Wess

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

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, WestCoast said:

I posted in the other thread, but the first of two steps will be made public tomorrow.  World Sailing technical evaluation report will be released around noon Friday UK time.

And later on WS will change the recommendation...

But 99% of us will continue to sail our Whatchamacallit dinghy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Weekender which became the TGIF which became the Laser (which was proposed to become the Torch) which became the ILCA dinghy.

Bruce Kirby drew his sketch of the "weekender" based on a conversation with Ian Bruce in early October 1969.

That makes Kirby's boat 50 years old this year, though the prototype, with a sail by Hans Fogh first sailed in October 1970. Hans sailed it in Montreal at a regatta organised to test new dinghies which cost less than $1000. The production model that launched the class was at the New York Boat Show of 1971.

Not sure the naming story is complete. There are many, many uses of the name "Laser", including websites and class associations. Sosoomii is right, the name "ILCA dinghy" or "ILCA" is an additional name, and the name "Laser" will linger. The ILCA will need to make changes to the class rules which requires membership votes.

The-Weekender-TGIF1-Prototype-Laser-1969.jpg

Share this post


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

I’m with you on all of that Tillerman, but that is messy in many ways. Putting aside the lack of agreement from the membership and WS, if the old boats are not renamed this is not a change of name. It is an additional name. That seems even more complicated.

And having a class association name that doesn’t reflect the name of the class but does reflect that of a rival, trademarked, class seems like a short cut to court to me.

Take the 2020 US Nationals. An official event, sailed in privately  owned boats. Some will be new ILCAs, some will be older Lasers. So is it the Laser Nationals, ILCA Nationals or ILCA/Laser Nationals?  By then, of course, there may be a rival class association for new LP Lasers, who will also want to hold a Laser Nationals and would surely have more rights to the name Laser Nationals. 

You are right. It could get very messy - especially in this interim period when the new name has not been approved by either the class members or World Sailing.

My guess is that the 2020 US Nationals will be called the ILCA-NA US Nationals - "ILCA-NA" referring to the North American Class and not the boat. The Sunfish Class has recently been using a similar dodge to get around using the word "Sunfish" in the name of their major regattas, calling their events USSCA North Americans, USSCA Nationals etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So.... Is the plan... Make Laser Great Again!..... Or is there a plan that is forward looking to getting young sailors in the game.    

 

Susie.jpg

 
  • 8 of 13 sailors carry the title Grand with them..   The entire boat building issue and  "what's the name issue" evaporates if nobody in their 20s and 30s want boats.
  •  Laser is probably the only single handed class that can create and implement a solution for the 20 something and older racer.   Don't miss the forest for the tree here.
Edited by Tcatman
formating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't see why they can't just go back to the Weekender. I love that TGIF sail

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2019 at 8:38 AM, IPLore said:

ILP also subcontracts the building of the Laser to a Chinese subcontractor that is not owned by Rastegar.  The Chinese manufacturer will almost certainly have a contractual relationship with LP but it may or may not have a contractual relationship with WS . The Chinese manufacturer is a "builder"  but the obligations to enable inspection rest with the trademark owner (LP) which in this case is also a builder. 

I had suggested earlier that LP were contracting out the build. But I figured it was just an internal shell game in the Rasta organization. Are they actually having all the manufacturing of Lasers done in China? Those folks in the video don't look Chinese, and they proudly attach a "Built in the UK" sticker on the transom. What gives?

Share this post


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

I had suggested earlier that LP were contracting out the build. But I figured it was just an internal shell game in the Rasta organization. Are they actually having all the manufacturing of Lasers done in China? Those folks in the video don't look Chinese, and they proudly attach a "Built in the UK" sticker on the transom. What gives?

The video is from 2013, who knows what has changed in terms of their operations in the last 6 years

Share this post


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

I had suggested earlier that LP were contracting out the build. But I figured it was just an internal shell game in the Rasta organization. Are they actually having all the manufacturing of Lasers done in China? Those folks in the video don't look Chinese, and they proudly attach a "Built in the UK" sticker on the transom. What gives?

I thought that LP built Sunfish in China and Lasers in England. But I could be wrong.

Where was the factory that they refused to let ILCA inspect recently?

Share this post


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

I had suggested earlier that LP were contracting out the build. But I figured it was just an internal shell game in the Rasta organization. Are they actually having all the manufacturing of Lasers done in China? Those folks in the video don't look Chinese, and they proudly attach a "Built in the UK" sticker on the transom. What gives?

I think only the 420, FJ and Sunfish got "offshored".  Laser (was) still made in UK facility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2019 at 8:28 PM, IPLore said:

under that contract, no new builders can be appointed without the written permission of the trademark owner.  For that contract to be nullified, the ILCA will have to show a fundamental breach of contract that cannot be remedied.   The way around that would be for WS to rescind WS international status. 

Once the class name has been formally changed, with the appt rule changes the trademark owner in question will be the owner of the new trademark. Class names have often been changed, and international status unaffected. If ILCA don't get all the is dotted and ts crossed then there's all sorts of potential for trouble, but it seems v unlikely they'll miss something so bleeding' obvious.

I must admit ILCA were certainly effective in getting their desired vote out last time, even if I felt the way they went about it was manipulative and maybe even ethically dubious.

 

Share this post


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

Only 27 more posts to get to 1000!!!

Go gang go!!

i will check back in a couple hours. 

Gouv - If you want a new page you gotta troll a bit better than that and rile folks up a bit.  I mean Laser sailors are a bit like lemmings and love their elders.  But they are not very smart or ethical.  I mean where else would you find somebody so lacking in basic ethics that they would vote in a class election when they were not a class member and then complain endless about the same class and volunteers all while ignoring the most basic truths and legal concepts.  I mean you canntt make this stuff up.  But the lemmings still love the grey haired one even while he abandoned them.  So if you want pages you need to point out that the biggest slimes in all this by far are Bruce Kirby and PSA.  Bunch of greedy low scum out for world domination on the backs of the silly lemmings glad to pay them money for nothing because they are too stupid to read.  You need to point out that it takes scum like Kirby and PSA to make LPE look good!  And of course you canntt forget to put the lawnmower on ignore.  You can decide for yourself which parts are trolling and which are serious.  But its all just the opinion of some random multihull sailor and you know those folks are really wack!  Wess  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

Gannttt and IPeeLaw spend the next two years writing long learned posts about the issues that nobody else but them understands.

Hmmmm. Wondering when the last time that happened. Wondering if you realized how many misleading and incorrect comments I noticed and did not comment on? (Hint, it has been years).

Question for you Tillerman, was the following long and learned and so difficult to understand?

Quote

IPLore: "The ILCA were not party to these contracts. "

Gantt: "False. The ILCA is named as a party to the contract - refer to page 2 of the 1983 builders agreement, under the title "Parties". The ILCA is the second from the top."

Sometimes things are as obvious and easy to understand as they seem. And lumping different people together is a bit like entering a foiling moth in an optimist race. I think some people actually notice.

Though thank you for your best efforts to keep things positive!

Share this post


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

IPLore, you authored many of 'those comments'. 

So just taking your first point, and fact checking what you wrote:

"The....Builder Contracts... were between BKI and four regional trademark owners/s builders". Correct. The parties to the Builders Contracts  were BKI, Bruce Kirby and the respective regional trademark owners/builders.

Kind of, and I agree, it does pay to be precise. For example, the agreement appointing a builder back in 1983 was signed by IYRU, ILCA, BKI, Bruce Kirby and Laser International Holdings (1983) Limited. Incorrect. You are confusing the World Sailing (formerly ISAF, formerly IYRU) contract with the Builder contracts.  The WS contract was signed in November 1983.  The 1983 Builders Contract was signed in July 1983, and updated with subsequent agreements in 1995 and 2005.

" The ILCA were not party to these contracts. "  Correct.  The ILCA was not a party to any of the Builder Contracts in the 1980s. 1990s, or 200s.. 

False. The ILCA is named as a party to the contract - refer to page 2 of the 1983 builders agreement, under the title "Parties". The ILCA is the second from the top.

You are confusing the Builder Contracts with the WS contract. 

The parties to the 1983 Builders contract were BK, BKI and a company called Brook Shaw Motors.  LPE succeeded to the rights and obligations of Brook Shaw. The ILCA was NOT a party to this agreement, nor a signatory. The IYRU evidenced the agreement but were not a party.

"The ILCA did not appoint these builders, they were appointed by the trademark owners and originally approved by WS and subsequently by the ILCA. "  Correct. The Builders had been appointed by at least July of 1983 and were approved by WS in November 1983.

The precise wording of paragraph 9.1 of the WS agreement in November stated :

"It is understood and agreed by IYRU..that the Builders set forth in Schedule 2..are authorized to manufacture the Laser Class boat....and that further builders may only be appointed with the prior written approval of Kirby Inc, Trade Mark Owner and the IYRU"

You will note that at that time (November 1983), the ILCA was NOT responsible for authorizing builders nor approving future builders. That came later.

Misleading and false. The builders were licensed to hold the trademark Laser. In the 1983 agreement, the appointment was not by the Trademark owners. IYRU (Which became the ISAF, then WS), and ILCA were parties to the agreement, so they as well as BKI and Kirby himself, gave their approval.

Please, be my guest, and check for yourself. You will find that I am accurate in the above.  I trust you will find my information accurate. I will leave you to judge the accuracy of your own posts.

There are many many inaccuracies in what opinions etc IPLore has put forward in addition to the above. However we do need to thank IPLore's best efforts to make a positive contribution to this topic. There are accuracy issues with the balance of his points, and IPLore has been singled out behind closed doors as a source of misinformation. ;)  :) 

No doubt we will need to suffer through IPLore's response to what I have just written. Sorry. :( 

PS: Thank you all for the personal messages welcoming me back!

I will repeat what I stated several pages earlier. I do not believe that the Builder Agreements will play an immediate role in the unfolding situation. The ILCA were not parties to those agreements.

I believe that the contract that raises the relevant concerns is the multi party agreement known as the World Sailing Contract. The ILCA were a party to this agreement.  This was originally signed by WS (formerly known as IYRU),  the ILCA , the trademark owners and BKI.   I would expect that the original 1983 WS agreement has possibly been updated....but as I commented earlier I would suspect that the trademark owners have retained the right to approve new builders.  In order for the trademark owners to lose that right, it is not enough to change the name of the boat.....the trademark owners would have to have fundamentally breached  the terms of the WS contract , so much so, that the contract becomes null and void between LPE and the other parties.

Based on the current information that is my personal take on the hurdle that the ILCA has to prove.

I am afraid I have had prior exposure to Gantt's commentary on legal matters...and I simply cannot be bothered to respond to all his commentary. You can make your own mind up as to whether his commentary is instructive, accurate or otherwise.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

" The ILCA were not party to these contracts. "  Correct.  The ILCA was not a party to any of the Builder Contracts in the 1980s. 1990s, or 200s..  

False. The ILCA is named as a party to the contract - refer to page 2 of the 1983 builders agreement, under the title "Parties". The ILCA is the second from the top.

You are confusing the Builder Contracts with the WS contract. 

The parties to the 1983 Builders contract were BK, BKI and a company called Brook Shaw Motors.  LPE succeeded to the rights and obligations of Brook Shaw. The ILCA was NOT a party to this agreement, nor a signatory. The IYRU evidenced the agreement but were not a party.

For several years, IPLore has been attempting to separate the IYRU agreement from the builder's contracts, much in the same way he has above. But stating over and over a technical 'alternate fact' that the ILCA was not a party to the builder's contracts, has enabled him to misinform readers away from the relationship that builders and the ILCA had. The contracts that bound the ILCA to the builders as parties in the agreements was via both the IYRU agreement and the builder's agreement.

The builder's contract, and the relationship that the ILCA had with the builders as a consequence, is central to the LPE inspections. These contracts were updated, but the agreement to permit inspection remains the same. 

Though we all should be thankful for IPLore's best efforts to get this information right.

From the builder's contract, namely Brook Shield Motor Services Limited:

IYRU Clause.png

Share this post


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

Gouv - If you want a new page you gotta troll a bit better than that and rile folks up a bit.  I mean Laser sailors are a bit like lemmings and love their elders.  But they are not very smart or ethical.  I mean where else would you find somebody so lacking in basic ethics that they would vote in a class election when they were not a class member and then complain endless about the same class and volunteers all while ignoring the most basic truths and legal concepts.  I mean you canntt make this stuff up. 

Well played sir.

Share this post


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

 

IYRU Clause.png

Pop Quiz for Gannt

1.  Is this the Builder Agreement or the IYRU agreement?

2. Has the Licensee (Brook Shaw and subsequently LPE) failed to permit the IYRU or its successors to inspect the facilities as far as we know?

3. Was the ILCA a party to this agreement?

4. Does this agreement and its successors have a termination clause?  Does LPE claim that they were issued with written notice that this contract was terminated?  Is it likely  that LPE will endeavor to use the Builders Agreement to secure its rights visa vi that Class Association

 

Share this post


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

Pop Quiz for Gannt 

For everyone else

1.  Is this the Builder Agreement or the IYRU agreement?  This clause is from the Builders Agreement.

2. Has the Licensee (Brook Shaw and subsequently LPE) failed to permit the IYRU or its successors to inspect the facilities as far as we know?  Not as far as we know. LPE have restated their offer to allow WS to inspect their production. 

3. Was the ILCA a party to this agreement?  Nope.  The ILCA were not a party to this agreement. 

4. Does this agreement and its successors have a termination clause? Yes, in 2005, the two parties agreed to a 30 day notice period in a revised paragraph 10.6

Does LPE claim that they were issued with written notice that this contract was terminated? Yes, Laser Performance submitted a sworn affidavit that BKI, as represented by Global Sailing, gave due notice that the contract was terminated.   BKI issued another subsequent notice that this contract was terminated in a sworn affidavit of their own. 

  Is it likely  that LPE will endeavor to use the Builders Agreement to secure its rights visa vi that Class Association  It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY.   LP is not going to succeed in trying to enforce a contract that they have sworn is terminated.

 

As before, I think these builders contracts may have (at best) periphery relevance. For technical reasons which I wont go into , the NA builders agreement is more relevant than the European builders agreement.....

BUT overall, the contract that is really relevant is the WS multi party contract.   

I have pointed to the issues surrounding the WS agreement earlier.  I hope that my comments were interesting.   I imagine these comments in response to Gannt are of limited interest

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you IPLore for your best attempts to make a positive contribution to this topic.

The builders agreed via their respective builder's contracts act as a party to the IYRU agreement (which is what binds them), though all this stuff about an ex builder (LPE) of official ILCA boats is now academic. If LPE starts legal action, then perhaps it may become relevant again, though your 'legal opinion' until that happens makes about as much sense as investing in making a bicycle for fish.

Most of us just want to see close racing, and so the focus is my view needs to be on the ILCA, and supporting the ILCA exec in the next phase.

IYRU Clause.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y’all can lawyer about all you want, but the truth is that only one party here matters: World Sailing.  And only one issue matters: the Olympics.  Why? Because if the Laser/Torch/Weekender/ILCA Dinghy loses its Olympic status, LP loses much of its business model.  Said Dinghy will remain a nice toy for casual racers, and some will still get built somewhere, but the key to the whole business is Olympic status.  And if that goes, then an LP legal victory would be Pyrrhic at best.  (Which also means LP has more at stake than ILCA, as the boat could easily continue as a post-Olympic class.)

 

”Here lies the body of Michael O’Day / Who died maintaining the Right of Way. / He was right, dead right, as he sailed along, / But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.” 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wess has cooties 

now this is trolling i can get behind. @Wess have you had your cootie shot. or are you an anti-vaxxer??

Share this post


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

Only need 17 

Someone has deleted posts... 97 to go :) 

Maybe there is a hacker?

Share this post


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

Should we be referring to the boats curretracing in Hyeres as ILCAs or Lasers?  I thought ILCA had formally announced the change of name, but all the reports are still calling them Lasers. 

The doctrine of first use means that a boat sold as a trademarked Laser (TM) will always be a Laser (TM).  Imagine the havoc if it wasn't that way, and a company sold or otherwise passed on its trademark.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

2D530C8C-129E-4498-971B-ED526A190507.jpeg

Doesn't that depend on which side of the equator you are?

Share this post


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

That’s one helluva sentence. 

So sue me. Only asked because I was curious.

Share this post


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

I agree with the bulk of your comments above.

If there is one change I would go along with in the Laser would be to have a more effective rudder blade, BK suggested this decades ago, apart from that I wouldn’t change anything ~ it is still my preference as the best one-man racing dinghy

Sounds good! I don't even think we need a new blade - just changing the pivot point so the blade is more vertical would make the boat feel nicer.

Share this post


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

Y’all can lawyer about all you want, but the truth is that only one party here matters: World Sailing.  And only one issue matters: the Olympics.  Why? Because if the Laser/Torch/Weekender/ILCA Dinghy loses its Olympic status, LP loses much of its business model.  Said Dinghy will remain a nice toy for casual racers, and some will still get built somewhere, but the key to the whole business is Olympic status.  And if that goes, then an LP legal victory would be Pyrrhic at best.  (Which also means LP has more at stake than ILCA, as the boat could easily continue as a post-Olympic class.)

 

”Here lies the body of Michael O’Day / Who died maintaining the Right of Way. / He was right, dead right, as he sailed along, / But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.” 

I think its possible its the exact opposite.  Lose the Olympics and ICLA may die while LPE thrives!  There is a marginal cost - not profit - to every event boat LPE has to supply to ILCA and Olympic events.  Without the 1% and those who canntt understand ILCA may not have a membership.  Its certainly not club sailors who are the bulk of its members. Club Laser sailors are potentially paying more to sail Laser simply because its an Olympic class.  Give it to the Aero I say!  Their turn in the barrel!!  :P

Share this post


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

now this is trolling i can get behind. @Wess have you had your cootie shot. or are you an anti-vaxxer??

I am pro ILCA and anti BK and PSA!  :ph34r:

I am also pro Easter Bunnies but don't tell that fat old long hair dog in Texas.  :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sounds good! I don't even think we need a new blade - just changing the pivot point so the blade is more vertical would make the boat feel nicer.

Agreed, I have used a blade with approx 350 mm more span with taper ~ head of blade was about 40 mm longer in chord at the waterline : 

much more effective as a lift drag device, with the bonus of correcting direction more rapidly.

Share this post


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

I’m with you on all of that Tillerman, but that is messy in many ways. Putting aside the lack of agreement from the membership and WS, if the old boats are not renamed this is not a change of name. It is an additional name. That seems even more complicated.

And having a class association name that doesn’t reflect the name of the class but does reflect that of a rival, trademarked, class seems like a short cut to court to me.

Take the 2020 US Nationals. An official event, sailed in privately  owned boats. Some will be new ILCAs, some will be older Lasers. So is it the Laser Nationals, ILCA Nationals or ILCA/Laser Nationals?  By then, of course, there may be a rival class association for new LP Lasers, who will also want to hold a Laser Nationals and would surely have more rights to the name Laser Nationals. 

I'm not expert, but under what law and precedent will running an ILCA (TM) nationals be a short cut to court?  ILCA is a registered trademark, owned by the class association. The nominative use doctrine would seem to indicate that someone can run a US Laser Nationals as long as they are careful with their use of the trademark and don't imply any association with LPE.

 

Share this post


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

So sue me. Only asked because I was curious.

No, I'm curious, and I have prior rights to the name here! See you in court!

(Hey, we may as well keep up the Laser class traditions).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there you go Gouv!  Good night you grey hair loving fool!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Curious said:

The doctrine of first use means that a boat sold as a trademarked Laser (TM) will always be a Laser (TM).  Imagine the havoc if it wasn't that way, and a company sold or otherwise passed on its trademark.

 

I get that, but when four old Lasers and four new ILCAs get together for a race at an ILCA sanctioned event, is that a Laser fleet or an ILCA fleet? Can’t be a Laser surely? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So sue me. Only asked because I was curious.

Don’t take my name in vain!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Curious said:

I'm not expert, but under what law and precedent will running an ILCA (TM) nationals be a short cut to court?  ILCA is a registered trademark, owned by the class association. The nominative use doctrine would seem to indicate that someone can run a US Laser Nationals as long as they are careful with their use of the trademark and don't imply any association with LPE.

 

You have misinterpreted (deliberately?) what I said.

If you run the International Laser Class Association for the benefit of ILCA boats and not for (all) Lasers, that is somewhat confusing.  That would be bad enough if there was no such thing moving forward as a Laser, but there is. You can buy new Lasers, which are ineligible for the International Laser Class Association but eligible for the (say) Laser Class Union. Seems very thin ground to argue that ILCAs naming strategy is not likely to confuse or mislead. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Port starting the page 

593127BB-A754-4DBA-995C-19F797574A71.jpeg

Peter Mayhew, in full costume? Posted to close to May the fourth as well. ;) 

(PS: Brilliant start by FS.)

Share this post


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

You have misinterpreted (deliberately?) what I said.

If you run the International Laser Class Association for the benefit of ILCA boats and not for (all) Lasers, that is somewhat confusing.  That would be bad enough if there was no such thing moving forward as a Laser, but there is. You can buy new Lasers, which are ineligible for the International Laser Class Association but eligible for the (say) Laser Class Union. Seems very thin ground to argue that ILCAs naming strategy is not likely to confuse or mislead. 

There's no reason at all I would deliberately misinterpret what you said; I just can't see why the situation you are talking about would arise. As I said, I'm not an expert but I just can't see why the nominative use doctrine (or its EU counterpart) would not apply if ILCA used care. If, for example, we look at the Lapp factors, it seems that ILCA may be able to put up a pretty strong case, particularly since it would seem that LP has the burden of proving that ILCA's use is not OK under the nominative use doctrine.

One basic point that applies under the doctrine would seem to be that the reasonable ILCA-level racing sailor is unlikely to be confused about the situation, because competitive sailing has ALWAYS been a sport where you had to use reasonable care to make sure that your kit was class legal, and you couldn't ever use the simplistic approach of assuming that a boat bore a certain brand name meant that it was legal for the class using that name. Laser itself is a classic example -  the International Laser Class Association has run races for the benefit of ILCA boats and not all Lasers since some time in the late '70s, when the Laser II kicked off in a separate class. ILCA hasn't run races for Laser 2000s, 4000s, 5000s, etc.  On the other hand, ILCA has run races for Laser Radials, Laser Ms and Laser 4.7s.  So it is apparent that there has been a long practise of the ILCA running classes only for some Lasers, and since it must have officially dropped the Laser M at one stage there is also precedent to show that it can drop a category of the original Laser.

Similarly, of course, you can buy new Lasers that are ineligible for what used to be the Laser 2000 class, but is now just the 2000 class and is built by Laser's rival. You can buy a Farr 40 that is a very different one to the Farr 40 One Design; you can buy a (UK) Lightning that can't race with the International Lighting class, or a (UK) Javelin that can't race with the NZ Javelin class, etc. The International Mistral windsurfer class used to be the world's second biggest class, but for years most new Mistral windsurfers wouldn't be allowed to race with the Mistral class. Same with the original Windsurfer; in fact the International Windsurfer Class Association is still an active trademark - but most new windsurfers, even ones from the same brands, cannot race in it.

Finally, racing at ILCA level has always required sailors to check for compliance on details as arcane as the rudder angle. Given all the above, ILCA could argue that no reasonable person is going to assume that just because one Laser can race with ILCA, another Laser can - that has never been the case and certainly not since LP itself started selling identical but non class legal-sails. The Club Sail can be seen to be a sign that LPE accepted (and probably profited from) the fact that equipment may be completely identical to "official" equipment, but still be banned from racing. They seem to have happily gone along with the idea that one button was all that was needed to make an "illegal" Laser-branded "Training Sail" into a class legal ILCA sail - so how can they now argue that ILCA class approval (and the accompanying symbol and names) is suddenly too complicated for consumers to understand?  If consumers could work out that a Training Sail with a Laser symbol was not going to be class legal, then consumers can work out that a new Laser will not be ILCA class legal.

Similarly, LaserPerformance introduced the Z420, which is an "updated" C420 but not legal in that class and (in its bigger rig version) not legal as an International 420 either. How can PS say that changing one letter was enough to ensure that no one was confused between the Z420, the C420 and the Int 420, but the changes that ILCA are proposing are not enough to stop confusion? 

So, I'd reckon ILCA could put up a reasonably good argument that no reasonable consumer would be confused and therefore there will be no problem. As I said, I'm no expert and I'm not sure, for example, whether the indicia from the Sleekcraft test still apply at all - can you fill us in on that?


 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So, I'd reckon ILCA could put up a reasonably good argument that no reasonable consumer would be confused and therefore there will be no problem. As I said, I'm no expert and I'm not sure, for example, whether the indicia from the Sleekcraft test still apply at all - can you fill us in on that?

There's a lot of stuff that is being talked about for sure, including trademark issues. (I have some international experience with IP/Trademarks, though am not a lawyer - I've hired them for this sort of work). There are jurisdictional issues, and agreements that have already been spoken about ad nauseum which need updating. Bottom line is that the onus for further legal action is now on LPE. Frankly, discussing it here may give the 'wrong people' good ideas. ;) 

Basically, the ILCA will accept entries in official ILCA events by boats that have the plaque, and are class legal. That includes boats manufactured by all ex builders, including LPE, Vanguard etc. and the current ones (PSJ and PSA) - plus the new builders which will be announced shortly.

There are precedents, both in sailing - like the Laser SB3 becoming the SB20. The Laser SB3 was an ISAF (World Sailing) class before changing to SB20, and there are some similarities beyond the name change with World Sailing contracts. Bottom line is that the change isn't completely new.

There is clearly a lot of work ahead for the ILCA Exec to do, and that the changes will need to be ratified by the ILCA membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guessing this is already in other threads but will impact here as well.  Aero seems clear winner for Olympic slot.  Laser second.  Lots of wiggle room for final decision and interesting tidbits in this...

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/EQCSP4biiiMenWomenOnePersonDinghy-[24944].pdf

Things re the rigs become a bit clearer after a reading here @Curious.  Its all about the Olympic slot...

Share this post


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

Port starting the page 

593127BB-A754-4DBA-995C-19F797574A71.jpeg

"GET OFF MY LAWN!"

That's not a port tack start gouv.  that's you leading to the unfavored side ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.  Gorgeous work - I tip my grey hair to you sir (though it is much shorter)

Share this post


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

I stand corrected.  Gorgeous work - I tip my grey hair to you sir (though it is much shorter)

Pics or it didn't happen!  The hair part!  Gouv put up; now its your turn.  :P

Share this post


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

"GET OFF MY LAWN!"

That's not a port tack start gouv.  that's you leading to the unfavored side ;)

last time i had a start like that was a few years ago in my club championship.

i thought i was a genius.., but exactly as you say.., i didn't tack after crossing everyone - because i was so lifted - and ended up on the great circle route, getting beaten by half the boats that went behind me to the left.

i just sailed with a dutch guy a few weeks ago..,  and i learned their term for the great circle - it basically translates as "the outside banana".., as in; "crap.., i think we are sailing  the outside banana!"

pretty descriptive!

Share this post


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

This fat fella is not Dennis Conner. I sailed to a point where I was between the fleet and the mark and then tried to find the best path to that mark. 

Old, fat, and slow eventually took over but EVERYBODY had to read OLD POOP on my transome. 

Tiny victories?? I love it when some youngster who is not aware I am within earshot is whining, “I hate it when that Old Poop guy gets in front of me. He never hikes. He never goes fast. If I am behind him I must be fucking up.”

.... In what other sport can a guy who is fifty years older duke it out fairly and in a fun way with a kid?? 

80 year old Sam Small led after an entire lap in one 54 boat Easter Race. I want to do that in 2033. 

Plus one million.  So why I love dinghy sailing.  And what is unique to Laser is that you can find a fleet of them everywhere.  They are like that Reeses commercial...

Man, I really don't care if the boat stays in the Olympics... or who build them and I guess even who runs the class but I sure do hope that the accessibility of Laser racing never goes away.  There just is nothing else like it that comes even close in terms of span of the globe and access at the grass roots level.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Guessing this is already in other threads but will impact here as well.  Aero seems clear winner for Olympic slot.  Laser second.  Lots of wiggle room for final decision and interesting tidbits in this...

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/EQCSP4biiiMenWomenOnePersonDinghy-[24944].pdf

Things re the rigs become a bit clearer after a reading here @Curious.  Its all about the Olympic slot...

OK, back on topic. More I read and reread this it sure seems that WS is giving ILCA cover or at least a nudge to do everything they are doing.  I gotta believe there is a closed door understanding...  interesting times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to want to build ILCAs in Europe now? If the Aero gets the Olympic spot no ones going to buy an ILCA - Aero is a better boat, better value, better supported and easily available, and soon with a higher standard of competition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even obscure classes have their builders, I'm pretty sure there are going to be people who want a new ILCA regardless of which boat gets the Olympic spot. At my club what gets raced is ILCA, Taser and F18s, so it doesn't matter to me if the Aero is better because I would have to go all the way to Seattle to actually race one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunate this thread has devolved into irrelevant photographs and other nonsense.  

Share this post


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

Who is going to want to build ILCAs in Europe now? If the Aero gets the Olympic spot no ones going to buy an ILCA - Aero is a better boat, better value, better supported and easily available, and soon with a higher standard of competition.

Tell that to all the people who by a new Hobie 16 every few years.

Share this post


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

Who is going to want to build ILCAs in Europe now? If the Aero gets the Olympic spot no ones going to buy an ILCA - Aero is a better boat, better value, better supported and easily available, and soon with a higher standard of competition.

Better supported? That depends on where you sail.

Better value? Why? The fleets are vastly smaller so if what you are looking for is strong OD racing in big fleets then the Aero is of no value in many areas. If you want a boat with big fleets, a new Laser can be great value and a good old boat can be fantastic value; mine is perfectly competitive against recent world champs in my division and cost me about one fifth the price of an Aero, with a brand new sail.

Better boat? Depends on your individual preferences. If you are looking for a newer, faster and more modern design of singlehanded SMOD why not get a Waszp? 

Higher standard of competition? Where? How many places have potential Olympians (ie those who may switch to the Aero just because of Olympic status) sailing regularly?  If the Aero becomes Olympic why will it become the first new Olympic class in recent history to grow widespread fleets? Where are the 49er and 49erFX local fleets? Where are the Nacra 17 local fleets? Where are the RSX local fleets? 

I've been rather underwhelmed by the Aero, but that's strictly my own personal subjective feeling. To me it feels like something that should be a lot quicker than a couple of percent faster than a Laser. But lots of people love it, so (unlike some Aero bloggers) I'll normally just let them enjoy a boat they love without snarking at it. 

Speaking just as a Laser sailor I wouldn't mind if the Laser was dropped from the Games. It could be good for the class, but I'd reckon it would be bad for the sport as a whole.

 

PS - have you had a chance to check up on the nomative use issue?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Better boat? Depends on your individual preferences. If you are looking for a newer, faster and more modern design of singlehanded SMOD why not get ......

I've been rather underwhelmed by the Aero, but that's strictly my own personal subjective feeling. To me it feels like something that should be a lot quicker than a couple of percent faster than a Laser. But lots of people love it, so (unlike some Aero bloggers) I'll normally just let them enjoy a boat they love without snarking at it. 

 

Several Moth designs of 40+ years ago would outperform the Aero on all points of sail, like you I’m not that impressed with the Aero as a contemporary “performance” dinghy - but full credit to Aero product management to date, the detail/finish is first class.

I think with a 20kg block of lead in the bilge (forward of CB) the boat would be superior in most conditions, for most sailors.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2019 at 10:03 AM, IPLore said:

 The parties to the 1983 Builders contract were BK, BKI and a company called Brook Shaw Motors.  LPE succeeded to the rights and obligations of Brook Shaw. The ILCA was NOT a party to this agreement, nor a signatory. The IYRU evidenced the agreement but were not a party.

"The ILCA did not appoint these builders, they were appointed by the trademark owners and originally approved by WS and subsequently by the ILCA. "  Correct. The Builders had been appointed by at least July of 1983 and were approved by WS in November 1983.

The precise wording of paragraph 9.1 of the WS agreement in November stated :

"It is understood and agreed by IYRU..that the Builders set forth in Schedule 2..are authorized to manufacture the Laser Class boat....and that further builders may only be appointed with the prior written approval of Kirby Inc, Trade Mark Owner and the IYRU"

You will note that at that time (November 1983), the ILCA was NOT responsible for authorizing builders nor approving future builders. That came later.
   
Misleading and false. The builders were licensed to hold the trademark Laser. In the 1983 agreement, the appointment was not by the Trademark owners. IYRU (Which became the ISAF, then WS), and ILCA were parties to the agreement, so they as well as BKI and Kirby himself, gave their approval.   

Above, red is IPLore, and black was me.

In the years we have debated this, IPLore has never admitted being wrong. I've been wondering why IPLore seeks to misinform? Is it because he doesn't know better, an ego issue or is there an agenda?

Either way, IPLore correctly quotes paragraph 9.1 of the IYRU agreement but fails to give the context within the agreement. The interpretation of Clause 9.1 is that necessary to the appointment of a builder are the permissions to use the Trademark; build the boat; use the numbers supplied etc. in order to make the boat in it's entirety. Such permissions are explicitly defined earlier in the agreement, clearly stating that the Trademark holder does not give authority to build, but to license use of the trademark. (See below, clause 1).

Also, in November 1983, the Association and the IYRU needed to give written permission for the changes to builders (Clause 17). Specifically, IPLore stating "You will note that at that time (November 1983), the ILCA was NOT responsible for authorizing builders nor approving future builders. That came later." was misleading/incorrect. Clause 17 required the ILCA to give written permission for future builders. What possible reason would IPLore put forward this incorrect notion? Who would benefit from a misdirection away from the builder and the ILCA being bound by the agreements?

There was mention off the ILCA ("The Association") in both the builder's agreement and the IYRU agreement; the builders agreed to act as if they were party to the IYRU agreement. For example, the builders agreed to make payments to the ILCA. The ILCA are named as a party to the IYRU agreement. Again and again, IPLore has promoted that the ILCA was not party to the builder's agreements here in this forum. Why? (Specifically, watching IPLore promote this notion unopposed lead to my return here.)

The below is from the IYRU Agreement (1983):

Agreement.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have to move on. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat naughtily, ILCA have amended their press release of 25th April to include an acknowledgment of the need for a membership vote, and then buried that statement under several days of Hyeres reports. 

The new paragraph:

ILCA emphasizes that a vote of the members will be conducted before the changeover will be official and that process has already begun. Some weeks ago, the necessary amendment to the ILCA Fundamental Rule (to remove the requirement for a Builder to have rights to use a Laser trademark) was approved by the ILCA World Council. The approved rule change was then submitted to World Sailing for consultation as recommended under World Sailing Regulation 10.11.1. ILCA has been awaiting the response to this request for consultation and will proceed with the member voting after the consultation is received, which we expect to be after the World Sailing Mid-Year Meeting.

https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2019/04/25/olympic-one-person-sailing-dinghy-completes-name-change/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if they lose the vote?

What if the majority of their members would prefer to be able to buy and race Lasers built by LP and sold through their dealer network instead of gambling that a class association that's prepared to pull stunts like that can get a manufacturing pipeline in place in time to meet current demand...?

...and can either ILCA, without LP, or RS gear up to fulfill and manage demand for charter fleets and supplied boats to major events in the short term? 

Cheers,

             W.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coupled with LPs Facebook post of 26th April:

ILCA has issued a document that “requires that each builder and sublicensed builder must also have a current license agreement with Designer,” and adds that “the Laser Construction Manual Agreement (LCMA) to include Global Sailing as a party in place of Bruce Kirby.”
Global Sailing and Performance Sailcraft Australia (PSA) have common ownership, hence PSA, which was quoted in ILCA’s 25 April 2019 announcement, that it was “gearing up to maximize production of the newly-branded ILCA Dinghy”, maintains that it also controls the design rights of the Laser. If this is not the definition of monopoly then what is? Indeed, giving licenses to other entities where the license governs the terms of engagement does not withstand FRAND or monopoly tests either.

It reads like ILCA have changed the rules to not require a builder to have to use the Laser trademark but to have a license agreement with Global Sailing, essentially PSA.  This seems to predate the alleged breaxh if contract by fprefusing an ILCA impnspection.

 

Share this post


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

What happens if they lose the vote?

Wondered the same myself. Don't think it is likely, because it will be presented as the only way forward. Difficult times ahead for the ILCA exec, who need to make it work.

Sometimes I think it would be easier to start with a fresh slate, new contracts etc. with a new association - but don't think that will (or can) happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What happens if they lose the vote?

What if the majority of their members would prefer to be able to buy and race Lasers built by LP and sold through their dealer network instead of gambling that a class association that's prepared to pull stunts like that can get a manufacturing pipeline in place in time to meet current demand...?

...and can either ILCA, without LP, or RS gear up to fulfill and manage demand for charter fleets and supplied boats to major events in the short term? 

Cheers,

             W.

 

It doesn't even need a majority of members to block this change.

ILCA need to secure two thirds of the votes cast to implement a rule change.

So it only takes one vote over a third of the votes cast to say NO, and ILCA can't implement the rule change.

Screen Shot 2019-05-04 at 6.57.26 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if they lose the vote, should there be a vote on if the ILCA will fold and accept the terms in the trademark license renewal?  As it currently stands they're ok until the end of August, after that when they can't use the trademark anymore it seems like a new name/trademark will be required....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is they appear to be only proposing to change the class and Association name to ILCA (and all references in the rules from Laser to ILCA)

It appears that  a large number of European members are not in agreement with the act of removing LP as an approved builder (which still seems to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face). It is quite possible that these members will vote against the proposed name change as a protest. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 3:46 AM, Southern Cross said:

 I’m not that impressed with the Aero as a contemporary “performance” dinghy

That isn't what it is meant to be. RS has other single-handers that better meet that description.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Coupled with LPs Facebook post of 26th April:

ILCA has issued a document that “requires that each builder and sublicensed builder must also have a current license agreement with Designer,” and adds that “the Laser Construction Manual Agreement (LCMA) to include Global Sailing as a party in place of Bruce Kirby.”

So, by the looks of it, reversing the fundamental rule change they made in favour of LP. That change could be argued to have messed up the checks and balances in the mesh of contracts which were supposed to keep everyone in line.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2019 at 5:20 PM, Gouvernail said:

The boat is almost on the wind and no boat will be crossing  within ten meters 

BFD1695C-5403-4AFA-9474-3B4C2B132476.jpeg

Are you that famous you have the sailing paparazzi chasing you?...lol

Great pictures BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Martin T said:

Are you that famous you have the sailing paparazzi chasing you?...lol

Great pictures BTW.

Nah it was Chewbaka. (May the fourth be with you!) The media follows Chewbaka everywhere, very famous is he.

Share this post


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

 

Nah it was Chewbaka. (May the fourth be with you!) The media follows Chewbaka everywhere, very famous is he.

 

1720wookiee.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 9:44 AM, Gantt said:



There was mention off the ILCA ("The Association") in both the builder's agreement and the IYRU agreement; the builders agreed to act as if they were party to the IYRU agreement. For example, the builders agreed to make payments to the ILCA. The ILCA are named as a party to the IYRU agreement. Again and again, IPLore has promoted that the ILCA was not party to the builder's agreements here in this forum. Why? (Specifically, watching IPLore promote this notion unopposed lead to my return here.)

The below is from the IYRU Agreement (1983):

Agreement.png

Clause 17 does not say what you say it does.  

Share this post


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

Clause 17 does not say what you say it does.  


What I said about clause 17 was:

  • "Also, in November 1983, the Association and the IYRU needed to give written permission for the changes to builders (Clause 17). Specifically, IPLore stating "You will note that at that time (November 1983), the ILCA was NOT responsible for authorizing builders nor approving future builders. That came later." was misleading/incorrect. Clause 17 required the ILCA to give written permission for future builders."


Taking out the nouns and the beginning bit... the essence of clause 17 reads...  "...none of (list of entities, including builders) may assign their rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the IYRU and the Association..."

Exactly what in your view have I got wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is about assignment of the rights and obligations of the parties to the agreement, not approval of builders in schedule 2 'as may be amended from time to time'.

What does the agreement or other essential documents say about how schedule 2 is meant to be amended?

Share this post


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

That is about assignment of the rights and obligations of the parties to the agreement, not approval of builders in schedule 2 'as may be amended from time to time'.

What does the agreement or other essential documents say about how schedule 2 is meant to be amended?

Yes it is about the parties of the agreement - and their successors and assigns:

"17. This Agreement shall continue to be to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns, provided that none of Kirby Inc, Trade Mark Owner or the Builders set forth in Schedule 2 as amended from time to time, may assign their rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the IYRU and the Association, which shall not be unreasonably withheld."

The agreement defines a builder as an assign of one of the parties (See Clause 1b); an assign is where a party transfers rights or benefits to a person or entity. 

The IYRU and The Association must give written approval before any party's right or obligation in the IYRU Agreement is assigned. The clause applies to multiple entities, including "Builders set forth in Schedule 2 as amended from time to time". An amendment to Schedule 2 cannot be made without changing who the rights or obligations are assigned to.

The only exception is: "9.3 It is expressly understood and agree that Trade Mark owner in conjunction with Kirby Inc, may without the consent of the IYRU, Holdings or the Association vary or amend the Licensed Territory of any duly Licensed Builder with the consent of such Builder."

These clauses do not appear appear in the agreements signed by the builders, though those agreements say "Licensee agrees to comply with and be bound by each of the terms and conditions of the IYRU agreement to the same extent as if Licensee was a party thereto." (ref. page 74 of the attached document).

It may be confusing because it is in a different part of the agreement? To me, this clause is very clear.

Kirby_-_First_Amended_Complaint_-_final1_WITH_Appendices.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad weekend. The lawnmower is now going round in circles and I can't figure out how to turn it off.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Bad weekend. The lawnmower is now going round in circles and I can't figure out how to turn it off.

Soil tillers for every tillermen. Hope your weekend gets better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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


What I said about clause 17 was:

  • "Also, in November 1983, the Association and the IYRU needed to give written permission for the changes to builders (Clause 17). Specifically, IPLore stating "You will note that at that time (November 1983), the ILCA was NOT responsible for authorizing builders nor approving future builders. That came later." was misleading/incorrect. Clause 17 required the ILCA to give written permission for future builders."


Taking out the nouns and the beginning bit... the essence of clause 17 reads...  "...none of (list of entities, including builders) may assign their rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the IYRU and the Association..."

Exactly what in your view have I got wrong?

What you have got wrong is that you do not understand the legal meaning of the phrase "may assign their rights and obligations under this agreement". 

When a trade mark owner of BKI is appointing or licensing a builder, they are not assigning their rights and obligations, they are exercising their rights and obligations so the prior written approval of the ILCA (under this dated agreement at that time) was NOT required.  The approval of the IYRU (succeeded by WS) was required. 

But this is all academic and completely irrelevant.  I merely pointed out that ILCA approval to license builders was not required back in 1983 by the 1983 WS agreement. I am legally correct in that. But that is not in the slightest bit relevant to the discussion that the rest of us were having about the potential legal pitfalls that might or might not lie in front of the ILCA. We dont have the more recent WS agreement. We are working on the basis that subsequent versions of an agreement may have introduced ILCA approval and even if they did not, the class rules introduced a requirement for ILCA approval (creating different issues under a different body of law).  Why you are twittering on about something you dont understand that is not particularly relevant is beyond me. I merely jumped back in because now you are telling Clean, also a lawyer (who seems to spend a fair amount of his time in contract law), that he doesnt know what he is talking about.

The contractual issue that is central to the WS agreement is that in the versions we have access to , the agreement contains a clause that requires the prior written approval of the Trade Mark Owner.  We were discussing whether LP's refusal to allow inspections constitutes a material breach of contract that renders LP's rights under the contract void.

Clean.....I recommend not going down the prairie dog holes with Gantt.  I'll dig up my original post where I offered some thoughts on some of the legal issues. The caveat , of course, is that we are working on very incomplete information so we are merely speculating about some of the issues which may or may not arise. We are not offering any conclusions but I would be curious how you view the issues. But not tonight.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Bad weekend. The lawnmower is now going round in circles and I can't figure out how to turn it off.

 

7 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

It runs but it doesn’t seem to cut the grass 

The ignore function works wonders. Make dumb disappear!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Clean.....I recommend not going down the prairie dog holes with Gantt.  I'll dig up my original post where I offered some thoughts on some of the legal issues. The caveat , of course, is that we are working on very incomplete information so we are merely speculating about some of the issues which may or may not arise. We are not offering any conclusions but I would be curious how you view the issues. But not tonight.

 

 

 

Fair enough.  Arguing law with nonlawyers is almost always a lesson in brick wall head banging.   I was sure some of those docs had been posted before though in a different thread or on the front page or maybe on WS page, hard to opine without the current WS agreement...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Italian Laser Class are not happy...

To_ILCA.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3iZGoYa6hshYKOoaQ

Good on them.  My understanding is that ILCA disbanded the Italian Laser association recently (2017?) for reasons undisclosed and therefore this is the new ‘compliant’ association asking the ILCA leadership to resign.

Share this post


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

Good on them.  My understanding is that ILCA disbanded the Italian Laser association recently (2017?) for reasons undisclosed and therefore this is the new ‘compliant’ association asking the ILCA leadership to resign.

I assume so. My source was Jean-Pierre Kiekens' Optimist, O'Pen Bic, Youth & Olympic Blog's Facebook group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/optimistopenbicsailing/ but I see it's also on the Italian Class website https://www.italialaser.org.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, AICL is asking ILCA's bosses to resign while apparently EURILCA and the rest of European LCAs are on the same boat...

Sounds like fun...

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Italian Laser Class are not happy...

To_ILCA.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3iZGoYa6hshYKOoaQ

That ain’t stirring @Gouvernail that is a fact he posted. And a damning fact it is. Clearly @Steve Clark is a smart and well connected dude. 

No matter what the outcome it makes me sad to see a class of volunteers, a class of and for the sailors of the best dinghy class ever, fractured like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s fun to sail at the I L C A

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

No matter what the outcome it makes me sad to see a class of volunteers, a class of and for the sailors of the best dinghy class ever, fractured like this. 

Me too.

It wasn't that long ago that I was one of the few voices in the Blow Torch thread defending Tracy and Andy and ILCA in general for being the only parties in the Kirby lawsuits mess who were actually fighting for the interests of average Laser sailors. I still believe that the leaders of ILCA are working to protect the interests of sailors first - although in the current situation they may have to make some difficult choices between the priorities of Olympic sailors vs the rank and file.

It worries me that some of the statements coming from Laser class associations in Europe suggest that they don't 100% support ILCA leadership's recent actions. That is of serious concern with a vote by membership on Rules and/or Constitution changes apparently to be held soon. It might be tough to secure the necessary two thirds majority for a change. And then what?

Here's an idea of a way forward from one Laser sailor's Facebook page... 

https://www.facebook.com/robertscheidtvela/
 

TIME to show CONCERN for the FUTURE of the most popular Olympic Dinghy EVER,

the boat we all love to sail and compete,

the LASER....

The disputes between the parts, legal actions, NAME CHANGE are only DAMAGING this great class reputation, and jeopardizing the chances of this great boat to remain an Olympic class for 2024 and beyond.

Isn't it the TIME for some mediation to happen? For parts to sit TOGETHER and come to an agreement, including World Sailing?.

I believe SAILORS should have a VOICE in this as we are the ones who MAKE this class GREAT around the world.

Hope we can still catch a good shift and CHANGE DIRECTION !!!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites