Wess

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

Recommended Posts

Consider this, when taking the line of the ILCA World Council having lost touch with grass root sailing.

Most of the ILCA World Council are grass root sailors.

Only one ever finished in the top 5 at a world championship. And he now mostly sails Lasers at club level (and at Masters championships).

---

Breaking news: the ILCA World Council cares about grass root sailing.

Converting that passion into action is another thing - the desire is there, what is lacking is a map of uncharted territory.

---

Those who have this knowledge and continue attacking ILCA in my view are likely to have specific motivations to do so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RS Aero business model seems decent enough. Tellingly, the CA has much less power than ILCA. 

Rastegar is not into boat building, or fleet building, or ILCA membership building. He is in to money. Strollers, cigarette lighters, golf buggies, Filofaxes, investment banking or boats. A means to an end.

He would have perceived the Laser as a dominant and universal product in a market with high barriers to entry, high margin spares, Olympic endorsement and the best known tradename in the game. All the makings of a cash cow, or so he thought.  

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

The terms "fabulous business model" and 'boat building' do not belong anywhere even remotely near the same sentence

Kind of like how to make a "small fortune" in the boating business?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Rastegar is not into boat building, or fleet building, or ILCA membership building. He is in to money. Strollers, cigarette lighters, golf buggies, Filofaxes, investment banking or boats. A means to an end.

Agreed.

58 minutes ago, Wess said:

ILCA takes clubs and grass roots sailors for granted.  Hell they take them hostage, and steal them blind by imposing lots and lots of hidden fees on them.

So I'm wondering what Wess is 'into'?

I've been watching for six years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Fabulous = not real 

Not sure what you mean. Done well, both money and personal success can be had in boat building to some degree.  Talk to the folks that brought you - and sail - Weta.  Talk to Dave Clark and the folks that sail UFOs.  I had my Laser and UFO at the beach this weekend (along with 2 other friends Lasers) and a Laser Pico that we used to own.  Had kids from the hood out sailing. Did some informal Laser racing.  And blasted around on the UFO.  My impression is that Dave is making a decent living and enjoying life and his customer's (sailors) love him his company and his boat to death.  I can honestly say I would have paid much more for the boat its so much fun.  So I think it can be done.  Be it Weta, Aero, or the UFO (which I know best), I think that boat building can be a fabulous opportunities for the designer, builder, and sailors.  Even big boats.  My wife and I are very fortunate to own a large cruising tri (presently on hard being refit). Built by a company with a long history in the space and one that inspires pretty fierce loyalty from its customers.

I guess what I am saying is this Sosoo... while Dave struggles to build enough UFO to meet demand (ie demand exceeds supply) it seems pretty clear that in the case of Laser its the opposite (supply - if counting LPE capacity - exceeds demand).  One a fabulous opportunity the other less so.  Think you called the Laser a cash cow.  That is pretty accurate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was: The "Business model" term used by most of us here on this thread is NOT what is known as a "business model".

Starting with the references by the "NO" faction during the past month to "forcing LP to change its business model"', the indiscriminate use of this term has always confused me.

"Business Model is a conceptual structure that explains the viability of a product or company and explains how the company operates, makes money, and how it intends to achieve its goals. All the business processes and policies that a company adopts and follows are part of the business model."

Specifically, a "business model" specifies a firm's or a product's infrastructure (activities, resources, partnerships), value propositions (price, efficiency, customer experiences), customers (segments, channels, relationships), and finances (cost structures and revenue streams).

Standard,  commonly encountered "business models" include alternatives like: manufacturing, retailing, distributing, franchising, agency, brick & mortar, e-commerce, subscription, freemium, data selling, affiliate marketing, drop shipping, crowdsourcing, blockchain, high touch, low touch, etc. All of these have specific meanings.

And I wondered what kind of business model Gouv had in mind.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

workload is either 15 hours a week or they are looking for an intern?

Or a semi retired sailor looking for something interesting to do with pin money attached. Of course such would be a damn sight easier to find round Hamble than round Paddington.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning (or rather, I should say Good Evening) Dr.Wiki! 

From:  Harvard Business Review at https://hbr.org/2015/01/what-is-a-business-model

In The New, New Thing, Michael Lewis refers to the phrase business model as “a term of art.”  And like art itself, it’s one of those things many people feel they can recognize when they see it (especially a particularly clever or terrible one) but can’t quite define.

That’s less surprising than it seems because how people define the term really depends on how they’re using it.

But I am a bit more into sailing than HBR discussions.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Not sure what you mean.

Sorry, I was being facetious.  One definition of fabulous is something that is not real - I think this is what Jim was referring to about Gouv' fabulous plan.

 

36 minutes ago, drLaser said:

My point was: The "Business model" term used by most of us here on this thread is NOT what is known as a "business model".

Starting with the references by the "NO" faction during the past month to "forcing LP to change its business model"', the indiscriminate use of this term has always confused me.

"Business Model is a conceptual structure that explains the viability of a product or company and explains how the company operates, makes money, and how it intends to achieve its goals. All the business processes and policies that a company adopts and follows are part of the business model."

Specifically, a "business model" specifies a firm's or a product's infrastructure (activities, resources, partnerships), value propositions (price, efficiency, customer experiences), customers (segments, channels, relationships), and finances (cost structures and revenue streams).

Standard,  commonly encountered "business models" include alternatives like: manufacturing, retailing, distributing, franchising, agency, brick & mortar, e-commerce, subscription, freemium, data selling, affiliate marketing, drop shipping, crowdsourcing, blockchain, high touch, low touch, etc. All of these have specific meanings.

And I wondered what kind of business model Gouv had in mind.

 

From ILCA statement 1st July:

We would stress that the negotiations are ongoing, testing and far from guaranteed of success. They require many parties to reevaluate long-established market positions and make substantial changes to their business models.

Is Tracy part of the "No" faction now?

At any rate, changing from quasi-monopoly supply to a licencing arrangement is clearly a  change of business model and I don't understand why you would try to argue otherwise. 

Not for the first time, this pedantry is pointless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are going to confuse and annoy them by quoting facts Sosoo!  Poor lemons is angry. I wonder if things are not going well in the land of the elite.  Good grief I love this place!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bill4 said:

True, but nary a word from any of the Bruces either...

Maybe everyone is finally learning it's a lot cheaper to litigate and negotiate in private rather than in public

Share this post


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

 Tellingly, the CA has much less power than ILCA. 

That's how it works untill a Class has enough members and income to govern itself - who besides the builder(s) is going to pay the costs to administer it when there aren't enough members?

 You know, the way every class association has worked for the past half a century

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Not for the first time, this pedantry is pointless.

Pedantry: A word used when someone doesn't understand the importance of language. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lemonpepper - you have downvoted 3 of my last 4 posts - one defining the word fabulous, one asking where a paralegal for £20k might come from and one opining that Rastegar cares more about money than boats.  I think it is you with anger issues my friend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sorry, I was being facetious.  One definition of fabulous is something that is not real - I think this is what Jim was referring to about Gouv' fabulous plan.

 

From ILCA statement 1st July:

We would stress that the negotiations are ongoing, testing and far from guaranteed of success. They require many parties to reevaluate long-established market positions and make substantial changes to their business models.

Is Tracy part of the "No" faction now?

At any rate, changing from quasi-monopoly supply to a licencing arrangement is clearly a  change of business model and I don't understand why you would try to argue otherwise. 

Not for the first time, this pedantry is pointless.

In context the ILCA statement was:

Quote

In recognition of this meeting and to avoid any negative influence on the World Sailing initiative, the ILCA World Council has agreed to defer the launch of the ballot until after this Friday’s meeting. If the meeting is successful in reaching an agreement with all parties that will guarantee Olympic retention, the class will take no further action on the rule change ballot. If not the World Council will immediately review the options with World Sailing and present our members with the alternatives available for Olympic retention.

We would stress that the negotiations are ongoing, testing and far from guaranteed of success. They require many parties to reevaluate long-established market positions and make substantial changes to their business models.

Your ILCA World Council are working tirelessly to try and achieve success in these discussions and to ensure that the strict one-design philosophy that underpins the success of the class is safeguarded while respecting the position of all parties.

So the statement in my view needs to be placed in the context of changes that World Sailing made independent to ILCA. So no, I doubt very much that whoever on the ILCA World Council approved the statement would have changed their stance. For now, the decision to retain Olympic status was seen as on which was for the good of the class.

Also, the change wasn't from a "quasi-monopoly supply to a licencing arrangement" - it always was a 'licensing arrangement' - though of course there are changes - and 67% of Laser trademark holders agreed to them. ;) 

23 minutes ago, Wess said:

You are going to confuse and annoy them by quoting facts Sosoo!  Poor lemons is angry. I wonder if things are not going well in the land of the elite.  Good grief I love this place!  :D

Interesting how the baiting goes on and on. 

In the end what the motivates Wess does not matter. (I need to thank Wess for furthering my understanding of trolling.)

---

14 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Maybe everyone is finally learning it's a lot cheaper to litigate and negotiate in private rather than in public

Nah. It was mostly still in the public domain. People here forgot to keep looking.

---

I expect a statement from World Sailing in 1-2 weeks.

There is a small chance they will defer the decision to ratify until November - which will have negative consequences for the class.

 

Share this post


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

Lemonpepper - you have downvoted 3 of my last 4 posts - one defining the word fabulous, one asking where a paralegal for £20k might come from and one opining that Rastegar cares more about money than boats.  I think it is you with anger issues my friend.

Its just a sock of the crazy one.  Or so my counselor says!  :lol:

But I am still laughing at how Doc managed to associate Tracy with the No vote.  He need a better mouthpiece!

At least it gives us a fun diversion between meetings while we wait for these knuckleheads to settle or sue!

Share this post


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

Is Tracy part of the "No" faction now?

 At any rate, changing from quasi-monopoly supply to a licencing arrangement is clearly a  change of business model and I don't understand why you would try to argue otherwise. 

 

:)))) (For the first sentence.)

In my mind, monopoly, oligopoly, perfect competition, etc. are not "business models". They are never listed as "business models" in the literature, either. Business models involve strategic choices that are made. You cannot chose to be a monopoly, etc. Your status (market share) is always dictated and affected by outside factors (government, regulatory agencies, competitors, technological development, etc.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but you can chose to make money by building boats, or by licensing the rights to build boats. Surely different business models?  One manufacturing based, one IP based. 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Pedantry: A word used when someone doesn't understand the importance of language. 

The pedants are revolting.                                                                                                                            ("yes, they are a bit smelly"... "Sire, it was all we could get on short notice")

 

Share this post


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

So the statement in my view needs to be placed in the context of changes that World Sailing made independent to ILCA. So no, I doubt very much that whoever on the ILCA World Council approved the statement would have changed their stance. For now, the decision to retain Olympic status was seen as on which was for the good of the class.

 

Sorry, I literally don’t understand what point you are making here, but you appear to yet again be arguing against a claim I never made? I was merely making the point that an early(first?) use of the term “business model” came from ILCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to pedantry?

So is a Laser any Lesser if its racing with generic parts or generic sails?  The vast majority of clubs I have been to say its no Lesser.  The odd thing about all this.  Both the actions of the class, the past and current lawsuits, the vote, and the coming days... is that it points to a path that says a generic laser is no lesser.  And we have precedent for that at a club level.  Lots and lots of precedent with lesser parts and sails that aren't lesser except for price.  So as the door gets kicker further open and its becomes clearer and clearer that one can produce generic Lesser boats that are just like Lasers and there is no legal bogyman behind that door perhaps our dear Gouv would do so and fill his and other clubs with Lesser boats that are not lesser at all other than in price and hidden fees. 

But I digress...

Share this post


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

I was merely making the point that an early(first?) use of the term “business model” came from ILCA.

Sosoomii, who cares where the term came from? I'm just pointing out that the use of that term here always threw me off balance (as a Professor of Management). I did not understand how the options we voted on were forcing the Builders to change their "business models". I still don't. I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this, except maybe just out of spite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sorry, I literally don’t understand what point you are making here, but you appear to yet again be arguing against a claim I never made? I was merely making the point that an early(first?) use of the term “business model” came from ILCA.

Yes, in response to point DrLaser made where he 'didn't understand', which is likely to be a euphemism for 'compromised logic'.

It may help to separate the rules of the game from the tactics played within the game.

And the rules of the game are subjected to World Sailing from above, and the desire to continue being part of the Olympics.

The business model of the builder is impacted by the rules, the directives and more...

Share this post


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

It's sad that you attach meaning to such things. 

You are the one who did it (and presumably attached meaning to those actions).  I'm just pointing out that your actions are indicative of anger - I really couldn't care less.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Sosoomii, who cares where the term came from? I'm just pointing out that the use of that term here always threw me off balance (as a Professor of Management). I did not understand how the options we voted on were forcing the Builders to change their "business models". I still don't. I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this, except maybe just out of spite.

wtf?  How dare you turn this round on me.  You are the one het up about the meaning of the term.  You stated:

Starting with the references by the "NO" faction during the past month to "forcing LP to change its business model"', the indiscriminate use of this term has always confused me

I merely pointed out that the term was used by the "yes" faction too (probably first).

Share this post


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

As a Professor of Management I did not understand how the options we voted on were forcing the Builders to change their "business models". I still don't.

O.M.G.  :wacko:

I gotta ask.  What degree from what school and teaching where now?

Share this post


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

wtf?  How dare you turn this round on me. 

You're definitely not angry. Nope, perfectly calm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I merely pointed out that the term was used by the "yes" faction too (probably first).

I don't understand how this can be important. Care to explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I don't understand how this can be important. Care to explain?

It really isn't, other than the fact that the good doc felt it necessary to label the "No" faction as using it indiscriminately so I felt it only fair to point out the "Yes" faction used it in the same way. 

Dr. Laser:

My point was: The "Business model" term used by most of us here on this thread is NOT what is known as a "business model".

Starting with the references by the "NO" faction during the past month to "forcing LP to change its business model"', the indiscriminate use of this term has always confused me.

To be honest I'm not sure why you want to keep on about it, it really is the most trivial of side issues but you keep digging a hole.  You tell us we should counter misinformation where we see it - you should be proud of me Bruce!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@drLaser I hope I have not suggested the yes / no vote has anything to do with anybody’s Business model.

Whirled Sayling seems to be determined to destroy the successful business model of the Laser. 

Briefly:  in the early 70s many companies decided building one design boats (like Snipes, Lightnings) at a profit was an impossible task . 

 The singular most successful business model has been to own the design and  Be a monopoly  builder. 

.....,

As for my so-called fabulous business model, 

I believe a $2000 to $3000 list price boat can be created and I believe that with proper marketing it can take over the single-handed racing scene.

Such a boat would in no way shape or form be billed cording to World Sailing’s asinine FRAND model.

The entire profitability relies upon sufficient volume to pay for the tooling and facilities in which the boat is made.

 World Sailing is all about divide and conquer .  Multiple small builders competing for the market is exactly what killed virtually every successful class that existed before the single builder of their own designs  system took over small boat sailing. 

 Certainly there are exceptions. many single builder with single design companies went out of business.  Some companies seem to be able to survive competing for markets in what I might call the anybody can build them classes .

.......

Currently there is a huge legal  mess having to do with who is allowed to build the Kirby boat and who is allowed to market things called Laser.

Certainly there are investors who might otherwise be  eager to be involved  you are currently tightly clenching their phones in their fists.

 I believe an opportunity currently exists which is not existed for 30 years to take over the laser market . I believe that done properly it would cause an absolute boom  in the game of Sailing.

I also believe that the person who invested the 20 million or so dollars it takes to get it going would get all of his money back in about three years and by five years and would be able to start harvesting  millions of dollars. 

 My fantasy involves gaining the interest of someone who has billions and wants to make Sailing happen.

 That person would be able to say “I’ll try it. the worst I can do is make a few thousand fun boats and lose 20 million.Or the best I can do is to completely change access to  sailing and turn it into a booming sport. “

Am I some crackpot with an idea ?maybe.

 Have I been studying the market and how to build the boat since the late 60s? yes

 Am I the last person to manage a growing one design class of over 3000 members in North America ? Yes

 There’s a pretty good chance I may actually have a clue what I’m talking about . 

I would love to work to assemble the team  to accomplish the mission.

 For me the most frustrating part is the fact that if we started today I’d be in my mid-70s by the time this game is booming . 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

@drLaser I hope I have not suggested the yes / no vote has anything to do with anybody’s Business model.

Whirled Sayling seems to be determined to destroy the successful business model of the Laser. 

Briefly:  in the early 70s many companies decided building one design boats (like Snipes, Lightnings) at a profit was an impossible task . 

 The singular most successful business model has been to own the design and  Be a monopoly  builder. 

.....,

As for my so-called fabulous business model, 

I believe a $2000 to $3000 list price boat can be created and I believe that with proper marketing it can take over the single-handed racing scene.

Such a boat would in no way shape or form be billed cording to World Sailing’s asinine FRAND model.

The entire profitability relies upon sufficient volume to pay for the tooling and facilities in which the boat is made.

 World Sailing is all about divide and conquer .  Multiple small builders competing for the market is exactly what killed virtually every successful class that existed before the single builder of their own designs  system took over small boat sailing. 

 Certainly there are exceptions. many single builder with single design companies went out of business.  Some companies seem to be able to survive competing for markets in what I might call the anybody can build them classes .

.......

Currently there is a huge legal  mess having to do with who is allowed to build the Kirby boat and who is allowed to market things called Laser.

Certainly there are investors who might otherwise be  eager to be involved  you are currently tightly clenching their phones in their fists.

 I believe an opportunity currently exists which is not existed for 30 years to take over the laser market . I believe that done properly it would cause an absolute boom  in the game of Sailing.

I also believe that the person who invested the 20 million or so dollars it takes to get it going would get all of his money back in about three years and by five years and would be able to start harvesting  millions of dollars. 

 My fantasy involves gaining the interest of someone who has billions and wants to make Sailing happen.

 That person would be able to say “I’ll try it. the worst I can do is make a few thousand fun boats and lose 20 million.Or the best I can do is to completely change access to  sailing and turn it into a booming sport. “

Am I some crackpot with an idea ?maybe.

 Have I been studying the market and how to build the boat since the late 60s? yes

 Am I the last person to manage a growing one design class of over 3000 members in North America ? Yes

 There’s a pretty good chance I may actually have a clue what I’m talking about . 

I would love to work to assemble the team  to accomplish the mission.

 For me the most frustrating part is the fact that if we started today I’d be in my mid-70s by the time this game is booming . 

 

 

 

 

Since the Professor of Management is struggling to understand business models and differences in them, might you be so kind as to try on some math for me.  Its easy google kind monkey arithmetic. Please don't think I don't share you dream but only that I wish to insert some reality into it.

Lets start with an agreement that if you could make and sell a boat for $3000.00 and it was at least as easy to rig and transport, and as fun to sail as a Laser, and that you as the manufacturer were dedicated to supporting the game of OD sailing of these toys, that you could sell lots of them.

But here is the math you should run (perhaps the Professor can help).  1.) Determine what profit margin you have on each boat (pick any reasonable number... ).  2.) Determine what pay back period you would accept for investing your $20 million (you said 3 to 5 years... take 4; its a bit long but OK if #3 is attractive).  3.) Determine what minimum rate of return is acceptable for investing your $20 million.  4.) Do the math and tell me how many boats you have to sell over what period. 

Share this post


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

Currently there is a huge legal  mess having to do with who is allowed to build the Kirby boat and who is allowed to market things called Laser.

There is?

Pretty sure there isn't.

Here's why:

  • Owners of the Laser trademark either license or they don't. If they do, great (that's what everyone wants) - if they don't great! Let's get on with it!
  • Licensing who is allowed to build the Kirby boat is clear, and has recently changed. (Though it seems not so well understood)
  • World Sailing is about to ratify the rule change
  • If Rastegar initiates legal action, on what basis will it be taken? (The latest summary judgment make things clearer, and legal action less likely).

None of these constitute a "huge legal mess"!!

---

So why are a few people here attempting to promote that the 'sky is falling'?

If a huge legal mess exists, it is well hidden.

---

Maybe the perception of an ILCA besieged by a 'huge legal mess' furthers the following:

  • Gouv's plan to replace the Laser with a cheap replacement (though that may work anyway - go for it Gouv!)
  • Promotion of the Aero (hence the well placed likes and snide comments by Tillerman. On a separate and completely independent note Eric Stow on Facebook when pushed defends the Laser)
  • The warped sensibilities of Wuss.

...and of course there are others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After winning the contest.... one is which rational folks wouldn’t compete. 

Why do people continue to try to post the singular most idiotic posts?? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've taken a vacation from posting on this thread due to all of the speculation and "wind up" that it's breeding.  I encourage everyone to wait until a legitimate announcement is released from ILCA or WS or both before having a stroke.  Keep calm and Laser on, (at least while we can still say that). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I've taken a vacation from posting on this thread due to all of the speculation and "wind up" that it's breeding.  I encourage everyone to wait until a legitimate announcement is released from ILCA or WS or both before having a stroke.  Keep calm and Laser on, (at least while we can still say that). 

 

 

Share this post


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

Starting with the references by the "NO" faction during the past month to "forcing LP to change its business model"', the indiscriminate use of this term has always confused me.

The above is something that I said.

I think Sosoomii interpreted the above as a claim that "the use of the term 'business model' was started by the 'NO' group." (This would explain his reactions.) Whereas what I meant to say (and what I do say above) was that "the indiscriminate use of this term confused me starting with the references to it by the NO faction." 

The obvious difference in meaning would of course escape those who don't value "pedantry".

So, there is no "countering of misinformation" here. What you unfortunately endured here is probably attributable to a mere inability to understand English in a rush.


So, I was not confused when SFBayLaser said "They [the negotiations] require many parties to reevaluate long-established market positions and make substantial changes to their business models." I simply gave that to a layman's (a Physics PhD) usage of the term. It was said once. It was not repeated.

My confusion started with the repeated use of this term by those who were saying "This vote is forcing LP to change its business model".

It was the insistent usage of this "business model" term by Sosoomii et al (I didn't check, but apparently "Sosoomii", judging from his violent objections here) that made me wonder what these people might mean by this usage. I still think that it's inappropriate usage, but I can and do live with Andrea Ovens' HBR observation that "how people define the term really depends on how they’re using it."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

a Physics PhD

 

Canntt make fun of that.  It ain't no lawnmower degree.  From any accredited university back in the day.  So I will tip my cap sir!  But I guess that also means you will not be helping Gouv to calculate IRRs.  Got to make sure he can still afford bunnies!

Share this post


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

"This vote is forcing LP to change its business model".

The original vote was an ILCA World Council vote on whether or not the Laser class should stay Olympic. My understanding was that was unanimous (including LP's rep)

Then the vote for how (the unbranding rule change ballot if the Laser Trademark holders did not reach agreement) - which was carried 11-2.

There was a clear pathway for LP to mitigate changes to its business model.

---

Now I am struggling to see any scenario where any business owned by Rastegar builds any ILCA approved boats. (At least after the summary judgment).

Share this post


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

But I guess that also means you will not be helping Gouv to calculate IRRs. 

Sorry, Wess, but no, I will not. I wouldn't recognizing them if IRRs came over and bit my ass. I dislike finance and accounting. Nor would I claim any expertise in bullshit concepts of general Management like "business models". Not my area. Not Tracy's, either. We all know that the more we learn, the more we have to learn.

Share this post


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

Now I am struggling to see any scenario where any business owned by Rastegar builds any ILCA approved boats.

Could you expand on this, please, Bruce? Not even as a "New Builder" applying to ILCA for approval? Not even when Tracy says, "If LP can't qualify, then nobody can"? Not even when "FRAND" requires non-discriminatory decision making? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Could you expand on this, please, Bruce? Not even as a "New Builder" applying to ILCA for approval? Not even when Tracy says, "If LP can't qualify, then nobody can"? Not even when "FRAND" requires non-discriminatory decision making? 

This is not about FRAND.

If the termination clauses of the Builder's Contract are held to be valid, then they preclude "Laser Performance (Europe) et al" from building the Kirby Dinghy. What seems to me to be at risk is that Rastegar himself may have a court ruling that any business he owns cannot build.

---

Further, Judge Meyer said explicitly that he could not make a ruling about royalty payments because the evidence of Laser Performance having sold boats was insufficient. It strikes me that should this go to trial, evidence necessary to a ruling for royalty payments will be found.

---

There are World Sailing rules surrounding ethics where if tested, would Rastegar make the grade? Suppliers of Olympic equipment are taken very seriously.

---

If there is an inspection at some point (and I can't say that it is happening right now), and if Laser Performance does not make the grade, then what?

Seems to me that underweight LP boats are not only the norm, second hand boats are advertising the fact.

image.thumb.png.084fa50828e02b020040d495c7422af3.png

Note that these underweight boats seem to have been appearing for around two years. (During the period of no inspection).

They are not faster than the PSA boats, or that would have been almost certainly picked up on at regattas - particularly at Kingston. Also - the LP boats seem to be having quality issues.

---

To add, Mr Clean gives yet another reason on another thread here:

---

That's what I mean when it is looking unlikely that Rastegar is looking less likely to being a supplier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's what I mean

Thanks for the clarification of your reasoning, Bruce.

Let's have Chip buy Rastegar's LP back!   :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If the termination clauses of the Builder's Contract are held to be valid, then they preclude "Laser Performance (Europe) et al" from building the Kirby Dinghy. What seems to me to be at risk is that Rastegar himself may have a court ruling that any business he owns cannot build.

 

I think that's a stretch from "Laser Performance Europe" to 'anything that is partly owned by Farzad Rastegar', though I haven't looked at the termination clauses lately. In any case since the fundamental rule change I suspect designer/builder contracts are not relevant any more.

Share this post


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

I think that's a stretch from "Laser Performance Europe" to 'anything that is partly owned by Farzad Rastegar', though I haven't looked at the termination clauses lately. In any case since the fundamental rule change I suspect designer/builder contracts are not relevant any more.

Take another look at the summary judgement. Judge Meyer says the builder contracts are relevant, further - he deals with entity changes and talks explicitly of the period after the fundamental rule change.

It is less of a stretch because Judge Meyer agreed that "LaserPerformance improperly challenged the design rights to the Laser after July 13, 2015" - and a US District Judge definitely has the power to make a ruling like that. 

From a jurisdictional point of view, a US District Judge's ruling may only be effective in the US.

The awarding of new contracts may require the ability to provide equipment globally - so the inability to supply the US market because of a court ruling could become a big problem.

---

Recognition by a US District Judge that the builders contract is current and binding is why the summary ruling is so significant. In fact, it is the opinion that matters most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a question of who its binding on. Look at how careful the judge is to distinguish between different companies.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Its a question of who its binding on. Look at how careful the judge is to distinguish between different companies.

Not sure I follow the importance of the distinction you are making (I've just reread). 

The rulings are on Quarter Moon and LaserPerformance. 

Also I concur with what Mr Clean said earlier:
 

2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

My basic look at the judgment reveals that the case seems more about Farzad's 'anticipatory repudiation' of the contract with Kirby. Farzad argued (and lost) that Kirby/GS's breach of the contract gave him the right to terminate.  The SJ motion showed that the judge didn't buy his argument, at least on that issue.  My guess is he appeals, but he likely won't be able to until there is a final judgment.

If there was fraud involved in Farzad's conduct under the contract, and he tries to avoid a judgment (if one is obtained) by allowing the defendant entity to go bankrupt, the court has the ability to set that aside and possibly pierce the veil of an affiliated entity. 

This is not based on a complete review of any document in the case so apologies for whatever nuance I'm sure I missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge has found that Quarter Moon Inc breached one aspect of an agreement it inherited from a predecessor, and that Laser Performance (Europe) breached another aspect of that agreement. That's all. These summary judgement motions are an early stage of skirmishing in the case, little more.

The other part of the judgement that's important is all the parts about statute of limitations. *IF* I read this correctly Global sailing may have blundered in a big way by not getting properly involved in the case soon enough. The endless delays of the US legal system seem to have given the defendants a huge advantage. If LPE stopped building Lasers before July 2015, as is possible, then statute of limitations seems to kick in for the major parts. 

And then what damages is the judge going to apply for a failure to negotiate a sale? Not, I suspect, world shaking. And all this is simply defendants Quarter Moon and Laser Performance Europe. There is no et al, no mention of other defendants. All this judgement really tells us is that LPE and Quarter Moon Inc no longer have a contract  from Global Sailing to build Lasers,  which LPE certainly isn't doing anyway, and which, since the fundamental rule change, isn't needed any more.



 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The judge has found that Quarter Moon Inc breached one aspect of an agreement it inherited from a predecessor, and that Laser Performance (Europe) breached another aspect of that agreement. That's all. These summary judgement motions are an early stage of skirmishing in the case, little more.

Agreed, though in addition the termination clause regarding the molds are granted. That is the extent of the summary judgement - and I agree, on the surface it is not much of a win. 

53 minutes ago, JimC said:

The other part of the judgement that's important is all the parts about statute of limitations. *IF* I read this correctly Global sailing may have blundered in a big way by not getting properly involved in the case soon enough. The endless delays of the US legal system seem to have given the defendants a huge advantage. If LPE stopped building Lasers before July 2015, as is possible, then statute of limitations seems to kick in for the major parts. 

And then what damages is the judge going to apply for a failure to negotiate a sale? Not, I suspect, world shaking.

Judge Meyer said: "Global Sailing has moved for summary judgment on the narrow question of whether each defendant breached its respective Builder Agreement. It has not moved for summary judgment on damages, and it views the precise extent of how any breach occurred as a question to be resolved in addressing damages."

The damages question is yet to be properly addressed.

I agree that the delays giving Rastegar an advantage.

However Meyer made statements beyond this. Like this: "Although LaserPerformance tries raising a factual dispute over whether the agreement was terminated, see Doc. #470 at 9-10, defendants admit that the 1983 Builder Agreement is terminated in their Rule 56(a)(2) statement, so I will treat that fact as undisputed. See Doc. #470-2 at 11 (¶ 36). The agreement required LaserPerformance to stop manufacturing Lasers, and to stop using the associated plugs, moulds, and tooling. Because Global Sailing has not established that LaserPerformance continued selling or manufacturing Lasers within the limitations period, I am not persuaded that it has established that LaserPerformance breached these obligations." 

This is really bad for Rastegar. Even though it will be a jury, the proceeding will be under the instructions of Judge Meyer. That's what I mean that the defendants will have an uphill battle - because all that needs to be proven is that boats were in fact sold.

53 minutes ago, JimC said:

And all this is simply defendants Quarter Moon and Laser Performance Europe. There is no et al, no mention of other defendants.

Here's the et al. part

image.png.5cbcd03b0fec65319df52e37d55f2966.png

Then this: "Global Sailing then filed a new case to assert its contract claims against defendants, see Global Sailing Ltd. v. Rastegar, 17cv1178 (D. Conn. 2017), and I consolidated that case with this one, see Doc. #321.4 I then dismissed and granted summary judgment on many of the non contract claims in July 2018."

I may be incorrect on this, but Rastegar has yet to be dismissed. (If anyone can show where he has been dismissed, then I'd appreciate knowing).

53 minutes ago, JimC said:

All this judgement really tells us is that LPE and Quarter Moon Inc no longer have a contract  from Global Sailing to build Lasers,  which LPE certainly isn't doing anyway, and which, since the fundamental rule change, isn't needed any more.

Agreed that it tells us that, but it tells us quite a bit more.

Bottom line is that Judge Meyer's grants three important points, outlined in the conclusion, all require recognizing the contracts.

There are several outcomes from this point forward, however none are good for Rastegar if the contracts are recognized. Again, there is a possibility that Rastegar can overcome this somehow (I can't see how), however Rastegar was kind of relying on the contracts to not be recognized to successfully defend himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've misinterpreted the meaning of that et al. Its just a title to save writing down a great long list. I'm confident each judgement is only against the individual party named.

Beyond that, its requiring too much research and legal expertise for me to usefully comment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question for my fellow SA legal experts;

Given the judgement against LP and the decision that they breached the builders agreements, is that enough reason for PSA and PSJ to reject any future application from LP to become a builder without it contradicting FRAND? Ie could PSA (maybe not PSJ) now say 'they've breached the builders agreement previously, we don't want them becoming a builder again as they may breach the agreements again' without it being unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory? 

Share this post


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

I think you've misinterpreted the meaning of that et al. Its just a title to save writing down a great long list. I'm confident each judgement is only against the individual party named.

Beyond that, its requiring too much research and legal expertise for me to usefully comment.

 

 

Don't worry; Canntt is a lawyer.  He got it all correct last time and no doubt he is correct this time too and will tell you over and over and over and over again.  Until the smoke clears and then if he hasn't won he will run away and hide.  I am almost... tempted to peak.  But no way am I being sucked back into that black hole.  

But in a strange twist of fate I will be talking and sailing Lasers up New England the next 5 days or so. Maybe stop in and see the Fulcrum boys on my way home.  Gouv - you would be so proud (or maybe not).  The King is dead.  Long live generic Lasers, parts and sails!  And UFOs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think you've misinterpreted the meaning of that et al. Its just a title to save writing down a great long list. I'm confident each judgement is only against the individual party named.

I've been using et al. for years so I hope not. (I'm very confident I know what what it means, and all.)

Each judgment is against the individual named, the summary judgment is within very narrow parameters as mentioned above.

3 hours ago, JimC said:

And all this is simply defendants Quarter Moon and Laser Performance Europe. There is no et al, no mention of other defendants.

I did think I misinterpreted the above - if you were just referring to those in the judgment, then I did.

Rastegar is named, and as said earlier, if he has been dismissed then I missed it.

---

All good.

Share this post


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

Here's a question for my fellow SA legal experts;

Given the judgement against LP and the decision that they breached the builders agreements, is that enough reason for PSA and PSJ to reject any future application from LP to become a builder without it contradicting FRAND? Ie could PSA (maybe not PSJ) now say 'they've breached the builders agreement previously, we don't want them becoming a builder again as they may breach the agreements again' without it being unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory? 

Yes they could say that. 

Share this post


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

Yes they could say that. 

But can he say:

I slit a sheet

a sheet I slit

upon the slitted  sheet I sit 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Here's a question for my fellow SA legal experts;

Given the judgement against LP and the decision that they breached the builders agreements, is that enough reason for PSA and PSJ to reject any future application from LP to become a builder without it contradicting FRAND? Ie could PSA (maybe not PSJ) now say 'they've breached the builders agreement previously, we don't want them becoming a builder again as they may breach the agreements again' without it being unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory? 

I would imagine they can’t reject the application directly on that basis; they would have to use the published acceptance criteria to reject any application.

See Annex 1a and 1b of https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vk-yhDkUuA1mZEQTdPXknEV7cOIcFL91/view?fbclid=IwAR1r9P1TpY3N9_j0-0mvjHao66soNxgeqzhRAxExXIaw2BYbItvkLQDcw44

How the acceptance criteria are scored is suitably vague that it seems quite likely that LP could be rejected on a number of grounds - their previous history could negatively impact 2, 3, 5, 13, 14 and 15 of 1b?

It isn’t at all clear how marks are awarded in each category.  For example, what does it take to score over 75% in “other factors identified as important by reviewers”?  

It is also not clear why LP are a named Builder and signatory to this agreement, which is dated months after they were terminated.  Equally unclear is why Velum (other whatever Rastegar shell owns the Trademark) is not a signatory when the PSA and PSJ trademark holders are  

 

 

Share this post


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

Given the judgement against LP and the decision that they breached the builders agreements, is that enough reason for PSA and PSJ to reject any future application from LP to become a builder without it contradicting FRAND? Ie could PSA (maybe not PSJ) now say 'they've breached the builders agreement previously, we don't want them becoming a builder again as they may breach the agreements again' without it being unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory? 

PSA and PSJ don't get a say in whether or not LP becomes a new builder. It is ILCA's decision. I don't know that they can  having said that - hypothetically - if Rastegar or LP are not able to sell equipment globally, they may deem LP as not meeting the requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Builders (PSA, PSJ and, confusingly, LP) are represented on the assessment panel, so PSA and PSJ do get some say in whether LP becomes a new builder. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

PSA and PSJ don't get a say in whether or not LP becomes a new builder. It is ILCA's decision. I don't know that they can  having said that - hypothetically - if Rastegar or LP are not able to sell equipment globally, they may deem LP as not meeting the requirements.

Tracy once said that the parties to the LCMA are the current builders, plus ILCA and GSL. I thought GSL might be there as owner of the LCM and design rights in place of BK so they are the one who are granting the license and getting something (royalties) for doing so. ILCA seems to have the police officer role, means they must check if the boats are build to spec. The builders are the ones who may use the LCM to build classlegal boat, in return they propably have to pay something. 

Did this construct change with the new system that shall be installed? Or did I misunderstand the roles of the single parties? 

If correct GSL has to grant the building license, not ILCA., or? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The Builders (PSA, PSJ and, confusingly, LP) are represented on the assessment panel, so PSA and PSJ do get some say in whether LP becomes a new builder. 

You are correct, the assessment panel includes the builders, ILCA, World Sailing and may include independent experts. There will be a published process.

I'm unsure why LP would be included to assess themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird, innit?  Also, there is no mention of GSL in that document. You’d have thought the design rights holder would have more of a say, perhaps even the only say, in who gets to build their boat.  

The whole assessment and approval process seems way over cumbersome, to the point of being impractical. 

Share this post


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

The Builders (PSA, PSJ and, confusingly, LP) are represented on the assessment panel, so PSA and PSJ do get some say in whether LP becomes a new builder. 

The section that defines the term "The Builders" is the clause 1.3.a that forces PSA, PSJ and LP, the parties currently involved in the LCMA, to grant licenses to any interested and qualified party for the use of the LCM. Until LP is no longer a part of the LCMA, this clause had to mention and force LP, too.

The assessment panel is defined in clause 2. There, the panel is defined as composed of "representatives of The Builders, ILCA and World Sailing (and independent experts if deemed necessary)." In this clause, the term "The Builders" is not re-defined. The earlier definition in clause 1.3.a should hold.

However, it can also be argued that any builder can now be terminated as per clause 10 (Non-compliance and Termination) of the 2024 Olympic Classes Contract - Commercial Undertakings Agreement. As such, the definition of "The Builders" is dynamic, can change in the future. This may be the reason why "The Builders" is not explicitly defined in clause 2.

This is bad contract-writing, I guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The section that defines the term "The Builders" is the clause 1.3.a that forces PSA, PSJ and LP, the parties currently involved in the LCMA, to grant licenses to any interested and qualified party for the use of the LCM. Until LP is no longer a part of the LCMA, this clause had to mention and force LP, too.

The assessment panel is defined in clause 2. There, the panel is defined as composed of "representatives of The Builders, ILCA and World Sailing (and independent experts if deemed necessary)." In this clause, the term "The Builders" is not re-defined. The earlier definition in clause 1.3.a should hold.

However, it can also be argued that any builder can now be terminated as per clause 10 (Non-compliance and Termination) of the 2024 Olympic Classes Contract - Commercial Undertakings Agreement. As such, the definition of "The Builders" is dynamic, can change in the future. This may be the reason why "The Builders" is not explicitly defined in clause 2.

This is bad contract-writing, I guess.

Since we don't know the LCMA it is speculative to discuss who must grant a license to whom. Sounds weird that the builders must grant a license for building the boat. But existing builders, who have a building contract for a specific area of course may have an exclusive building right in these areas, unless this contract was terminated. Instead of asking GSL to grant a license - which they propably can't do cause this would breach existing builders contracts WS seems to ask the current builders to grant a sublicense to new builders. Somebody must also produce new molds for new builders from some plugs. The case of LP seems to be complicated in this regard cause their position is not very clear. LPE does not really exist anymore, the builder contracts (NA + EU) were terminated,  it seems not clear who owns the molds and plugs now, and if this summary judgement is enough to stop FR from building boats, and allow GSL to sign  new builders contracts for NA and EU. I know that there was in builder in Brazil for a while. Does anybody know what happened with their TM and building rights? Did they have exclusive building rights for South Amerika? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question.  If LP is done building Lasers.  Are they building anything else?  The LP FB page is alive and well.  What other LP "entity" has been producing laser hulls?  I mean someone has been..  Sorry if this has already been discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who give a shit. Here is a summary:

1. The contractual relationship  between LP ( and its sockpuppets) seems to be in the final stages of divorce. A  judge says LP should already have sold the tooling.

It seems ( and its sockpuppets ) are no longer under contract as an authorized builder of the Kirby Dinghy  

but there could be appeals 

2. The International Laser Class Association decided a few months ago it would no longer welcome sailors to ILCA games if the sailors bring Toys built by LP ( or its sockpuppets) after a few months ago 

but... the ILCA President has commented LP is likely to be decertified as a doesn’t have to be called a Laser supplier.

3. The I(doesn’t have to be called a Laser anymore)CA has held a vote and is now waiting for WS to allow a rule change removing the requirement toy builders have the right to use the word Laser

4. LP still owns the rights for the Laser trademark stuff but as described in 1 they may net be allowed to build Kirby Dinghies, so even if ILCA  says the ILCA will welcome sailors using LP product, LP may not be allowed to produce the product and may even have to sell its tooling.

5. WS still wants to destroy the Kirby Dinghy business model and end the boat’s Fifty year run as the singlehanded Dinghy of choice for world wide competition. WS may say otherwise. This author suspects the WS officers are too ignorant of the Dinghy building business to understand the destructive nature of their behavior.

6. There are literally hundreds of internet posts from various crazed lunatics who are attempting to present cases for assigning blame and announcing who is most righteous. This author enjoys trolling them as some  will be unable to sleep until they type multiple replies.

7. The Wednesday evening races in Austin and Dallas are experiencing great difficulty maintaining turnout numbers. The lack of READILY AVAILABLE TOYS AND CONVENIENT  PLACES TO BUY THOSE TOYS is absolutely not making it easy to involve new sailors in our games.

8. This author is still wishing some entity will see the available opportunity to create a new worldwide standard modern durable singlehanded Racing Dinghy. 

Just as most internationally contended sports have clearly defined standard equipment, someday, if we want to be taken seriously as a sport, sailing will settle on standard play toys. 

We are sitting at a moment in competitive sailing history similar the when the Laser performed so well at the America’s Teacup Regatta. The sailing world needs a standard singlehander. The almost right Laser, whose success blocked the successful introduction  of the next generation is out of the way for a while.

i hope someone with the ability to act sees the opportunity to take the sailing game into the future and acts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

WS still wants to destroy the Kirby Dinghy business model and end the boat’s Fifty year run as the singlehanded Dinghy of choice for world wide competition. WS may say otherwise. This author suspects the WS officers are too ignorant of the Dinghy building business to understand the destructive nature of their behavior.

 

...

2 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

We are sitting at a moment in competitive sailing history similar the when the Laser performed so well at the America’s Teacup Regatta. The sailing world needs a standard singlehander. The almost right Laser, whose success blocked the successful introduction  of the next generation is out of the way for a while.

i hope someone with the ability to act sees the opportunity to take the sailing game into the future and acts. 


And I hope hundreds of thousands of sailors seize the opportunity to take the sailing game into the future when that next generation singlehander makes it appearance. 

Will you know it when you see it? 

You can't be wrong if you don't jump. So jump.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Builders
Laser Performance (Europe) Ltd seems to be moribund. 
Laser Performance LLC seems to be emphasised now.
Quartermoon something is also in the mix somewhere .

I think Gouv is blaming the wrong people for the wrong things.

I''m getting past worrying whether certain parties are trying to examine the situation in what is a very important issue for the sport or merely being pointlessly destructive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JimC said:



I think Gouv is blaming the wrong people for the wrong things.

 

I haven’t ever described my assignment of blame as it would take me a long time to type it all up and would undoubtedly thoroughly piss off a whole lot of people  who would either be those called out or the faithful supporters of those I would have called out. 

Mr Rastegar’s decision to quit paying royalties was a HUGE factor in accelerating the demise of Laser as we had known it for over thirty years. 

People trying gain more control both for their particular organizations and personally has been a HUGE factor which has been accelerating the demise of Laser sailing since the mid eighties. 

Recently the game is  being assaulted by so many from so many angles it seems no one anywhere has any concern for the destructive nature of their selfish agendas. 

We sail on Wednesday nights and have occasional regattas. Our toys are becoming old and many will soon be unserviceable. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Everyone is trying to grab a bigger piece of an ever-decreasing pie.

Exactly. It never looks pretty, and all the lizard brain instincts kick in - spoil it for everyone rather than accept a loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For gosh sakes ILCA you terminated LPE back in March. Like almost 6 months ago. At some point this ain’t about what builder or boat name it is and it’s simply that a European and Americas builder - any builder - is needed. 

Name a builder already!

Get them going so maybe they can start pushing out boats in 2020. How about the nice Fulcrum folks? They have Laser experience in house and do a great job with UFO. Name a builder before you don’t need a builder anymore.

Good grief I am starting to think the ILCA class leadership is taking bribes from the Aero folks. :ph34r:

Share this post


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

For gosh sakes ILCA you terminated LPE back in March. Like almost 6 months ago. At some point this ain’t about what builder or boat name it is and it’s simply that a European and Americas builder - any builder - is needed. 

Name a builder already!

Get them going so maybe they can start pushing out boats in 2020. How about the nice Fulcrum folks? They have Laser experience in house and do a great job with UFO. Name a builder before you don’t need a builder anymore.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s over three weeks since voting finished and still we’ve not had a final result, or a proper statement of what next from ILCA or WS.  Are we really expected to believe that this silence is because we are still waiting for some votes to be verified?

Share this post


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

It’s over three weeks since voting finished and still we’ve not had a final result, or a proper statement of what next from ILCA or WS.  Are we really expected to believe that this silence is because we are still waiting for some votes to be verified?

I’m thinking they are trying to find/create a LP solution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m thinking they are trying to find/create a LP solution

I think it's more that LP are trying to make a solution now that they've seen how dramatically the tables have turned 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up in New England Lemons! What I promise is to drink rum if I win my bets and supply it if I lose. And I promise I have one more day of great sailing before I gotta head home. 

And yea absent a settlement I think there is litigation. He really has no other option if you think about it. 

What ya so angry about buddy? Aren’t you folk winning??

Share this post


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

It’s over three weeks since voting finished and still we’ve not had a final result, or a proper statement of what next from ILCA or WS.  Are we really expected to believe that this silence is because we are still waiting for some votes to be verified?

Hanging chads ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites