Wess

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

Recommended Posts

Gouv;

If (as we both believe) ILCA has obtained legal advice, then the overwhelming likelihood is they did follow the rules (or the rules as their lawyer believes them to be). The "rules" are not just the class Constitution, but also the laws about how such constitutions must be followed and when associations can deviate from them.

I've got no idea about the relevant law in ILCA's jurisdiction. However, it seems from a quick check that in English law, for example, it has been held that there is "no special magic" in an association's Constitution. A provision in a Constitution is just like any other provision in a normal contract. Sometimes they can be breached in order to avoid a greater wrong.  

Share this post


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

If (as we both believe) ILCA has obtained legal advice, then the overwhelming likelihood is they did follow the rules (or the rules as their lawyer believes them to be). The "rules" are not just the class Constitution, but also the laws about how such constitutions must be followed and when associations can deviate from them.

I've got no idea about the relevant law in ILCA's jurisdiction. However, it seems from a quick check that in English law, for example, it has been held that there is "no special magic" in an association's Constitution. A provision in a Constitution is just like any other provision in a normal contract. Sometimes they can be breached in order to avoid a greater wrong.  

The context is one where LPE are in breach of multiple contracts.

Yes, the ILCA have had legal advice and have the support of World Sailing for their latest moves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The context is one where LPE are in breach of multiple contracts.

Yes, the ILCA have had legal advice and have the support of World Sailing for their latest moves.

Although the ILCA’s address is in Texas, I am not sure where the entity was (is) incorporated. Should LPE sue, it is likely they will bring the suit in that jurisdiction. If structured correctly, the ILCA’s Directors and Officers insurance will defend and indemnify all the directors and officers as well as the entity (ILCA). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Although the ILCA’s address is in Texas, I am not sure where the entity was (is) incorporated. Should LPE sue, it is likely they will bring the suit in that jurisdiction. If structured correctly, the ILCA’s Directors and Officers insurance will defend and indemnify all the directors and officers as well as the entity (ILCA). 

You'd imagine they would have a venue clause and a choice of law clause or both

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ILCA officers authority to conduct the business of the ILCA is given to them by the ILCA. My concerns about their behavior have NOTHING to do with governments or their laws. 

The ILCA Officers are not given their authority by anything but the ILCA

Our ILCA Officers are conducting the business of the ILCA. 

The Constitution and Class rules of the ILCA clearly describe who is a builder.

the laws of various countries have zip nada to do with who gets to supply our play toys. 

none of this side crap has anything to do with OUR CLASS RULES.

OUR CLASS RULES clearly state that a builder must have those special Laser IP rights.

OUR constitution and class rules CLEARLY describe how the officers can modify that definition of a builder 

If our class officers want to allow suppliers who do not have the specific rights described in our class rules our officers need to go through the proper  class process and change our class  rules. 

 Is this concept really that difficult?

let me help with a few examples. 

Our class rules specify which sails I may use. THERE IS NO LAW saying I cannot use a custom sail built by Quantum. Our CLASS RULES prevent me from using that sail in class sanctioned races

we play a game which is defined by our CLASS RULES  using equipment defined by our CLASS RULES.

our association is defined by a constitution. 

Our officer positionsnonky exist by virtue of the definitions created and managed by our association. 

Allowing builders who are not as defined in our class rules is as absurd as allowing J-80s to race in our fleets . Neither fits OUR CLASS definition of a Laser.

Our Officers are sick of dealing with LP and want to find new builders. I started being sick of LP last decade. I am simply pointing out the FACT there is a correct way to remove the Laser rights requirement.

That proper  way is absolutely not for a couple guys to decide to just do it. 

The balllot could have been published months or even years ago. The ballot certainly could have been published the same day LP was terminated. 

If this mess ends up in a courtroom, I maintain it will be mighty hard to convince any judge our rules (which we are ignoring) are sacred to us and LP has been cut off from its customers because LP broke one super important rule. 

Our officers’ behavior indicates they have no respect for our class rules.... except when application of a Rule  is convenient for them:

Our officers could step back for a few weeks and do things by the book. 

Or, they can continue to operate as they see fit and without attention to the rules. 

****

note: I really don’t give a damn what they do or how it all turns out. At this point I am only posting here to see how many times I  must explain before others quit making it  so obvious they do not comprehend  the contents  of our class rules.,  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The ILCA officers authority to conduct the business of the ILCA is given to them by the ILCA. My concerns about their behavior have NOTHING to do with governments or their laws. 

Etc Etc

You will see my comment was regarding an instance where LPE sues ILCA. The Constitution and members will have sweet fuck all to do with this - LPE will sue ILCA claiming damages for their (eg) being wrongfully sacked via breach of contract (simplified). This could be an issue to the members if the courts side with LPE and clean out available insurance as well as any assets of ILCA. Plus the courts could undo everything done by ILCA resulting in several more years of confusion. 

But this is all builders agreement stuff. Nothing to do with the Constitution. 

As you often suggest - rig up and go sailing tomorrow. Count your blessings - it is 30F here and fucking snowing again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the convolutions of the mess are endless.

all kinds of people with different reasons for their positions

i maintain “Everyone has the same goal.” We all want somebody to build lots of Lasers. 

If all the effort already spent  on grabbing or holding onto control had been spent on, “Come  play with me.” And “Let me help you  own a boat!” There would be oodles of money and all kinds of stuff for control freaks to control. 

There is a whole lot of necessary work that hasn’t been done in years. 

The  notth American supply of toys has  been horrendous. Every discussion with our builder must commence with “what are we going to do to get stocking dealers  near every venue On the continent?

every clsss officer’s  first obligation is to get the game rolling at full tilt. We need to relentlessly invite people out to play, show them how we have a blast, and help them obtain  toys. -

We need to to relentlessly invite them back until They take over doing the inviting.

The class seems to think managing itself is a significant part of its duty. 

Let me be clear: Every second spent managing the Association is wasted time we could have spent sailing and recruiting new sailor playmates.

it is like growing crops, cooking, and washing dishes. It is necessary but the goal is to eat. 

My best contributions as a boat repairman are those that prevent future need for repairs. .

i want to grab LP by the  shoulders and scream in its face 

THE only way to increase the value of your IP is to put more  people in your boats. Focus your efforts in n building the game and those playing the game will buy your toys and increase the value of your IP. 

Making deals  with ILCA has NOTHING  to do with selling boats.

By the same token, the job of the ILCA is simply to help every human being on the planet become addicted to laser racing. 

Everything is all screwed up

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I overheard a conversation at the bar last night that Kirby and Rastegar are getting together to start a new class association

They have a boat, the name, the build document, what does the ILCA have?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

I overheard a conversation at the bar last night that Kirby and Rastegar are getting together to

Well, in Dante's inferno the deepest level of hell is indeed frozen over, so I suppose the prerequisites are there...

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

the convolutions of the mess are endless.

all kinds of people with different reasons for their positions

i maintain “Everyone has the same goal.” We all want somebody to build lots of Lasers. 

If all the effort already spent  on grabbing or holding onto control had been spent on, “Come  play with me.” And “Let me help you  own a boat!” There would be oodles of money and all kinds of stuff for control freaks to control. 

There is a whole lot of necessary work that hasn’t been done in years. 

The  notth American supply of toys has  been horrendous. Every discussion with our builder must commence with “what are we going to do to get stocking dealers  near every venue On the continent?

every clsss officer’s  first obligation is to get the game rolling at full tilt. We need to relentlessly invite people out to play, show them how we have a blast, and help them obtain  toys. -

We need to to relentlessly invite them back until They take over doing the inviting.

The class seems to think managing itself is a significant part of its duty. 

Let me be clear: Every second spent managing the Association is wasted time we could have spent sailing and recruiting new sailor playmates.

it is like growing crops, cooking, and washing dishes. It is necessary but the goal is to eat. 

My best contributions as a boat repairman are those that prevent future need for repairs. .

i want to grab LP by the  shoulders and scream in its face 

THE only way to increase the value of your IP is to put more  people in your boats. Focus your efforts in n building the game and those playing the game will buy your toys and increase the value of your IP. 

Making deals  with ILCA has NOTHING  to do with selling boats.

By the same token, the job of the ILCA is simply to help every human being on the planet become addicted to laser racing. 

Everything is all screwed up

 

 

 

 

They don’t have the same goal. 

Share this post


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

I overheard a conversation at the bar last night that Kirby and Rastegar are getting together to start a new class association

They have a boat, the name, the build document, what does the ILCA have?

That got a laugh for sure.  Well done!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

note: I really don’t give a damn what they do or how it all turns out. At this point I am only posting here to see how many times I  must explain before others quit making it  so obvious they do not comprehend  the contents  of our class rules.,  

 

It's easy to have a very good comprehension of the class rules, and still disagree with you. There is a time and place for class rules, and a time and place for the wider rules. When one party has clearly breached the rules of the class (ie by preventing the inspection on which the rules depend) it is reasonable to take other legal measures to prevent worse ongoing damage.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Laser knock off hulls. Same shape, weight, compairable torsional and panel stiffness, C.G.and more durable. $2800. FOB. Mast extrusions bought by the pound or foot.....tooling paid for after 200 sets. Nothing magic here. 

In one form or another all other hardware is available. Intensity or whoever sails. The newly formed (not ) North American Laising Class Assoc. could manage the whole thing.

I believe there were more lasers sold before they were an Olympic class than after.  Correct me if I am wrong. And, how many sales were dependent on the Laser being an olympic class boat. If other countries or the ILCA have a problem with this then open the door to solve it or it becomes their problem.The group posting on here could focus on the NA class staying on the water and not under it. If the N A class would not support itself then, maybe its time is up.  All the existing dinghy shops could supply parts.  The NALCA could use any of these symbols along with a web site for approval of parts or suppliers. https://www.google.com/search?q=laser+symbol&tbm=isch&source=univ&client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs_8nQ3vLhAhXHwFkKHS1fABgQsAR6BAgHEAE&biw=1333&bih=608.

It becomes apparent that the US Laser sailors are not being served by their present association and builders.  When the association members are not put first, the class rules are more protective of the builders than the members. This thread has become so stagnant, a revolution would be much more exciting.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The ILCA officers authority to conduct the business of the ILCA is given to them by the ILCA. My concerns about their behavior have NOTHING to do with governments or their laws. 

The ILCA Officers are not given their authority by anything but the ILCA

Our ILCA Officers are conducting the business of the ILCA. 

The Constitution and Class rules of the ILCA clearly describe who is a builder.

the laws of various countries have zip nada to do with who gets to supply our play toys. 

none of this side crap has anything to do with OUR CLASS RULES.

OUR CLASS RULES clearly state that a builder must have those special Laser IP rights.

OUR constitution and class rules CLEARLY describe how the officers can modify that definition of a builder 

If our class officers want to allow suppliers who do not have the specific rights described in our class rules our officers need to go through the proper  class process and change our class  rules. 

 Is this concept really that difficult?

let me help with a few examples. 

Our class rules specify which sails I may use. THERE IS NO LAW saying I cannot use a custom sail built by Quantum. Our CLASS RULES prevent me from using that sail in class sanctioned races

we play a game which is defined by our CLASS RULES  using equipment defined by our CLASS RULES.

our association is defined by a constitution. 

Our officer positionsnonky exist by virtue of the definitions created and managed by our association. 

Allowing builders who are not as defined in our class rules is as absurd as allowing J-80s to race in our fleets . Neither fits OUR CLASS definition of a Laser.

Our Officers are sick of dealing with LP and want to find new builders. I started being sick of LP last decade. I am simply pointing out the FACT there is a correct way to remove the Laser rights requirement.

That proper  way is absolutely not for a couple guys to decide to just do it. 

The balllot could have been published months or even years ago. The ballot certainly could have been published the same day LP was terminated. 

If this mess ends up in a courtroom, I maintain it will be mighty hard to convince any judge our rules (which we are ignoring) are sacred to us and LP has been cut off from its customers because LP broke one super important rule. 

Our officers’ behavior indicates they have no respect for our class rules.... except when application of a Rule  is convenient for them:

Our officers could step back for a few weeks and do things by the book. 

Or, they can continue to operate as they see fit and without attention to the rules. 

****

note: I really don’t give a damn what they do or how it all turns out. At this point I am only posting here to see how many times I  must explain before others quit making it  so obvious they do not comprehend  the contents  of our class rules.,  

 

 

 

 

 

Gouv - There is no intended or implied judgement in this but I honestly wonder if you are serious or trolling  with this continued line of argument.Few quick serious questions for you:

1.) Do you allow generic Laser parts and sails at the Easter regatta and technically isn't that against the rules?

2.) Ignoring dotting i and crossing ts for a moment, assuming recent ILCA actions result in 1.) continued availability of boats in all territories at same or better service levels and price, 2.) retention of the Olympic slot, and 3.) same or improved level of supply of event boats at major regattas, do you agree that the outcome of ILCA's actions are good for the class?

3.) If your answer is yes to 1 and 2 why do you care about dotting i and crossing ts especially when none of us do that re #1.

4.) if your answer is no to 2, what would you have done differently.  Like them or not, sympathy for them or not, LPE has not done a stellar job by anyone's assessment, and solely and completely through their own stupidity they appear to have opened the door to allowing the class to terminate them for something better (and assuming their is a behind closed door agreement with WS, also not help with Olympic selection).

Bottom Line: I really don't see where the class had any option but to do exactly what they did, how they did it.   LPE stupidly opened the door. The class had to walk through it and did.  Deal with the fallback afterwards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blackjack2 said:

New Laser knock off hulls. Same shape, weight, compairable torsional and panel stiffness, C.G.and more durable. $2800. FOB. Mast extrusions bought by the pound or foot.....tooling paid for after 200 sets. Nothing magic here. 

In one form or another all other hardware is available. Intensity or whoever sails. The newly formed (not ) North American Laising Class Assoc. could manage the whole thing.

I believe there were more lasers sold before they were an Olympic class than after.  Correct me if I am wrong. And, how many sales were dependent on the Laser being an olympic class boat. If other countries or the ILCA have a problem with this then open the door to solve it or it becomes their problem.The group posting on here could focus on the NA class staying on the water and not under it. If the N A class would not support itself then, maybe its time is up.  All the existing dinghy shops could supply parts.  The NALCA could use any of these symbols along with a web site for approval of parts or suppliers. https://www.google.com/search?q=laser+symbol&tbm=isch&source=univ&client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs_8nQ3vLhAhXHwFkKHS1fABgQsAR6BAgHEAE&biw=1333&bih=608.

It becomes apparent that the US Laser sailors are not being served by their present association and builders.  When the association members are not put first, the class rules are more protective of the builders than the members. This thread has become so stagnant, a revolution would be much more exciting.

Wow do I agree everything you said but with two important changes...

1.) "It becomes apparent that the GRASS ROOTS CLUB LEVEL...."  I think its fair to say that high level sailors... including anyone who travels to a class regatta are served pretty well by the class association. 

Everything you describe would benefit grass roots club level sailors... those who don't travel so far and waid as to need supplied event boats.

2.) The class should support its members not its non members and ILCA members are mostly those traveling sailors, so...

Share this post


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

It's easy to have a very good comprehension of the class rules, and still disagree with you. There is a time and place for class rules, and a time and place for the wider rules. When one party has clearly breached the rules of the class (ie by preventing the inspection on which the rules depend) it is reasonable to take other legal measures to prevent worse ongoing damage.

 

 

Nice description of vigilantism 

The proper path was and still is available. Why the excuses? Print the ballot and conduct the vote!!

Why expose the association to unnecessary risk?? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Gouv - There is no intended or implied judgement in this but I honestly wonder if you are serious or trolling  with this continued line of argument.Few quick serious questions for you:

1.) Do you allow generic Laser parts and sails at the Easter regatta and technically isn't that against the rules? ( no and yes)

2.) Ignoring dotting i and crossing ts for a moment, assuming recent ILCA actions result in 1.) continued availability of boats in all territories at same or better service levels and price, 2.) retention of the Olympic slot, and 3.) same or improved level of supply of event boats at major regattas, do you agree that the outcome of ILCA's actions are good for the class? ( If the Class makes more money and can pay its employees more I suppose that is  good for the class. I don’t give a damn about what is good or bad for the class. I think the class should be used as a tool to promote and manage laser sailing ) 

3.) If your answer is yes to 1 and 2 why do you care about dotting i and crossing ts especially when none of us do that re #1. ( moot) 

4.) if your answer is no to 2, what would you have done differently.  Like them or not, sympathy for them or not, LPE has not done a stellar job by anyone's assessment, and solely and completely through their own stupidity they appear to have opened the door to allowing the class to terminate them for something better (and assuming their is a behind closed door agreement with WS, also not help with Olympic selection).

Bottom Line: I really don't see where the class had any option but to do exactly what they did, how they did it.   LPE stupidly opened the door. The class had to walk through it and did.  Deal with the fallback afterwards.

( as I have repeatedly stated. LP has not been good for NA Laser sailing. I would have printed a ballot and held an election to remove the Laser IP requirement for our toy builders when it was first abused by the IP owners many years ago. Given dictatorial control I wouid have renamed the boat Fart and called the association the Fartblossoming Society. Then I would have struck deals  with companies to build our toys and support our game. ) 

 

So there!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gouvernail - LOL.  OK I give up.

And I think you are going to get your vote.  In time.  This would be the wrong time for many reasons.  But if WS and ILCA are in lock step as expected (and irregardless of the WS statement today) then I bet the vote passes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like I am not a lone wolf voicing my ILCA procedural concerns:

https://www.sail-world.com/news/216823/World-Sailing-issues-statement-on-ILCA-status

from the article :

 

“Rule 31 of the ICLA Class Rules can only be amended after a four-step approval process Amendments to these Rules shall be approved by each of: (a) the World Council, (b) the Advisory Council, (c) at least two-thirds of the membership casting a vote in response to a ballot published by the International Office of the Class. Only those votes submitted within one month from the date of publication of the rule change ballot shall be valid, and (d) World Sailing.”

Changes to the ILCA Constitution require a similar process to Class Rule changes, except that World Sailing approval is not required, and the window for postal voting is six months, not one month.

It appears to be a question of whether Man is made to serve the Rules, or are the Rules to serve Man?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is this one whose author thinks the WS statement appears to rein in my fellow Austinite:

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sailweb.co.uk/2019/04/28/laser-statement-if-its-not-one-thing-its-another/amp/

From the article :

 

“Also a statement by Eric Faust, Executive Secretary of ILCA, at that time appeared to indicate World Sailing knowledge and agreement of the ILCA actions.

Eric Faust said that, “After recent discussions with World Sailing leadership, we’re assured that we have their full support with this changeover, especially since we now have the opportunity to comply fully with World Sailing’s fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing requirements for Olympic equipment.”

Apparently World Sailing is concerned that these recent public statements overstate conversations with World Sailing officials.

World Sailing’s statement issued Saturday (27 Apr) states:

‘World Sailing is aware of the current dispute between the international class association (ILCA) and its main manufacturer (Laser Performance). 

Both parties have kept World Sailing informed of their position and the information will be considered as part of the ongoing Equipment Selection Process for the Paris 2024 Men’s and Women’s One Person Dinghy.

World Sailing is committed to following its published procedures for this process and it will be for the World Sailing Council to make a decision on the Equipment for the Men’s and Women’s One Person Dinghy Events having received the recommendation and report of the Equipment Committee.

However, World Sailing is concerned that recent public statements overstate conversations with World Sailing officials.

World Sailing has not endorsed or pre-approved the proposed name change of the Laser to the ILCA Dinghy. World Sailing’s Board of Directors and Senior Management Team have continuously maintained a position that World Sailing will deal with any applications for class rule changes when they are made by ILCA to World Sailing.

To date, World Sailing has received no class rule change requests related to the name of the boat and, if formally made, World Sailing will process any applications in accordance with the relevant World Sailing Regulations.”

Share this post


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

It looks like I am not a lone wolf voicing my ILCA procedural concerns:

https://www.sail-world.com/news/216823/World-Sailing-issues-statement-on-ILCA-status

from the article :

 

“Rule 31 of the ICLA Class Rules can only be amended after a four-step approval process Amendments to these Rules shall be approved by each of: (a) the World Council, (b) the Advisory Council, (c) at least two-thirds of the membership casting a vote in response to a ballot published by the International Office of the Class. Only those votes submitted within one month from the date of publication of the rule change ballot shall be valid, and (d) World Sailing.”

Changes to the ILCA Constitution require a similar process to Class Rule changes, except that World Sailing approval is not required, and the window for postal voting is six months, not one month.

It appears to be a question of whether Man is made to serve the Rules, or are the Rules to serve Man?

Yup - to change a rule you need a vote. But right now, the rules contains the following definition:

DEFINITION OF BUILDER

A Builder is a manufacturer that has the rights to use a Laser trademark, is manufacturing the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual, and has been approved as a Laser Builder by each of World Sailing and the International Laser Class Association.

LCE is no longer approved by ILCA  so they are no longer a Builder. Done. No vote required. Now, if you want to change this rule so this decision becomes subject to a vote, then (ironically) you need to take a vote. ILCA has not broken anything in disapproving LPE.

The only thing WS has stated they have not acknowledged is the name of the boat:

World Sailing has not endorsed or pre-approved the proposed name change of the Laser to the ILCA Dinghy. 

Making the name change to ILCA Dinghy throughout the rules will require a vote, as it is a change to the rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That simply isn’t true.  No one denies ILCA have the authority to appoint (or unappoint) builders.  But para 1 of the constitution makes it clear the class is called the International Laser Class Association and Para 2 makes clear that the class insignia is the recognised Laser insignia.  

To therefore change the name or the insignia is a change of constitution that should have been conducted through the proper process I.e. a class vote with two thirds majority.

Regardless of whether Rastegar is a an utter bastard, ILCA can not just ignore their constitutional obligations.  The end does not justify the means,  mein fuhrer.

Share this post


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

That simply isn’t true.  No one denies ILCA have the authority to appoint (or unappoint) builders.  But para 1 of the constitution makes it clear the class is called the International Laser Class Association and Para 2 makes clear that the class insignia is the recognised Laser insignia.  

To therefore change the name or the insignia is a change of constitution that should have been conducted through the proper process I.e. a class vote with two thirds majority.

Regardless of whether Rastegar is a an utter bastard, ILCA can not just ignore their constitutional obligations.  The end does not justify the means,  mein fuhrer.

I said the name change needs a vote 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but it hasn’t had one... surely you can’t hold the vote retrospectively?

Share this post


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

Fair enough, but it hasn’t had one... surely you can’t hold the vote retrospectively?

Well, WS has called it a "proposed" name change. Not sure why they didn't mention the insignia. There is no doubt ILCA jumped the gun on this. I guess they need to take a mulligan and take these two items to the membership for a vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LP double down on accusing ILCA of treating LCMA infringements inconsistently.

https://www.laserperformance.uk/ilca-news?lang=en

The ILCA letters to Performance Sailcraft Australia (copied below) reprimand PSA for building 2,280 illegal Lasers from 2006 to 2015 – a period of nine years. It only stopped when LaserPerformance analyzed the Australian boats and reported the results to ILCA requiring them to investigate. Putting aside the question what exactly ILCA was inspecting when they visited PSA’s factory, one needs to ask why PSA was not removed as a builder? Instead, the Laser Construction Manual was revised to make the changes class legal much to the detriment of Laser class sailors and racing. No notification of the breach in protocol was reported to World Sailing or to the Laser community at large.

l’m not sure this is LP’s best defence, but it’s good sport to see more dirty laundry come out!

Share this post


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

Well, WS has called it a "proposed" name change. Not sure why they didn't mention the insignia. There is no doubt ILCA jumped the gun on this. I guess they need to take a mulligan and take these two items to the membership for a vote. 

Hmmm, not proposed so much as stated:

Austin, Texas, USA (25 April 2019) – In the wake of last month’s termination of its contract with its European builder, the International Laser Class Association (ILCA) announced today that, from 25 April 2019, all new class-approved boats will be sold and raced under the “ILCA Dinghy” name. This change will have no impact on existing ILCA-authorized boats and equipment, which will be able to race alongside ILCA Dinghies in all class-sanctioned events.

It would be confusing, embarrassing and harmful to ILCA’s reputation to have to withdraw these changes.

I would be amazed if World Sailing could now come to the conclusion that this boat is the best choice for the 2024 Olympics.  Regardless of how wide spread it is and how, fundamentally, the alternatives are not substantially “better” boats, the supply chain risks are now surely too great.  

The narrative has changed from “unnecessary risk to change class for little benefit” to “too risky to keep this class that is embroiled in dispute and has no builders in place for most of the world”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

LP double down on accusing ILCA of treating LCMA infringements inconsistently.

https://www.laserperformance.uk/ilca-news?lang=en

The ILCA letters to Performance Sailcraft Australia (copied below) reprimand PSA for building 2,280 illegal Lasers from 2006 to 2015 – a period of nine years. It only stopped when LaserPerformance analyzed the Australian boats and reported the results to ILCA requiring them to investigate. Putting aside the question what exactly ILCA was inspecting when they visited PSA’s factory, one needs to ask why PSA was not removed as a builder? Instead, the Laser Construction Manual was revised to make the changes class legal much to the detriment of Laser class sailors and racing. No notification of the breach in protocol was reported to World Sailing or to the Laser community at large.

l’m not sure this is LP’s best defence, but it’s good sport to see more dirty laundry come out!

I must admit I have trusted since I took up Laser sailing almost 40 years ago that the International Laser Class was ensuring - through inspections and strict enforcement of the Construction Manual - that Lasers built at different times and in different places by different builders were as identical as could possibly be achieved.

Apparently my trust was misplaced. How could PSA build 2,280 illegal Lasers over a period of nine years without ILCA knowing about it?

https://www.laserperformance.uk/ilca-news?lang=en

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Apparently my trust was misplaced. How could PSA build 2,280 illegal Lasers over a period of nine years without ILCA knowing about it?

The current model seems unsustainable.  Perhaps this laser history played a  part in  why World Sailing wrote the rules for the Nacra 17 Olympic class giving World Sailing a major role in these kinds of issues.  Even before the N17... world sailing was mandating also sorts of production standards for the carbon mast production for the Tornado. (ISO 9000 certification or something)  I can't imagine they won't have a large say in the build of  this  ILCA boat.

It seems as if there are two arguments for the wisdom of the laser construction manual method.   Maintain boat value  to the owner / class member because the boat is guaranteed to match the class design specs  year after year and Maintain an absolutely level playing field for competition based  strictly on Sailing.... guaranteed because they provide boats for championships.

I has always seemed to me that the "maintain boat value mechanism" was more of a marketing technique.   Any competitive owner was and did purchase a new boat for a major event....evidence that the laws of physics were not suspended.  But to make that system work... you had to sell the old boat   SO ...  everyone agreed that the naked emperor looked fabulous in his new suit of clothes..   Much easier to sell the old boat in this world and everybody was happy.  

The level playing field  ideal was hammered home and  managed by  providing boats for the elite events.  Again, I remember the marketing pitch at boat shows.  Join us... we care about the absolute level playing field.... unlike those cheaper knockoffs.... that is why you buy a laser from me and JOIN the class association.    I remember distinguishing the psychology behind this at the boat show....   Of course you have to sell the boats in the region after the championship and they marketed the great deal/value in getting a boat used for just 3 or 4 weeks. (So...a two fer... marketing and competition leveling)

It seems to me that ILCA should make sure everyone is on board with the "Make Laser Great Again" strategy  versus what plan will get the 20 to 40 somethings out to race in Lasers again.  The fact that World Sailing just managed a dinghy trials of many acceptable alternatives for the pinnacle of dinghy sailing must call into question the  strategy of Make Laser Great Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple truth:

The cutoff of LP did not come after LP was the most supportive To RCing LSer Builder ever. It did not come after LP had maintained the best dealer network. It did not come after sails  and parts supplies were simply fantastic. It did not come after the IKCA officers and LP executives were seen vacationing together and socializing at every opportunity. It did not come after LP showed a history of creating slightly out of spec boats. It did not come after numerous parts failures and a refusal to provide warranty service. 

The entire reason LP was cut off was not a doorman at LP who said, “You cannot come in this afternoon.”

.,,,,

it will be interesting when and if the entire story comes out. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I must admit I have trusted since I took up Laser sailing almost 40 years ago that the International Laser Class was ensuring - through inspections and strict enforcement of the Construction Manual - that Lasers built at different times and in different places by different builders were as identical as could possibly be achieved.

Apparently my trust was misplaced. How could PSA build 2,280 illegal Lasers over a period of nine years without ILCA knowing about it?

https://www.laserperformance.uk/ilca-news?lang=en

Allegations do not equal evidence.  All the LPE piece shows is that ILCA passed on allegations made by LPE and requested PSA to go to arbitration. The ILCA letter notes that PSA did not admit the allegation. The fact that ILCA put the allegations to PSA is just good management and follows the rules of procedural fairness.  If the PSA boats were clearly illegal, the arbitration may well have come to a conclusion other than "let's keep this all quiet".

In addition, three years ago PSA said "There is a new Hull Laminate in all new Lasers, LP started this a little before PSA, we started it in Jan of this year. Hulls are a lot stiffer and the lumps and bumps gone." See https://www.lasersailing.com.au/laser-mast-rake-explained/    So if we are going to just accept every allegation made by a Laser builder then we must also accept PSA's allegation that LPE adopted a new hull laminate first.  One LPE piece referred to " LCM option differences adopted by the 3 builders".  Thay may mean that there are legal "options" available to builders and therefore the fact that LPE and PSA chose different "LCM options" does not mean that one of them breached any rule.

Just about the most important rule of investigation is that you don't just accept the allegations made by a party, so we should we just accept everything LPE, PSA or ILCA says in this case?  

Share this post


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

Nice description of vigilantism 

The proper path was and still is available. Why the excuses? Print the ballot and conduct the vote!!

Why expose the association to unnecessary risk?? 

 

 

Oh bullshit it's "vigilantism". Vigilantes break the law. The point is that ILCA may not be breaking the law at all. 

Share this post


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

Oh bullshit it's "vigilantism". Vigilantes break the law. The point is that ILCA may not be breaking the law at all. 

@Curious Yiu sure do post a lot of strong opinions for a guy who prefers to remain anonymous. Why is it you are so ashamed of what you write here? Do you actually have different opinions or do you fear that your real life associates wouid consider your positions and writings  to be absurd? 

Edited Note: I enjoyed your writings about singlehanded  big  boat sailing. And It probably isn’t hard to identify you after all. 

 

I was referring to the officers’ actions With respect to their position as officers of the International Laser Class Association . I was not referring to laws of governments. Governments couldn’t give a Rat’s patootie who builds the toys we use to chase each other around buoys.  Our officers wouldn’t be breaking laws if they changed the game to bowling and approved condoms filled with water for the bowling balls. 

Here is something to help you understand my use of vigilantism. It is the first thing that came up when I googled vigilantism 

*********

A Law Library online encyclopedia defines Vigilantism as, “The act of taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to enact justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, ...

******

As you can see, I was referring to the actions of our well meaning officers who, rather than follow the club rules, skipped the “everybody gets to vote on this” part, and took matters into their own hands. 

 

Share this post


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

Allegations do not equal evidence.  All the LPE piece shows is that ILCA passed on allegations made by LPE and requested PSA to go to arbitration. The ILCA letter notes that PSA did not admit the allegation. 

The March letter says that Chris Caldecot, the GM of PSA, had (at an ILCA Technical and Measurement Committee Meeting) confirmed the existence of the additional CSM in the boats identified. 

Share this post


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

The March letter says that Chris Caldecot, the GM of PSA, had (at an ILCA Technical and Measurement Committee Meeting) confirmed the existence of the additional CSM in the boats identified. 

The March letter says that Chris Caldecot, the GM of PSA, had (at an ILCA Technical and Measurement Committee Meeting) confirmed the existence of the additional CSM in the boats identified. 

Yes, the March letter claimed that he confirmed the existence, but claiming that something occurred does not mean it did.  We don't know what Chris Caldecot's response was to the ILCA claims. Did he say yes, there was additional CSM but it fitted within the "option differences"?  Did he say there was a problem with one batch, and prove that to ILCA's satisfaction? Did he admit that the boats had been modified but say that LPE did it first and there had been a tacit or explicit agreement to do so, to make the boats more durabvle? Did he admit that PSA had modified the layup to make faster boats? Did he say that they had modified the layup to make the boats last longer? Did he break down in tears, or threaten to deliver horse's heads to the ILCA committee?  The point is that we just don't know!

Do you believe that LPE changed the layup before PSA did, as Caldecoat alleged in 2016?  If you do, does that mean that LPE contravened the builder's manual? Maybe they did, in response to PSA doing it first. Maybe they didn't. But surely we must be consistent - we cannot accept what LPE says uncritical AND what ILCA says uncritically AND what PSA says uncritically.

We just cannot take any allegations as fact, when they are nothing but unproven allegations. 

 

Share this post


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

@Curious Yiu sure do post a lot of strong opinions for a guy who prefers to remain anonymous. Why is it you are so ashamed of what you write here? Do you actually have different opinions or do you fear that your real life associates wouid consider your positions and writings  to be absurd? 

Edited Note: I enjoyed your writings about singlehanded  big  boat sailing. And It probably isn’t hard to identify you after all. 

 

I was referring to the officers’ actions With respect to their position as officers of the International Laser Class Association . I was not referring to laws of governments. Governments couldn’t give a Rat’s patootie who builds the toys we use to chase each other around buoys.  Our officers wouldn’t be breaking laws if they changed the game to bowling and approved condoms filled with water for the bowling balls. 

Here is something to help you understand my use of vigilantism. It is the first thing that came up when I googled vigilantism 

*********

A Law Library online encyclopedia defines Vigilantism as, “The act of taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to enact justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, ...

******

As you can see, I was referring to the actions of our well meaning officers who, rather than follow the club rules, skipped the “everybody gets to vote on this” part, and took matters into their own hands. 

 

I'm not actually posting strong opinions much; I'm not the one who is saying what ILCA should do or saying that anyone's uncorroborated claims must be correct. I'm generally raising issues and discussing the evidence and possibilities.

Yes, maybe ILCA could have done things better. Maybe you or I would have done things differently.  But they are hard working volunteers and we are sitting on the sidelines on this issue. I would rather defend volunteers (or raise factual issues with their ideas, as in the CII thread) than abuse them. YMMV.

I do know, from attending AGMs and reading, that LPE's refusal to cooperate with the class on issues like the carbon topmast has been a thorn in the side of the class for years. I do know - because ILCA officials have admitted it at AGMs - that there is personal frustration involved. Maybe they got too emotional, or maybe they realised he would play hard ball in other ways. I'll give them the courtesy of an open mind rather than saying I know it all.

As far as being anonymous goes - this is the internet, and SA. The vast majority of people here are anonymous. I know you are convinced that you are perfect and all-knowing because of your attacks on me in another place, on an issue in which I have years of experience and you have precisely none. But you don't get to decide the etiquette for the net or SA.

 

Share this post


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

Can we take that as fact?? 

45AA73C3-F857-452E-AD46-70D0BC7B053C.gif

Well, logically anyone who accepts whatever they read MUST take accept it when someone writes that they shouldn't accept everything they read.......

Share this post


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

 

As far as being anonymous goes - this is the internet, and SA. The vast majority of people here are anonymous. I know you are convinced that you are perfect and all-knowing because of your attacks on me in another place, on an issue in which I have years of experience and you have precisely none. But you don't get to decide the etiquette for the net or SA.

 

Well I sure am sorry I attacked an anonymous guy when I knew nothing about whatever subject it was. It seems like a wasted few minutes,,, at least I didn’t attack anybody real.

as for volunteers... the Executive Secretary of ILCA job is a full time paid position. 

Further, I am not complaining about the amount of effort per dollar or level of caring. I am, however, not pleased that our Employee and the Class president have not yet started the voting process which, if it were completed a long time ago,  wouid have made the replacement of a difficult to deal with builder a whole lot simpler. 

 

Share this post


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

Well, logically anyone who accepts whatever they read MUST take accept it when someone writes that they shouldn't accept everything they read.......

I like it!! 

Share this post


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

The March letter says that Chris Caldecot, the GM of PSA, had (at an ILCA Technical and Measurement Committee Meeting) confirmed the existence of the additional CSM in the boats identified. 

So don't we now go back to all the laser events conducted, and disqualify these hulls? 

And if they were prepared to do this, what have they done for their 'mates', family? I wonder if there is a whole other private market for "enhanced" laser hulls that exists?

Surely ILCA exist to make sure this doesn't happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flags, would you be happy if people just accepted that anything anyone says about you must be true?  Would you be happy if you were DSQd on allegations that were totally uncorroborated and un-tested, like the allegations LPE has made?

Seriously - do you want to live in a world where an allegation is taken to be guilt?  

It's actually rather revolting that people are prepared to slur people on charges of corruption or negligence, with absolutely no real evidence. 

Share this post


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

It's actually rather revolting that people are prepared to slur volunteers on charges of corruption or negligence, with absolutely no real evidence. 

Happens all the damn time though. The major UK based sailing forum no longer gets any posts from volunteers involved in the administration of PY in the UK  because of the level of such abuse.

Share this post


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

Seriously - do you want to live in a world where an allegation is taken to be guilt?  

I’m with you there, but it looks to me like ILCA made the allegation that LP refused to be inspected and then alleged WS supported the change of name. LP and WS both deny these allegations. 

Worse, ILCA did not, as a matter of fact, then seek membership approval before changing the name and logo as required by clause 17 of the constitution. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m with you there, but it looks to me like ILCA made the allegation that LP refused to be inspected 

No, LP have confirmed that they refused to be inspected by ILCA. They said they wanted someone else instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s an important distinction though. LP did not (they claim) refuse to be inspected. They refused to let ILCA conduct the inspection. They requested (they claim) an inspection from World Sailing. 

So the allegation that LP refused to be inspected is not proven. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure World Sailing do these kind of inspections. At least for Optimist, the class rules state: 

3.2.2 Hull Measurement Rules (see also CR 3.1) For GRP hulls, World Sailing or IODA will require samples of the hull laminates to check compliance with the Class Rules. A builder shall permit an approved measurer or class representative to inspect work at any time during production of hulls.

 

GRP Hull Prototype Measurement: It is obligatory for all builders of GRP hulls to ensure that any prototype hull measures correctly before series production commences. Nonprofessional builders shall ensure that the first hull built in any mould shall be measured as a prototype. Only measurers approved by World Sailing and the IODA shall measure prototypes. (see also CR 2.7.3.1)

 

Share this post


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

Flags, would you be happy if people just accepted that anything anyone says about you must be true?  Would you be happy if you were DSQd on allegations that were totally uncorroborated and un-tested, like the allegations LPE has made?

Seriously - do you want to live in a world where an allegation is taken to be guilt?  

It's actually rather revolting that people are prepared to slur people on charges of corruption or negligence, with absolutely no real evidence. 

Damn tootin!!!!!

i first posted in these forums sometime around 2002 because people were posting bullshit lies  about a guy from Chicago who I know to be capable of being a pain is the ass but I have never doubted his integrity 

I defended his right to have all sides considered before being lynched. He was lynched anyway.

i came back in 2006 because Brodie was bring lynched. I got hammered for “defending him” when in fact I was defending his right to have the hearings take place before he was lynched.

i got hammered for suggesting Andy should get to have his side heard.

i got hammered for suggesting Sandusky shouid have his side heard.

i got hammered, post Sandusky, for refusing to go along with hating all people from Pennsylvania. 

This place loves to assemble lynch  mobs. In fact, it has become so bad that failing to join a lynch mob is often considered to be lynching of the other side.

in fact, it has become somewhat societal to “take a side.”  I am a little bit supportive of LP, the ILCA officers, the European ILCA, the WS, the informed sailors, the ignorant sailors, and a little bit annoyed with each group as well. 

Neutrality is not seen as “He’s on our side.” My PM box says I am pissing  people off because I am questioning the side of the author’s rather than enthusiastically and blindly supporting one side or the other. 

 

it sure would  help if we could discuss all this stuff without screaming for absolutes

i actually don’t believe there are any bad guys in this shitfight. I do think there should be a whole lot more effort from EVERYONE to simply focus on building and putting Lasers under more assholes. ( unless the assholes are  being held out over the water in which case I want everybody to focus on putting Lasers under more feet, ankles, and shins. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

45 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

That’s an important distinction though. LP did not (they claim) refuse to be inspected. They refused to let ILCA conduct the inspection. They requested (they claim) an inspection from World Sailing. 

So the allegation that LP refused to be inspected is not proven. 

 

As noted by Jim C, LPE admit that they refused inspection; LPE said that it "has refused access to ILCA for inspection in May 2019 given the expiry of the ILCA license from 31 August 2019."  SInce both sides agree that LPE refused to allow ILCA to inspect the premises, it is hard to dispute it. It's a very different situation, as we seem to agree, to accepting just one side's account of the dispute.

LPE's motivation for the refusal, and the validity of the offer to invite WS in (NOT to do the inspection, they say, but "to participate in inspection of LP manufacturing by ILCA" may be in dispute, but that's another issue. One irony is that LPE ensured that its authorised representatives had the right to inspect ILCA's offices to inspect the stuff the class was producing with the Laser trademarks. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Happens all the damn time though. The major UK based sailing forum no longer gets any posts from volunteers involved in the administration of PY in the UK  because of the level of such abuse.

And it's a safe guess that those who complain would be the sort of people who don't volunteer at all themselves, but sit back and carp.

Share this post


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

Flags, would you be happy if people just accepted that anything anyone says about you must be true?  Would you be happy if you were DSQd on allegations that were totally uncorroborated and un-tested, like the allegations LPE has made?

Seriously - do you want to live in a world where an allegation is taken to be guilt?  

It's actually rather revolting that people are prepared to slur people on charges of corruption or negligence, with absolutely no real evidence. 

Its clearly a very sensitive topic, upon which I was trying to add some levity by the way of an extreme observation. I unreservedly apologise for upsetting you, I'm sure that PSA and all the other manufacturers have never done anything untoward during the manufacture of these boats. :)

Share this post


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

That’s an important distinction though. LP did not (they claim) refuse to be inspected. They refused to let ILCA conduct the inspection. They requested (they claim) an inspection from World Sailing. 

Nevertheless its not disputed that the regular inspection by the same body who have always carried out the inspections was refused.

There's no shortage of organisations who'd like to pick their own inspector. Its rarely considered a good thing though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Flag. It's sensitive because there are also other people who are gullible enough to believe everything one side says and to use that "information" to accuse ILCA's volunteers of dishonesty, inefficiency and perhaps corruption. That is a pretty scummy act.

 

Share this post


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

That’s an important distinction though. LP did not (they claim) refuse to be inspected. They refused to let ILCA conduct the inspection. They requested (they claim) an inspection from World Sailing. 

So the allegation that LP refused to be inspected is not proven. 

Important to whom?  Relative to the ILCA's ability to terminate LPE for cause all that matters is the language in the contract, no?  LPE dug the hole they found themselves in.  And then they kept digging.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Nice description of vigilantism 

The proper path was and still is available. Why the excuses? Print the ballot and conduct the vote!!

Why expose the association to unnecessary risk?? 

 

 

What risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will recall that in the Blow Torch thread I expressed an opinion that I thought the ILCA had a strong legal position in the prior dispute where Kirby and Global Sailing endeavored to sue the ILCA. The claim was eventually dismissed.

FWIW, I do not have the same good feeling about the ILCA's legal standing in the current situation. Of course, no law suits have been filed yet but I am guessing they will come .  There is a paucity of hard information so this is based partly on the limited facts we have and partly on the gut instincts of 38 years in the legal profession.  I dont know who is advising ILCA...I hope they are good.

Concern #1 :  ILCA are basing their actions on their view that Laser Performance are in breach of contract because they have not conformed with the "inspection" clause.  In order for ILCA to cancel the contract in its entirety, it is not enough for ILCA to merely demonstrate that there has been a breach of contract, they have to show that the breach is a "fundamental breach" or a repudiatory breach of contract. This entails a breach of contract that is so essential and so fundamental to the effectiveness of the obligations of the contract that the breach cannot be remedied and the non-breaching party is entitled to believe that the breaching party cannot and will not fulfill a material obligation of the contract.

  • A court less sensitive to the politics of sailing might justifiably question whether a suitable remedy would be an inspection by world sailing.
  • If I was LP, I might consider hiring an independent expert to inspect the boats and the facility to demonstrate that the boats themselves comply with the construction manual....and prepare an argument that if the boats comply with the construction manual, then has there been a "material breach"?
  • Finally, could LP remedy the breach by allowing a mutually approved inspector or even just relenting at the last minute and allowing an ILCA inspection?  All those new builders that the ILCA appointed would suddenly be left hanging.

Concern #2 :  The ILCA is withholding WS plaques.  Is the ILCA acting as principal or agent in the issuing of World sailing Plaques? Did WS send explicit written instructions to the ILCA instructing them in unambiguous terms to cease issuing plaques? 

Concern #3 : The new name for the dinghy is "The ILCA Dinghy"?  Ugh.  One thing is crystal clear in this mess is that the LP associated companies own a cast iron trade mark for the boat called the Laser. What does the "L" stand for in ILCA?  Good luck in trying to persuade a jury that it does not stand for "Laser". If a builder is producing an identical product to the product formerly produced by LP and alluding to the name Laser.... then I think all manner of claims are probably being prepared by LP's counsel. I can think of a half dozen off the bat.

Concern #4.  The ILCA class rules do not have a great deal of legal relevancy but where they do, they might appear to provide sloppy and weak protection for the ILCA.   On a strict reading of the rules by a lawyer, I am speculating that the LP lasers comply with the rules except that the plaques are being withheld (see concern #2 above)

I EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS CONJECTURE and uniformed personal opinion because , like all of us, I dont have the full facts in front of me. I am just sharing a few concerns that spring to mind.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Yup - to change a rule you need a vote. But right now, the rules contains the following definition:

DEFINITION OF BUILDER

A Builder is a manufacturer that has the rights to use a Laser trademark, is manufacturing the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual, and has been approved as a Laser Builder by each of World Sailing and the International Laser Class Association.

LCE is no longer approved by ILCA  so they are no longer a Builder. Done. No vote required. Now, if you want to change this rule so this decision becomes subject to a vote, then (ironically) you need to take a vote. ILCA has not broken anything in disapproving LPE.

The only thing WS has stated they have not acknowledged is the name of the boat:

World Sailing has not endorsed or pre-approved the proposed name change of the Laser to the ILCA Dinghy. 

Making the name change to ILCA Dinghy throughout the rules will require a vote, as it is a change to the rules.

 

Except that the rule was written by sailing rule writers and not written by lawyers.

 "has been approved as a Laser Builder"  has a different meaning in law to " is currently approved as a Laser Builder and remains approved as a laser builder by each......"

FWIW, in the humble opinion of this commentator, World Sailing is correct to be concerned about a proposed name change to the ILCA Dinghy.  One wonders if (for a small lifetime fee) a certain Bruce Kirby would be amenable to the name the "Kirby Dinghy".  It would actually be a helpful name for a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Kirby authorised ILCA to control the builders via his build document then only Kirby or ILCA can do the inspection

Where does WS come into it

the Nacra 17 was a cluster due to the one builder and faulty mast design, hence the court cases running to sue WS.

The more builders the better

Share this post


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

if Kirby authorised ILCA to control the builders via his build document then only Kirby or ILCA can do the inspection

Where does WS come into it

the Nacra 17 was a cluster due to the one builder and faulty mast design, hence the court cases running to sue WS.

The more builders the better

The inspection by WS was a condition in the Olympic selection tender.

Share this post


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

The inspection by WS was a condition in the Olympic selection tender.

So that might settle the 'is it a one design and can it sail in the Olympics' but how about the kirby build doc ilca issue?

ILCA should be IKirby TorchA

this domain was created Jan 2019

http://www.ikta.org/

Share this post


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

Except that the rule was written by sailing rule writers and not written by lawyers.

 "has been approved as a Laser Builder"  has a different meaning in law to " is currently approved as a Laser Builder and remains approved as a laser builder by each......"

FWIW, in the humble opinion of this commentator, World Sailing is correct to be concerned about a proposed name change to the ILCA Dinghy.  One wonders if (for a small lifetime fee) a certain Bruce Kirby would be amenable to the name the "Kirby Dinghy".  It would actually be a helpful name for a lawyer.

Seems a bit like the class is trying to take control of its own destiny.  If so and they are going to break free.. then break free of all the mess! and be beholden to nobody.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Except that the rule was written by sailing rule writers and not written by lawyers.

So "has been approved as a Laser Builder"  has a very different meaning in law to " is currently approved as a Laser Builder and remains approved as a laser builder by each......"

I am not sure how much of the Constitution and Rules were written/reviewed by lawyers. I can't imagine there was no legal input.

 

1 minute ago, Sailabout said:

So that might settle the 'is it a one design and can it sail in the Olympics' but how about the kirby build doc ilca issue?

ILCA should be IKirby TorchA

It just answers the question you put forward "Where does WS come into it". LPE saying they "asked" WS to do an inspection sounds suspect to me. 

Share this post


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

You will recall that in the Blow Torch thread I expressed an opinion that I thought the ILCA had a strong legal position in the prior dispute where Kirby and Global Sailing endeavored to sue the ILCA. The claim was eventually dismissed.

FWIW, I do not have the same good feeling about the ILCA's legal standing in the current situation. Of course, no law suits have been filed yet but I am guessing they will come .  There is a paucity of hard information so this is based partly on the limited facts we have and partly on the gut instincts of 38 years in the legal profession.  I dont know who is advising ILCA...I hope they are good.

Concern #1 :  ILCA are basing their actions on their view that Laser Performance are in breach of contract because they have not conformed with the "inspection" clause.  In order for ILCA to cancel the contract in its entirety, it is not enough for ILCA to merely demonstrate that there has been a breach of contract, they have to show that the breach is a "fundamental breach" or a repudiatory breach of contract. This entails a breach of contract that is so essential and so fundamental to the effectiveness of the obligations of the contract that the breach cannot be remedied and the non-breaching party is entitled to believe that the breaching party cannot and will not fulfill a material obligation of the contract.

  • A court less sensitive to the politics of sailing might justifiably question whether a suitable remedy would be an inspection by world sailing.
  • If I was LP, I might consider hiring an independent expert to inspect the boats and the facility to demonstrate that the boats themselves comply with the construction manual....and prepare an argument that if the boats comply with the construction manual, then has there been a "material breach"?
  • Finally, could LP remedy the breach by allowing a mutually approved inspector or even just relenting at the last minute and allowing an ILCA inspection?  All those new builders that the ILCA appointed would suddenly be left hanging.

Concern #2 :  The ILCA is withholding WS plaques.  Is the ILCA acting as principal or agent in the issuing of World sailing Plaques? Did WS send explicit written instructions to the ILCA instructing them in unambiguous terms to cease issuing plaques? 

Concern #3 : The new name for the dinghy is "The ILCA Dinghy"?  Ugh.  One thing is crystal clear in this mess is that the LP associated companies own a cast iron trade mark for the boat called the Laser. What does the "L" stand for in ILCA?  Good luck in trying to persuade a jury that it does not stand for "Laser". If a builder is producing an identical product to the product formerly produced by LP and alluding to the name Laser.... then I think all manner of claims are probably being prepared by LP's counsel. I can think of a half dozen off the bat.

Concern #4.  The ILCA class rules do not have a great deal of legal relevancy but where they do, they might appear to provide sloppy and weak protection for the ILCA.   On a strict reading of the rules by a lawyer, I am speculating that the LP lasers comply with the rules except that the plaques are being withheld (see concern #2 above)

I EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS CONJECTURE and uniformed personal opinion because , like all of us, I dont have the full facts in front of me. I am just sharing a few concerns that spring to mind.

Thanks for posting that.  Interesting view re #1.

I wonder if ILCA is using same counsel as last time around.

Share this post


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

So that might settle the 'is it a one design and can it sail in the Olympics' but how about the kirby build doc ilca issue?

ILCA should be IKirby TorchA

this domain was created Jan 2019

http://www.ikta.org/

What is this Kirby build doc to which you refer?

AFAIK, no such thing has ever existed.  Ian Bruce prepared the first build document and subsequently all the parties agreed that it would be controlled by WS and ILCA. Do you have something we dont have?

Share this post


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

I am not sure how much of the Constitution and Rules were written/reviewed by lawyers. I can't imagine there was no legal input.

 

It just answers the question you put forward "Where does WS come into it". LPE saying they "asked" WS to do an inspection sounds suspect to me. 

Hmm,  quoting from the LP FAQ section on their website:

+----------

6. Why has LP not allowed inspection of Laser manufacturing facilities

• It should be noted that ILCA has not inspected LP manufacturing since June 2015.

• LP has refused access to ILCA for inspection in March 2019 given the expiry of the ILCA license from 31 August 2019.

• LP has offered and World Sailing has agreed to participate in inspection of LP manufacturing by ILCA.

• The issue is not about non-compliance by LP, it is about ILCA’s lack of a proper inspection regime.

• It is an absolute responsibility of the class to inspect its builders. ILCA have not done so for the past four years whilst issuing plaques to LP. This attests to the strong compliance culture and commitment of LP to One Design.

7. Is LP cooperating with World Sailing?

LP has met with World Sailing and has fully briefed and discussed its position. They have indicated that they would be willing to participate in a meeting with ILCA. WS has also confirmed that it stands ready to participate in an inspection of LP manufacturing.

+-----------

 So, LP have published a statement that WS has agreed to participate in an inspection by ILCA, and further that WS have confirmed they stand ready to do so.  

  It's also worth noting that WS have challenged ILCA's claim that they have WS's "full support", stating that they have not approved any official class or manufacturers position; and LP are not claiming to have that "approval", claiming only that WS have agreed to participate in an inspection.

 I remain curious about how the UK Nationals will play out: LP are sponsoring the event and supplying new boats for charter. Given that UKLA have indicated that non-plaqued boats could be subject to protest, I wonder if LP will have to supply "new old stock" hulls for charter?

Cheers,

               W.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Okay Flag. It's sensitive because there are also other people who are gullible enough to believe everything one side says and to use that "information" to accuse ILCA's volunteers of dishonesty, inefficiency and perhaps corruption. That is a pretty scummy act.

 

You keep referring to “volunteers.”

President  Tracy has an unpaid position that chews up as much time as some full time jobs. The ILaserCA often picks up thevtab on his travel and even an occasional place to stay but Volunteer is an accurate description.

The other person whose  name is on most of the ILaserCA  statements is our full time PAID employee. He has a salary, and some benefits. Wherever he goes and whatever he does, if it can be called  class business, we pick up the tab. 

Summary: The two people primarily involved are our President and our paid employee. 

And... The North American Laser Class announcements related to this issue have been posted by the PAID employee who serves as NA-ILASERCA executive secretary . 

Share this post


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

Hmm,  quoting from the LP FAQ section on their website:

+----------

6. Why has LP not allowed inspection of Laser manufacturing facilities

• LP has offered and World Sailing has agreed to participate in inspection of LP manufacturing by ILCA.

7. Is LP cooperating with World Sailing?

LP has met with World Sailing and has fully briefed and discussed its position. They have indicated that they would be willing to participate in a meeting with ILCA. WS has also confirmed that it stands ready to participate in an inspection of LP manufacturing.

 

I guess WS has amended Phase 2 of their tender process. 

Phase 2 steps:

(1) Evaluation of shortlisted tenderers on the basis of Profesional Qualification (see Section 11);

(2) Visits to production and/or assembly sites for shortlisted tenderers by World Sailing Technical and Offshore Department Staff;

So it sounds like the visits became more of a "we might visit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv - I love the view from the place where you say you are going to but sure don't like the path you take to get there.  Do you think the employee has gone rogue... or is he following direction of the volunteers?  Do you think either the employee or volunteers have any personal vested financial interest in the path the class is on?  I think I know your answer to both those questions so I just can't understand why you continually walk around spilling gasoline on the floor and haphazardly tossing lit matches into the puddles.  So unfair to people who can't defend themselves.  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn’t in any way shape or form disparaging our employees. I was simply explainimg the fact our organization has never been a “volunteer ILaserCA.”

the fact we have ALWAYS had psid employee’s is likely the reason iour game has been so successful.

in fact , if our employees only worked as many hours as it took to be paid the same hourly rate as the typical class member gets at his /her paid job, they wouldn’t do anywhere near half the work they do . 

Volunteers?? No

in it for the love of the game?  Hell yes!!

Note: LP keeps suggesting we set up a professionally run organization. Every time I read that I think to myself, “That must really piss off mr Faust.”

...

summary. I may be tossing gasoline t the fire every time the flames go down a bit, but I am have not and will not suggest either Eric or Tracy is involved in some sort of bullshit conspiracy. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like between the (all alleged) new rigs, no trademark agreement renewal, no inspection, non CM boats, new name, new club Lasers, build contract termination and timing of votes and WS announcements re Olympic slot recommendations and decision there is enough freaking things on fire already.   Not to mention IPL's thoughtful analysis.  Maybe put the gasoline away?  Just sayin...  :)

Share this post


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

  Maybe put the gasoline away?  Just sayin...  :)

Does that include all the Socks?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Does that include all the Socks?

Which posts in this thread, “other than Gouvernail,” do you believe are authored by the writer who posts as Gouvernail?

note: Anyone can play!! This should be fun!! 

Share this post


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

I wish this thread would come to a happy ending, but I don't see that happening anytime soon...

:(

Just don’t go where Kraft went. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Summary: The two people primarily involved are our President and our paid employee. 

Where is your evidence that the VP, Regional Chairs, technical head and others were not equally involved? At least one of them gives the very strong impression that he is.

Share this post


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

Which posts in this thread, “other than Gouvernail,” do you believe are authored by the writer who posts as Gouvernail?

note: Anyone can play!! This should be fun!! 

Are you me?

1 minute ago, Curious said:

Where is your evidence that the VP, Regional Chairs, technical head and others were not equally involved? At least one of them gives the very strong impression that he is.

Does it matter? ILCA as a body are not above accountability.

Share this post


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

Where is your evidence that the VP, Regional Chairs, technical head and others were not equally involved? At least one of them gives the very strong impression that he is.

All I have is the various announcements  and authors of those announcements. 

There is also some stuff ( quoted by others in this thread) from at least a couple folks in Europe whose affiliation with the ILaserCA has been described. 

 

@Curious Please do not get the impression I am stating Eric and Tracy are off on some nefarious evil mission. 

With the exception of setting up the proper voting about the changes they are attempting to make ( about which I know each of them is aware ) I am 100% certain Eric and Tracy are doing what each of them feels is the very best thing. 

Please do not get the impression or attempt to impress others I have any other position

 

 

Share this post


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

Are you me?

 

I thought you were Johnny Cash!!!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And lost in this whole irrelevant tangent is a nice thoughtful analysis by IPL.  :mellow:

Share this post


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

You will recall that in the Blow Torch thread I expressed an opinion that I thought the ILCA had a strong legal position in the prior dispute where Kirby and Global Sailing endeavored to sue the ILCA. The claim was eventually dismissed.

FWIW, I do not have the same good feeling about the ILCA's legal standing in the current situation. Of course, no law suits have been filed yet but I am guessing they will come .  There is a paucity of hard information so this is based partly on the limited facts we have and partly on the gut instincts of 38 years in the legal profession.  I dont know who is advising ILCA...I hope they are good.

Concern #1 :  ILCA are basing their actions on their view that Laser Performance are in breach of contract because they have not conformed with the "inspection" clause.  In order for ILCA to cancel the contract in its entirety, it is not enough for ILCA to merely demonstrate that there has been a breach of contract, they have to show that the breach is a "fundamental breach" or a repudiatory breach of contract. This entails a breach of contract that is so essential and so fundamental to the effectiveness of the obligations of the contract that the breach cannot be remedied and the non-breaching party is entitled to believe that the breaching party cannot and will not fulfill a material obligation of the contract.

  • A court less sensitive to the politics of sailing might justifiably question whether a suitable remedy would be an inspection by world sailing.
  • If I was LP, I might consider hiring an independent expert to inspect the boats and the facility to demonstrate that the boats themselves comply with the construction manual....and prepare an argument that if the boats comply with the construction manual, then has there been a "material breach"?
  • Finally, could LP remedy the breach by allowing a mutually approved inspector or even just relenting at the last minute and allowing an ILCA inspection?  All those new builders that the ILCA appointed would suddenly be left hanging.

Concern #2 :  The ILCA is withholding WS plaques.  Is the ILCA acting as principal or agent in the issuing of World sailing Plaques? Did WS send explicit written instructions to the ILCA instructing them in unambiguous terms to cease issuing plaques? 

Concern #3 : The new name for the dinghy is "The ILCA Dinghy"?  Ugh.  One thing is crystal clear in this mess is that the LP associated companies own a cast iron trade mark for the boat called the Laser. What does the "L" stand for in ILCA?  Good luck in trying to persuade a jury that it does not stand for "Laser". If a builder is producing an identical product to the product formerly produced by LP and alluding to the name Laser.... then I think all manner of claims are probably being prepared by LP's counsel. I can think of a half dozen off the bat.

Concern #4.  The ILCA class rules do not have a great deal of legal relevancy but where they do, they might appear to provide sloppy and weak protection for the ILCA.   On a strict reading of the rules by a lawyer, I am speculating that the LP lasers comply with the rules except that the plaques are being withheld (see concern #2 above)

I EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS CONJECTURE and uniformed personal opinion because , like all of us, I dont have the full facts in front of me. I am just sharing a few concerns that spring to mind.

Here ya go @Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites