper boats.  Multiple boat builders NEVER compete on price, they always compete on perceived quality .  This is driven by a customer base who never wants to buy a boat from the builder who is perceived to supply the 2nd fastest boat.

5.  ILCA has not been in "favor of dropping LPE". We have held out numerous olive branches and pushed for the meeting on the 22nd to try to reach a solution. But what position would you support, Wess, if you were a member of the WC and the primary builder has breached a critical requirement in the LCMA, and is also insisting on a significant and what we believe is an unnecessary and potentially class damaging change to the 1998 trademark agreement?

Its a damn shame.  I have variously criticized LPE in my posts.

But there is something to be said for a thick skin . Building compromise with difficult people is one of the hardest but most valuable skills in the world. 

If I was on WC, I would meet with Rastegaar in person. I would put aside the whole inspection issue and do my darn best to explain the world has changed and that we are going to have to open the class to more builders but given their obvious credentials to remain the largest builder in this new universe, how can we work together as partners to ensure the brightest and best future for the Class and his business.

Andy.....one suggestion (your lawyers might say no depending on the circumstances) , you might want to share with members what the class damaging and unreasonable changes that LPE is trying to obtain in their new proposal for a trademark agreement.  That was obviously a catalyst for you (as it was for the Sunfish Class members).....so what was it?    (Check with lawyers before answering but it might help members if they understood what it was that LP was demanding)

6.  Again, there are obvious reasons why a vote before now (i.e., soon) would not have been the right action.

7. Seal their fate ...   Seriously?

How do you view the news of Bill Crane resigning from LP?  According to many, he was the one voice of reason at LP and a genuine sailor who cared about sailing.......does this make it more difficult still to talk to LP? Does this make the May 22 meeting more difficult?  Has he told you why he is leaving? Did he jump or was he pushed?

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

1. "Nobody, except the officers seems to know what the class is up (to?)."  Wess, you must know that there is a very good reason why all issues can't be fully communicated while in process. Agreed.  It is a delicate balancing act. Every legal instinct in my bones is urging you to say nothing at all (Im sure your lawyers must be asking you to say as little as possible ) but at the same time this is also a battle being waged in the court of public opinion and you represent a democratic class association so you have to contribute what you can to the debate. Its a tough position but you are not the first or last to be in it...hopefully with good advice.

Several points on the counsel we've been receiving. It has come primarily from two superb lawyers who specialize in these types of issues; and, they're active Laser sailors.  We have been very fortunate to have them.

2. "The Olympics seem to be gone".  The fat lady has not yet sung.

Good to hear.   Although I dont have a dog in the fight, I was incredible underwhelmed by the presentation and discussion in the Equipment Committee meeting. As I shared in response to a private message from TCat (who seems to know Dina quite well and shared some scathing criticism of the process that selected the Nacra 17), if I had been in that meeting I would have asked some much more probing questions and I would certainly have asked for the supporting documentation, including the questionnaires and answers submitted by the sailors who tested the equipment ...before coming to judgement and voting.

However.....the vote in equipment committee was undeniably unfavorable.   I hope the debate, enquiry and fact finding at the board and council level is more probing.  

The presentation yesterday was odd and, yes, I was underwhelmed. It seemed like several members, including Dina, have been so disappointed with their own experiences with LP supply issues (in NA) that their vote was significantly, perhaps solely, influenced by this.  Moreover, they took it as fact that RS Aero will quickly and efficiently open up more manufacturing sites (which I'm not necessarily doubting), but they didn't allow ILCA's plans for FRAND compliance and opening up more builders to be a factor in their decision.  Seems they considered and accepted the future plans of one class, but did not consider/accept the plans from the other?

  The MNAs (most, and particularly the smaller nations) are STRONGLY against changing the singlehanded dinghy, and this is of course being taking seriously by the WS Board.  I received this morning a copy of a letter from the Malaysian Sailing Association sent to the Board (one of many similar). It is a very powerful letter. 

And, a message we (ILCA) just received from my counterpart from South America: "We are putting all the best of us so that our class remains Olympic. We form a good team, solid, united and convinced to achieve the objective. There are only a few hours to see the result. It is no longer in our hands ... but we trust the work we've done"

  I'm betting we stay in - bottle of rum?  (min. 12-year old)

I'll leave you and Wess to enjoy your rum. No offense but 12 year old rum doesnt excite my wagering instincts.....if you made it an 18 year old Glenmorangie, I would join the fray.

Well, I'm with you on that one.

4. I don't understand why you believe having more builders competing and being able to sell into any region will raise the price of the boat.

History and looking at every other class with multiple builders.  Successful modern one designs are increasingly based on the SMOD model because it provides stricter one design identical boats,  better support for sailors and class activities and cheaper boats.  Multiple boat builders NEVER compete on price, they always compete on perceived quality .  This is driven by a customer base who never wants to buy a boat from the builder who is perceived to supply the 2nd fastest boat.

I hear you. Again, WS needed o judge us as FRAND compliant (or plan in place to achieve). This will of course put increased emphasis on inspections to ensure the one-design principle is achieved and maintained.

5.  ILCA has not been in "favor of dropping LPE". We have held out numerous olive branches and pushed for the meeting on the 22nd to try to reach a solution. But what position would you support, Wess, if you were a member of the WC and the primary builder has breached a critical requirement in the LCMA, and is also insisting on a significant and what we believe is an unnecessary and potentially class damaging change to the 1998 trademark agreement?

Its a damn shame.  I have variously criticized LPE in my posts.

But there is something to be said for a thick skin . Building compromise with difficult people is one of the hardest but most valuable skills in the world. 

If I was on WC, I would meet with Rastegaar in person. I would put aside the whole inspection issue and do my darn best to explain the world has changed and that we are going to have to open the class to more builders but given their obvious credentials to remain the largest builder in this new universe, how can we work together as partners to ensure the brightest and best future for the Class and his business.

Tracy has met with him, and met with his right hand man just yesterday in London.

Andy.....one suggestion (your lawyers might say no depending on the circumstances) , you might want to share with members what the class damaging and unreasonable changes that LPE is trying to obtain in their new proposal for a trademark agreement.  That was obviously a catalyst for you (as it was for the Sunfish Class members).....so what was it?    (Check with lawyers before answering but it might help members if they understood what it was that LP was demanding)

All I'm going to say is that our counsel objected to the changes in the interests of the future of the class and class members.

6.  Again, there are obvious reasons why a vote before now (i.e., soon) would not have been the right action.

7. Seal their fate ...   Seriously?

How do you view the news of Bill Crane resigning from LP?  According to many, he was the one voice of reason at LP and a genuine sailor who cared about sailing.......does this make it more difficult still to talk to LP? Does this make the May 22 meeting more difficult?  Has he told you why he is leaving? Did he jump or was he pushed?

I don't know why Bill resigned or if he resigned (if you know what I mean).  With all due respect to Bill, as far as I can tell there has never been a "voice of reason" at LP (because he was instructed not to use his voice).  If Bill was attending the meeting on the 22nd (which i highly doubt he would be, were he still with the company), based on what I've seen at past WC meetings, he would not be allowed to say a word.  Example: couple years ago at the ILCA WC meeting a standard routine agenda item and subsequent vote of the technical committee took place to inform sailmakers to reinforce a batten pocket end on the new (at the time) MK II sail (I think that was the issue, but it was minor nonetheless). Bill had been instructed to not vote on or even discuss ANY issues, even something as simple and straightforward as this example. 

 

In the meantime - Laser discussion happening right now in London!

Share this post


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

1. "Nobody, except the officers seems to know what the class is up (to?)."  Wess, you must know that there is a very good reason why all issues can't be fully communicated while in process. Agreed.  It is a delicate balancing act. Every legal instinct in my bones is urging you to say nothing at all (Im sure your lawyers must be asking you to say as little as possible ) but at the same time this is also a battle being waged in the court of public opinion and you represent a democratic class association so you have to contribute what you can to the debate. Its a tough position but you are not the first or last to be in it...hopefully with good advice.

It is a balancing act but in simple terms we the class members are the clients and the lawyers are working for us and generally lawyers do not act without the knowledge of their client. Same goes for the class officials who are in a difficult position 

All I suggested was better official communication from the class association either on the class web page or some sort of distribution list or any number of modern  ways 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 in simple terms we the class members are the clients and the lawyers are working for us and generally lawyers do not act without the knowledge of their client.

Except in every single corporation or llc or NGO in the world where the shareholders/members/patrons delegate their responsibility for things like potential litigation and accounting and operations and maintenance and...

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Except in every single corporation or llc or NGO in the world where the shareholders/members/patrons delegate their responsibility for things like potential litigation and accounting and operations and maintenance and...

Come on Clean.  Ditching LPE is something most (at least most non EU) can easily get behind.  SMOD to FRAND ala ILCA to WS letter (or the Opti model ow whatever you want to call it) is something that is much more fundamental change and while I have an open mind, clearly has some real potential to negatively impact all members who are not on an Olympic path.  Folks should have a say... and sufficient info to have an informed say... before their fate is sealed. And I think its fair to say that going FRAND has more potential to bring litigation than not going FRAND, no? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Except in every single corporation or llc or NGO in the world where the shareholders/members/patrons delegate their responsibility for things like potential litigation and accounting and operations and maintenance and...

 

2 hours ago, Wess said:

Come on Clean.  Ditching LPE is something most (at least most non EU) can easily get behind.  SMOD to FRAND ala ILCA to WS letter (or the Opti model ow whatever you want to call it) is something that is much more fundamental change and while I have an open mind, clearly has some real potential to negatively impact all members who are not on an Olympic path.  Folks should have a say... and sufficient info to have an informed say... before their fate is sealed. And I think its fair to say that going FRAND has more potential to bring litigation than not going FRAND, no? 

Board members are expected to act in the best interest of shareholders/members/patrons. LPE:

1) continued to show their inability to provide product to anywhere outside Europe

2) showed a distinct lack of respect for their dealers and their customers outside of Europe

3) reportedly fucked around with deck/hull weight configuration and mast rake

4) Would not allow ILCA to conduct a full, measurement focused inspection

IMHO it was in the class's best interest to fire LPE, and the Board acted appropriately. Nothing in the constitution prevented this action. 

The name change is a stickier wicket, because it does represent a change in the Constitution and is therefore subject to a vote. There is an extenuating circumstance - that being doing what was necessary to satisfy the WS requirement for FRAND compliance. To do this, the name Laser had to disappear due to the IP issue with LPE being the patent owner (I think I have that right...). The Board, believing Olympic status was supported by the class (and why wouldn't they), stated the name and logo had changed. So - did they act in the best interest of the class by (perhaps prematurely) changing the name and logo?  

If the end game was to keep the boat in the Olympics, it looks to me like they did what they had to do. It seems to me they needed to be nimble, and the education process and vote would have taken at least 30 days and could very well have jeopardized the chance of winning the bid. At the end of the day, is the actual name and logo that critical? Note WS didn't seem to care. Or is it just the procedural bit that people find offensive? 

Also,  when we are talking potential litigation, the greatest chance of that would be if the Board had gone through all this without legal sign-off, which Andy already confirmed. 

Awaiting anticipated venomous responses... 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bill4 said:

 

Board members are expected to act in the best interest of shareholders/members/patrons. LPE:

1) continued to show their inability to provide product to anywhere outside Europe

2) showed a distinct lack of respect for their dealers and their customers outside of Europe

3) reportedly fucked around with deck/hull weight configuration and mast rake

4) Would not allow ILCA to conduct a full, measurement focused inspection

IMHO it was in the class's best interest to fire LPE, and the Board acted appropriately. Nothing in the constitution prevented this action. 

The name change is a stickier wicket, because it does represent a change in the Constitution and is therefore subject to a vote. There is an extenuating circumstance - that being doing what was necessary to satisfy the WS requirement for FRAND compliance. To do this, the name Laser had to disappear due to the IP issue with LPE being the patent owner (I think I have that right...). The Board, believing Olympic status was supported by the class (and why wouldn't they), stated the name and logo had changed. So - did they act in the best interest of the class by (perhaps prematurely) change the name and logo?  

If the end game was to keep the boat in the Olympics, it looks to me like they did what they had to do. It seems to me they needed to be nimble, and the education process and vote would have taken at least 30 days and could very well have jeopardized the chance of winning the bid. At the end of the day, is the actual name and logo that critical? Note WS didn't seem to care. Or is it just the procedural bit that people find offensive? 

Also,  when we are talking potential litigation, the greatest chance of that would be if the Board had gone through all this without legal sign-off, which Andy already confirmed. 

Awaiting anticipated venomous responses... 

 

 

 

 

Why anticipating venomous responses?

That seems pretty fair. I think many (at least not in EU) would agree re firing LPE.  I was surprised at the EU response. No clue how it would go if they were asked to vote LPE out. But... no vote required. World council decision ends it. It’s done unless World council votes them back. Like it or not membership does not get a vote other than voting with feet. Personally I would be glad to see them go IF replaced by better or same.

For the rest I would separate 2 things.

1.) Name change. 

Has to happen once LPE  is fired. Even if membership votes no a court order would force the change. Vote irrelevant but necessary under by laws. 

Well played by class leadership. And up to here I am 100% with class with the caveat that the EU pushback was a shock if truly  representative of what EU class members think. But even then if World Council wants LPE gone , there ain’t no way back for them.

2.) FRAND 

Here I kinda MAYBE depart with the class leadership but only because I ain’t heard from them and think there is a good chance FRAND as ILCA describes it in the WS letter is bad for anyone not aiming for the Olympics. But have an open mind and just want to hear what the class leadership has to say about why this will not increase boat costs, diminish event boat supply, or increase charter costs. On the flip side a vote of no the FRAND is maybe a vote if no to Olympics.

My biggest WTF is the meeting this week happens in such a way that the membership really does not have enough information to opine and no way to opine so how does anyone in the room know what members actually prefer? I kept telling Gouv to not worry about vote timing because until the FRAND thing became clear it just didn’t matter. I was wrong. Because of FRAND and Olympics it now matters. In theory members can vote to fire LPE and change the name but retain SMOD if that option was given. Or do exact same and go FRAND instead or SMOD. Olympics not assured either way but better chance with FRAND. 

Share this post


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

Come on Clean.  Ditching LPE is something most (at least most non EU) can easily get behind.  SMOD to FRAND ala ILCA to WS letter (or the Opti model ow whatever you want to call it) is something that is much more fundamental change and while I have an open mind, clearly has some real potential to negatively impact all members who are not on an Olympic path.  Folks should have a say... and sufficient info to have an informed say... before their fate is sealed. And I think its fair to say that going FRAND has more potential to bring litigation than not going FRAND, no? 

No.  When is the last time you heard of membership of an organization or shareholders of a company voting for specifics of legal strategy and decisionmaking?  It just doesn't work that way anywhere at anytime for obvious reasons.  If you want specifics, google it.  It's been discussed ad nauseum in a big business environment and all the same arguments apply.

All that being said, I imagine this thing would have gone a more traditionally messaged route had there not been the 2024 vote steaming away in the background.  Knowing some of them a bit, I feel like the ILCA folks would like to be as transparent as they can, if possible.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

No

Gonna have to explain that. FRAND forces change to commercial rights and contracts. 

Share this post


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

Gonna have to explain that. FRAND forces change to commercial rights and contracts. 

Any change was likely going to mean litigation with LPE, something the class had to accept.  They spent a decade afraid of it and it didn't really go that well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Any change was likely going to mean litigation with LPE, something the class had to accept.  They spent a decade afraid of it and it didn't really go that well.

 

True that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bill4 said:

Board members are expected to act in the best interest of shareholders/members/patrons. LPE:

1) continued to show their inability to provide product to anywhere outside Europe

2) showed a distinct lack of respect for their dealers and their customers outside of Europe

3) reportedly fucked around with deck/hull weight configuration and mast rake

4) Would not allow ILCA to conduct a full, measurement focused inspection

IMHO it was in the class's best interest to fire LPE, and the Board acted appropriately. Nothing in the constitution prevented this action. 

The name change is a stickier wicket, because it does represent a change in the Constitution and is therefore subject to a vote. There is an extenuating circumstance - that being doing what was necessary to satisfy the WS requirement for FRAND compliance. To do this, the name Laser had to disappear due to the IP issue with LPE being the patent owner (I think I have that right...). The Board, believing Olympic status was supported by the class (and why wouldn't they), stated the name and logo had changed. So - did they act in the best interest of the class by (perhaps prematurely) changing the name and logo?  

If the end game was to keep the boat in the Olympics, it looks to me like they did what they had to do. It seems to me they needed to be nimble, and the education process and vote would have taken at least 30 days and could very well have jeopardized the chance of winning the bid. At the end of the day, is the actual name and logo that critical? Note WS didn't seem to care. Or is it just the procedural bit that people find offensive? 

Also,  when we are talking potential litigation, the greatest chance of that would be if the Board had gone through all this without legal sign-off, which Andy already confirmed. 

Awaiting anticipated venomous responses... 

Yes, the LPE venom seems to be delivered via a small number of EU players. Lots of misinformation - some unintended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wednesday evening the Dallas Laser Fleet and  Austin Laser Fleet will Be out sailing 

someday, we might have an enthusiastic builder who sells our toys and  supports our game 

 

I look forward to a day when efforts such as have been wasted on this recent mess can be entirely spent on finding ways to put More happy humans in Sailboats. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it occurs to me that if the Laser class can manage to put together a multi builder one design construction and monitoring system where manufacturers cannot compete on performance and costs don't escalate, then the next class to pick it up should be the Optimist. If there's one class that desperately needs tighter rules and less esoteric super gear its that one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... more friendly words from our good friends at LPE:

World Sailing Votes to Keep the Laser in for the 2024 Olympics

Despite the incompetent and mismanaged representation by ILCA at the World Sailing mid-term meeting, resulting in the WS Equipment Committee overwhelmingly voting for the Aero, the WS World Council voted today to retain the Laser Standard and Laser Radial for the 2024 Olympics. The positive vote reflected the World Council’s clear understanding that the Laser is the most popular racing dinghy in the world and with a base of over 216,000 boats sailed globally by committed Laser enthusiasts, Laser’s exclusion will be a serious setback to world-wide dinghy sailing and very difficult to replicate with another sailboat. Congratulations to all Laser sailors. Thank you to the Laser sailors, MNAs, Class Members and World Sailing members whose strong voices resulted in this positive outcome.
Given their recent performance, LaserPeformance calls for:
A. ILCA move back to Europe where the majority of Laser sailors live and sail.
B. ILCA appoint a professional executive team to run the class operations paid for by increased plaque fees charged to the builders.

It sure seems like we are on a new path of mutual respect and compromise... cough, cough, gag.... NOT!!

What the heck does LPE have in their back pocket that they can keep thumbing their noses as class leadership, and sailors!??

And I am hoping that the answer to that question is not "the nearly broke, and desperately wanting cash and not wanting to be sued and incur litigation costs, World Sailing organization."  Cause that would suck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So class leadership goes into a meting tomorrow that impacts the fate of Laser sailors.  I wonder how those same sailors would vote:

1.) Do you sail and race a Laser?

2.) Are you in the EU?

3.) Are you an ILCA class member?

4.) Based on the information you have today, how would you vote on each of these yes or no questions (phrased as neutrally as I can)

4A) Yes or no to replace LPE as a builder?

4B) Yes or no to change the name of the boat and class to not be the trademarked name of "Laser?"

4C) Yes or no to move from a SMOD operating model to a FRAND operation model where there are many more builders, all without territories, but still bound to use the construction manual to maintain OD standards?

 

Share this post


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

Well... more friendly words from our good friends at LPE:

World Sailing Votes to Keep the Laser in for the 2024 Olympics

Despite the incompetent and mismanaged representation by ILCA at the World Sailing mid-term meeting, resulting in the WS Equipment Committee overwhelmingly voting for the Aero, the WS World Council voted today to retain the Laser Standard and Laser Radial for the 2024 Olympics. The positive vote reflected the World Council’s clear understanding that the Laser is the most popular racing dinghy in the world and with a base of over 216,000 boats sailed globally by committed Laser enthusiasts, Laser’s exclusion will be a serious setback to world-wide dinghy sailing and very difficult to replicate with another sailboat. Congratulations to all Laser sailors. Thank you to the Laser sailors, MNAs, Class Members and World Sailing members whose strong voices resulted in this positive outcome.
Given their recent performance, LaserPeformance calls for:
A. ILCA move back to Europe where the majority of Laser sailors live and sail.
B. ILCA appoint a professional executive team to run the class operations paid for by increased plaque fees charged to the builders.

It sure seems like we are on a new path of mutual respect and compromise... cough, cough, gag.... NOT!!

What the heck does LPE have in their back pocket that they can keep thumbing their noses as class leadership, and sailors!??

And I am hoping that the answer to that question is not "the nearly broke, and desperately wanting cash and not wanting to be sued and incur litigation costs, World Sailing organization."  Cause that would suck...

I think it's just grandstanding.  Kinda like the theory of not running when threatened by a bear.  You're supposed to stand your ground, make yourself bigger and make a lot of noise kinda thing...?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think it's just grandstanding.  Kinda like the theory of not running when threatened by a bear.  You're supposed to stand your ground, make yourself bigger and make a lot of noise kinda thing...?

I guess they didn't get the memo

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So class leadership goes into a meting tomorrow that impacts the fate of Laser sailors.  I wonder how those same sailors would vote:

1.) Do you sail and race a Laser?

2.) Are you in the EU?

3.) Are you an ILCA class member?

4.) Based on the information you have today, how would you vote on each of these yes or no questions (phrased as neutrally as I can)

4A) Yes or no to replace LPE as a builder?

4B) Yes or no to change the name of the boat and class to not be the trademarked name of "Laser?"

4C) Yes or no to move from a SMOD operating model to a FRAND operation model where there are many more builders, all without territories, but still bound to use the construction manual to maintain OD standards?

 

Is this rhetorical, Wess, or are you taking a poll?

 I'm a Laser sailor (as is my daughter) and based in the EU. I genuinely have no idea which way I would vote on most of your points above... Given that I have an excellent relationship with a local Laser dealer who can supply pretty much any part I want when I want it, I'm in a very different situation from most of the contributors to this thread... I suspect that's the case for a significant number of EurILCA members.

 I'm also a bit sceptical that a switch to a MMOD model will make everything cheaper. I'm not convinced that we will get a number of manufacturers offering equal items and competing on price, for the reasons expounded elsewhere on this board.

 I would like to see improved supply to the US, and lower prices would be nice. I would also like to avoid a gaping hole in the EU supply chain as a result of the biggest builder being dropped, and damage being done to the small business operated by the aforementioned local dealer...

..and on a more minor note, would prefer to keep the Laser name.

  ILCA's actions appear to be high-handed and destructive when viewed from this perspective.... hence the frustration of European members... it may be blindingly obvious to a US based sailor that LP are the spawn of Satan and that all Laser sailors would benefit from their removal but there's work to be done if European members are to understand that perspective, let alone share and support it.

 I've got a fair idea of what outcomes I'd like to see. I'd like to think that some of them, at least, are achievable and would benefit the sport as a whole, but I'm also well aware that there are some big obstacles to overcome. It may well be that ILCA's course of action is actually by far and away the best way to overcome them but if they want votes for their actions from sailors like me then they probably need to offer more explanation than they have to date...

  Blaming LP for the whole situation just doesn't seem credible to an EU sailor... we have hundreds of boats attending multiple championships, ready supply of new or used boats and parts and most interaction is with dealers staffed by individuals caring for their customers... Charter boats are available at major championships and the central OD principle of the class seems well maintained- there are boats spanning 30 years of manufacture  represented at the 4.7 Euros this week... from this perspective it's hard to believe that LP are doing everything wrong... they certainly appear to be looking after their biggest customer base... and that base is a significant constituency of the Class Association.

Cheers,

                W.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So class leadership goes into a meting tomorrow that impacts the fate of Laser sailors.  I wonder how those same sailors would vote:

1.) Do you sail and race a Laser?

2.) Are you in the EU?

3.) Are you an ILCA class member?

4.) Based on the information you have today, how would you vote on each of these yes or no questions (phrased as neutrally as I can)

4A) Yes or no to replace LPE as a builder?

4B) Yes or no to change the name of the boat and class to not be the trademarked name of "Laser?"

4C) Yes or no to move from a SMOD operating model to a FRAND operation model where there are many more builders, all without territories, but still bound to use the construction manual to maintain OD standards?

 

1. I sailed and raced a Laser for 35 years. Then I moved up to an RS Aero.

2. My passport says I am citizen of the EU.

3. I was a member of the UK Laser Class for a few years and then a member of the North American Laser Class for many more years.

4. As I understand it there is a precedent to vote in ILCA polls if you are an active member of this forum, even if you are not a member of ILCA, so I would vote...

a) No to replace LPE as a builder. Europeans seem to be reasonably happy with LPE.

b) No to change the name. The Laser brand has huge global recognition. It would be crazy to trash it.

c)  Don't understand the question. SMOD means Single Manufacture One Design doesn't it? There are already three Laser manufacturers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So class leadership goes into a meting tomorrow that impacts the fate of Laser sailors.  I wonder how those same sailors would vote:

1.) Do you sail and race a Laser?  Yes. Very occasionally. Previously frequently

2.) Are you in the EU?  No

3.) Are you an ILCA class member? No

4.) Based on the information you have today, how would you vote on each of these yes or no questions (phrased as neutrally as I can)

4A) Yes or no to replace LPE as a builder?   Based on the information I have today, I do not feel I could make a well educated decision. I would lean to yes based on LP's public statements which suggest poor management skills.

4B) Yes or no to change the name of the boat and class to not be the trademarked name of "Laser?" Based on the information I have today, it would be highly irresponsible of me to vote

4C) Yes or no to move from a SMOD operating model to a FRAND operation model where there are many more builders, all without territories, but still bound to use the construction manual to maintain OD standards? Based on the information I have today, No.

 

 

Share this post


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

c)  Don't understand the question. SMOD means Single Manufacture One Design doesn't it? There are already three Laser manufacturers.

It's the without territories part than makes the difference.  :) 

Share this post


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

ILCA's actions appear to be high-handed and destructive when viewed from this perspective.... hence the frustration of European members... it may be blindingly obvious to a US based sailor that LP are the spawn of Satan and that all Laser sailors would benefit from their removal but there's work to be done if European members are to understand that perspective, let alone share and support it.

A summery of the work the ILCA needs to undertake.

 

1 hour ago, WGWarburton said:

 I've got a fair idea of what outcomes I'd like to see. I'd like to think that some of them, at least, are achievable and would benefit the sport as a whole, but I'm also well aware that there are some big obstacles to overcome. It may well be that ILCA's course of action is actually by far and away the best way to overcome them but if they want votes for their actions from sailors like me then they probably need to offer more explanation than they have to date...

In my view, the current ILCA vision and management is good. (Sorry Gouv).

PS: (for Gouv) It seems that you will get a move towards your favored open manufacturing after all - not as open as you want it - but at least you'll be getting the toys you crave!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2019 at 10:27 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Except in every single corporation or llc or NGO in the world where the shareholders/members/patrons delegate their responsibility for things like potential litigation and accounting and operations and maintenance and...

As of now last website update May 11

https://www.laserinternational.org/

 

April 19

http://www.laser.org/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Did timmy fall down the well again?

Seriously, you'd think there'd be something up by now...

Share this post


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

Seriously, you'd think there'd be something up by now...

I imagine after LP's insult-filled release the ILCA is staying quiet to have the moral high ground headed into their meeting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I imagine after LP's insult-filled release the ILCA is staying quiet to have the moral high ground headed into their meeting 

Given how LP has been acting it shouldn't be hard for ILCA to do....You can get information out without being a dick, (most of the time).  However, anyone who really cares knows what's going on by now anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History is a strange entity, when your in it’ or making it’ your unaware. Only time will tell if we are witnessing the self destruction of the ‘Laser’ 

I fear we have seen the best of this boat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I will leave it to the MTV experts, Wess and Tiller to figure out the connection:

 

Faustian!

 

Share this post


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

1. I sailed and raced a Laser for 35 years. Then I moved up to an RS Aero.

2. My passport says I am citizen of the EU.

3. I was a member of the UK Laser Class for a few years and then a member of the North American Laser Class for many more years.

4. As I understand it there is a precedent to vote in ILCA polls if you are an active member of this forum, even if you are not a member of ILCA, so I would vote...

a) No to replace LPE as a builder. Europeans seem to be reasonably happy with LPE.

b) No to change the name. The Laser brand has huge global recognition. It would be crazy to trash it.

c)  Don't understand the question. SMOD means Single Manufacture One Design doesn't it? There are already three Laser manufacturers.

You crack me up Tiller. And now we even got IPL into the music scene...

Anyone got more votes?

Or predictions of what happens and comes out of the meeting?

Share this post


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

You crack me up Tiller. And now we even got IPL into the music scene...

Anyone got more votes?

Or predictions of what happens and comes out of the meeting?


1. Farzad Rastegar offers to sell all rights to  the Laser trademarks to ILCA for £15,000,000

2. Eric Faust counters by offering 4 free tickets to any show on the Flowerhead Reunion Tour.

3. Bruce Kirby joins the meeting via fax machine and reveals that he and Bill Crane are getting the band back together and will be manufacturing Kirby Torches in Rhode Island.

4. World Sailing reminds all parties that if they can't agree to an Olympic contract by August 1st they will seriously consider appointing a working party to study the question of  whether or not to convene a committee to review tenders from alternative boat builders to be 
evaluated by a panel of experts to run some sea trials and recommend to the equipment committee whether alternative boats should be considered for the 2032 Olympics and to write a report that Council can chose to ignore or reject whichever makes them look better with their Mayonnaise. (Did anybody else spot the Mayonnaise reference in the English subtitles?)

5. Gantt joins the meeting via Skype and says, "
A summery of the work the ILCA needs to undertake. It's the without territories part than makes the difference." 

6. Everybody tries hard not to say anything about lawnmowers.

7. The meeting adjourns.

8. Tracy Usher issues a statement saying that ILCA and LP have had constructive discussions and he is hopeful of further progress.


 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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


1. Farzad Rastegar offers to sell all rights to  the Laser trademarks to ILCA for £15,000,000

2. Eric Faust counters by offering 4 free tickets to any show on the Flowerhead Reunion Tour.

3. Bruce Kirby joins the meeting via fax machine and reveals that he and Bill Crane are getting the band back together and will be manufacturing Kirby Torches in Rhode Island.

4. World Sailing reminds all parties that if they can't agree to an Olympic contract by August 1st they will seriously consider appointing a working party to study the question of  whether or not to convene a committee to review tenders from alternative boat builders to be 
evaluated by a panel of experts to run some sea trials and recommend to the equipment committee whether alternative boats should be considered for the 2032 Olympics and to write a report that Council can chose to ignore or reject whichever makes them look better with their Mayonnaise. (Did anybody else spot the Mayonnaise reference in the English subtitles?)

5. Gantt joins the meeting via Skype and says, "
A summery of the work the ILCA needs to undertake. It's the without territories part than makes the difference." 

6. Everybody tries hard not to say anything about lawnmowers.

7. The meeting adjourns.

8. Tracy Usher issues a statement saying that ILCA and LP have had constructive discussions and he is hopeful of further progress.


 

just need to rename it the Torch and appoint new builders and life goes on

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I imagine after LP's insult-filled release the ILCA is staying quiet to have the moral high ground headed into their meeting 

Does WS have any morals?  Or at least those in WS that will make the decision(s) that will determine if ILCA or LPE win this battle?  Have no clue what to expect from that organization...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

 I have an excellent relationship with a local Laser dealer who can supply pretty much any part I want when I want it, I'm in a very different situation from most of the contributors to this thread... I suspect that's the case for a significant number of EurILCA members.

 I'm also a bit sceptical that a switch to a MMOD model will make everything cheaper. I'm not convinced that we will get a number of manufacturers offering equal items and competing on price, for the reasons expounded elsewhere on this board.

 I would like to see improved supply to the US, and lower prices would be nice. I would also like to avoid a gaping hole in the EU supply chain as a result of the biggest builder being dropped, and damage being done to the small business operated by the aforementioned local dealer...

Blaming LP for the whole situation just doesn't seem credible to an EU sailor... we have hundreds of boats attending multiple championships, ready supply of new or used boats and parts and most interaction is with dealers staffed by individuals caring for their customers... Charter boats are available at major championships and the central OD principle of the class seems well maintained- there are boats spanning 30 years of manufacture  represented at the 4.7 Euros this week... from this perspective it's hard to believe that LP are doing everything wrong... they certainly appear to be looking after their biggest customer base... and that base is a significant constituency of the Class Association.

Its interesting to hear your perspective W especially as it adds an EU sailor's voice that I really didn't appreciate.  Was shocked at how fast and how loud EU reps pushed back on ILCA actions re LPE.  I think its fair to say that in the US most would think of LPE in the negative while you folks seem to see them as a positive.  Like most in the US my bias is such that I would love to see them go and don't care if we lose the name as a result.

On SMOD vs FRAND or MMOD, yea I too lean towards SMOD.  I don't know if we lose the Olympics even if nothing changed from the current SMOD model and even if we did (lose the Olympic slot) life goes on just fine for most that sail and race the boat.

So my votes would be:

4A) Yes or no to replace LPE as a builder?  YES (as long as there are commitments from new builder(s) to match LPE price and event boat supply)

4B) Yes or no to change the name of the boat and class to not be the trademarked name of "Laser?"  YES

4C) Yes or no to move from a SMOD operating model to a FRAND operation model where there are many more builders, all without territories, but still bound to use the construction manual to maintain OD standards?  NO

But I doubt we get to have a vote structured this way.  Most of it will be decided for us I suspect.

Share this post


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


1. Farzad Rastegar offers to sell all rights to  the Laser trademarks to ILCA for £15,000,000

2. Eric Faust counters by offering 4 free tickets to any show on the Flowerhead Reunion Tour.

3. Bruce Kirby joins the meeting via fax machine and reveals that he and Bill Crane are getting the band back together and will be manufacturing Kirby Torches in Rhode Island.

4. World Sailing reminds all parties that if they can't agree to an Olympic contract by August 1st they will seriously consider appointing a working party to study the question of  whether or not to convene a committee to review tenders from alternative boat builders to be 
evaluated by a panel of experts to run some sea trials and recommend to the equipment committee whether alternative boats should be considered for the 2032 Olympics and to write a report that Council can chose to ignore or reject whichever makes them look better with their Mayonnaise. (Did anybody else spot the Mayonnaise reference in the English subtitles?)

5. Gantt joins the meeting via Skype and says, "
A summery of the work the ILCA needs to undertake. It's the without territories part than makes the difference." 

6. Everybody tries hard not to say anything about lawnmowers.

7. The meeting adjourns.

8. Tracy Usher issues a statement saying that ILCA and LP have had constructive discussions and he is hopeful of further progress.


 

Just woke my kid up with laughter. Thx

Share this post


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

Does WS have any morals?  Or at least those in WS that will make the decision(s) that will determine if ILCA or LPE win this battle?  Have no clue what to expect from that organization...

WS is full of great people, passionate volunteers, and hardworking staff.  There are a few idjits, but no criminals I can find (anymore).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @IPLore- what are we all missing here?

How can LPE be so freaking arrogant and seemingly unconcerned... even if they got all the ILCA EU folks lined up behind them a class loss on name change vote don't matter because a court would just force it on the class, right?  And even if not and taking the whole big mess to court and winning against WS and ILCA for tortuous interference etc... or whatever  really does not get LPE much does it?  How do they collect meaningful damages from two organizations like ILCA and WS that have little assets relative to those damages?  Does LPE have to win a preliminary injunction and some kind of cease and desist order to prevail or is insurance meaningful enough to cover and come into play and how then does that factor into this?

I mean I guess my bottom line short question is...

  * By what legal pathway can LPE actually win anything meaningful against ILCA and or WS if both proceed as outlined in the ILCA letter to WS?

Share this post


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

  * By what legal pathway can LPE actually win anything meaningful against ILCA and or WS if both proceed as outlined in the ILCA letter to WS?

Deep pockets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Deep pockets.

What legal pathway?  Deep pockets even if true does not get them reinstated as a class builder.  I can't see how they can win unless WS or ILCA give in. 

Share this post


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

tortuous interference etc...

unintended hilarity!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

unintended hilarity!

Ok fat fingers fones and autocorrect don’t mix but how does he win other than waterboarding them

Share this post


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

 unless WS or ILCA give in. 

Indeed, but if you haven't got deep pockets you may have to give in. ILCA may regret moving from the UK to the US.

Share this post


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

Hey @IPLore- what are we all missing here?

How can LPE be so freaking arrogant and seemingly unconcerned... even if they got all the ILCA EU folks lined up behind them a class loss on name change vote don't matter because a court would just force it on the class, right?  And even if not and taking the whole big mess to court and winning against WS and ILCA for tortuous interference etc... or whatever  really does not get LPE much does it?  How do they collect meaningful damages from two organizations like ILCA and WS that have little assets relative to those damages?  Does LPE have to win a preliminary injunction and some kind of cease and desist order to prevail or is insurance meaningful enough to cover and come into play and how then does that factor into this?

I mean I guess my bottom line short question is...

  * By what legal pathway can LPE actually win anything meaningful against ILCA and or WS if both proceed as outlined in the ILCA letter to WS?

The short answer is that LPE should not be arrogant and unconcerned.  A skilled general counsel will always advise his board to ask the important question first, and the important question is never "What is my legal position?".  The important question is "What are our business objectives?" .  Then the lawyer can advise if there are any legal steps than can help achieve that objective.

If LPE's objectives are "to rebuild a functional relationship with the representatives of our customer base, secure the future of our product as Olympic equipment, grow sales and profits on the back of supplying great product and service" then my advice would be (1) Meet with ILCA and WS and surprise them with a constructive solution to the issues accompanied by a couple of hard lines in the sand on LP's regional presence. Oh and throw in an "in perpetuity" trade mark grant to ILCA to use the logo and name for association and event organization purposes as a good faith gesture.  Be honest and up front about your concerns about Performance Sailing and ask ILCA/WS to suggest and broker solutions to that dispute. Establish a constructive team to work 24/7 with representatives from WS and ILCA to have a draft WS contract ready by July 1st at latest.       (2) Hire someone like Jon!

If LPE's objective is a scorched earth policy that will leave their business weaker in the long run, then I can certainly suggest some strategies that will send ILCA's legal team running for the trenches and almost guarantee that a contract will not be ready by August 1st.  It would certainly include seeking injunctions that would likely prevent or delay the appointment of other builders. Do we really want to hear them?

A quick technical comment. A court cannot force a name change on an entity or product, however it can prevent an entity or product from using a name for certain functions. In other words if the Class members refused to change the name of the association or the name of the dinghy, and a court enjoined the Association from using the name (Im guessing unlikely) for running events and prohibited  a new builder using the name for a boat product (Very likely)  then the class would be in the odd position of existing but unable to do anything.

I can name my child Rolls Royce but she cant sell cars.:)

Anyway. I actually dont think the name is the biggest legal issue.  But again, why do we even want to talk about a scorched earth policy when it makes so little sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when has thing in this thing called the Laser supply chain litigants list made sense @IPLore?  And you are harshing my buzz cause reading between the lines you seem to be thinking there may be a way for LPE to win this on the legal front... or delay the class from moving forward with new suppliers and drag this out... and that would suck.  Sigh...

Awaiting smoke signals I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now