Recommended Posts

Dg_sailingfanny broke the internet... Well our small part of it anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Dg_sailingfanny broke the internet...

Aside from his last 7 posts, all his forum activity looks to have been erased, including the threads he started. We've not seen the last of him I'm thinking. He's obsessed with the AC, and this is still the best place for online banter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is stupid as fuck, spin bot starting a thread for post count. With a stupid as fuck name. 

Please sort this shit @MR.CLEAN

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he said ^

if threads are getting pulled just start a new one relating to a specific team with the correct team name with none of the bullshit, that’s partly the reason people bicker, post FB profiles etc because of the dumb as shit attempts at being hilarious.

Share this post


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

attempts at being hilarious.

Or post/paste count. Anyway, soon we'll have some racing gonna soooo good. JuS gotta feed some of the trolls some ludes until some real info surfaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Priscilla said:

34B8E457-363D-438D-9A1A-F07E9CAF65FB.thumb.jpeg.11dd68f2e4016ff631b3d8c7e9dfc6af.jpeg

Anyone have an explanation for the zigzag line on the foresail? Different materials/construction techniques in the same sail?

Share this post


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

Anyone have an explanation for the zigzag line on the foresail? Different materials/construction techniques in the same sail?

Perhaps a taffeta skin on the back half of the sail where it might chafe from the forestay, drops, shrouds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am happy to change this topic’s title to ‘Ineos Team UK’ or somesuch if anyone knows how to do it? Clean?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

don't say i never did anything nice for ya

Cheers, Clean!

Share this post


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

Sailing soon.

EK4QTNPWkAA-qYb.thumb.jpg.ef203a1d49faef60a62e17f6f1c82298.jpg

Ha, ha. Is it just me, or does it look like a malfunctioning hangar door just squished the Brit's boat? ;-)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TNZ sectional garage doors came all the way from Finland much more reliable although not exactly supporting the local door industry.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sailing soon.

EK4QTNPWkAA-qYb.thumb.jpg.ef203a1d49faef60a62e17f6f1c82298.jpg

Sorry? Wtf are you on

they are in the med.  That pic is from Portsmouth..keep up. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2019 at 3:04 PM, Raptorsailor said:

Anyone have an explanation for the zigzag line on the foresail? Different materials/construction techniques in the same sail?

I think this might be where the larger sails are laid up on the molds in multiple pieces and then scarfed together - if i understand it correctly then it's quite literally a 45° scarf joint that is glued together....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was complaining that no team was disclosing their AC75 boat speed recently, it seems Honda is willing to affirm they will reach between 50 and 60 knots. Don't know how old this article is though. Pic posted on Ineos twitter Dec 5th with link to Honda page, ain't old news.

https://www.hondaengineroom.co.uk/power/bringing-it-home-the-americas-cup/?utm_source=HondaUKPower&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2866475019_2866475021

Share this post


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

Chase boat. Honda engines. Supposed to be able to go 60 knots. 

 

IMG_20191205_081242.jpg

Nice set up.

Share this post


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

Vast cost of competing in America’s Cup raises questions for sponsors

https://www.ft.com/content/cfc0d884-f004-11e9-a55a-30afa498db1b

It's an entirely reasonable concern - I think putting aside the fact it's a pinnacle league that ultimately has massive costs, everyone including GD agrees on the problem... where there is less consensus is in what the solution should be, and sadly this appears to be drawn along partisan lines... if you are a challenger then whatever the defender does is unlikely to be appropriate in your eyes...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not clear how popular or sponsorable a buck$ rule capping spending instead of a measurement based rule would be.  

The loss from not having more challengers, how does one quantify that?

 

 

 

Share this post


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

An article that references the FT one posted above

Sir Ben Ainslie blasts America's Cup costs and impact on Auckland 2021

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/117987495/sir-ben-ainslie-blasts-americas-cup-costs-and-impact-on-auckland-2021

Thats an embarrassing example of how a reasonable interview is churned into clickbait - Stuff can't even bring themselves to attribute to the story to a writer...

2116323425_ScreenShot2019-12-06at9_00_17AM.png.94002187f7a07d4b475aa64262c9872f.png

Turns out he'll be waiting for a while to win... poor sod

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Thats an embarrassing example of how a reasonable interview is churned into clickbait

Yes, the tone of the headline and article is far more biting than what BA actually discussed with the FT. 
 

Anyway, there’s a comment about it at SButt too:

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2019/12/05/americas-cup-progress-is-overrated/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting quote from GD

Team New Zealand boss Grant Dalton backed that up and offered the best way to keep costs down.

"It's the payroll, not the boat. Sixty per cent of the cost of an America's Cup team is the people," Dalton told The Financial Times and said Team New Zealand were fortunate to have loyal staff willing to accept lower wages than those on offer from a "mercenary team".
"People will spend huge amounts no matter what cost control there is," Dalton said.

He noted Team New Zealand's US$50m 2017 budget was dwarfed by most of their rivals and he estimated the Kiwi budget would again be about half of the other heavyweight teams at Auckland 2021

Share this post


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

He noted Team New Zealand's US$50m 2017 budget

There are a lot of ways to measure ‘budget.’ For just one example does that figure include flight-expenses that may have been on Emirates Airlines? 
 

We saw a govt-demanded document for the 2013 campaign that listed around NZD $180 spent despite comments from GD claiming far less. So.. I’d take this figure with a grain of salt even if this next one could be cheaper to run given they’ve been outright ‘given’ a palatial base and are home-water defenders.

Share this post


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

There are a lot of ways to measure ‘budget.’ For just one example does that figure include flight-expenses that may have been on Emirates Airlines? 
 

We saw a govt-demanded document for the 2013 campaign that listed around NZD $180 spent despite comments from GD claiming far less. So.. I’d take this figure with a grain of salt even if this next one could be cheaper to run given they’ve been outright ‘given’ a palatial base and are home-water defenders.

While we obviously don't know, and probably will never know exact amounts teams spend on their campaigns, its an age old debate, especially in the Americas Cup. Technology is expensive, people are expensive. I wonder if Ben Ainslie maybe should've led by example and purchased a design package from the Kiwi's if the costs concern him so much?

Note also: That "Palatial base" was a result of negotiations which satisfied the parties concerned and enabled the event to go ahead as planned after pushback from certain groups.

The VEC wasn't ETNZ's original preference. they wanted their own purpose built base, but instead adapted the Events Centre as the Skycity Convention Centre was (at that time) on track for completion. That lease spans two cup cycles, after which they are again, waterfront nomads.

 

Share this post


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

Spinbot says: given they’ve been outright ‘given’ a palatial base and are home-water defenders

Normal spin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed lots of ways to measure "budget" but $300K grinders (e.g., Spooner) start to add up. 

Wonder if the elite sailors would push for more affordable Cups if they included salary caps?  Blame most always (except GD quote) seems to fall on the bizarre musical chairs of different boats instead of a nice stable class FRAMEWORK but how about sharing the austerity?  

Share this post


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

seems to fall on the bizarre musical chairs of different boats instead of a nice stable class FRAMEWORK but how about sharing

Booo. Back to the fail gp retired AC boats thread with you. This is the design class thread. :D

Share this post


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

Indeed lots of ways to measure "budget" but $300K grinders (e.g., Spooner) start to add up

Yes, GD makes a good point about salaries being 60% of budget and yes, teams will spend whatever budget they have, but with going to a ten-sailor crew (plus presumably a few alternates) the AC75 is definitely more demanding in that sense.

^^ Yes, they basically were ‘given’ the Events Center building, plus an all-expenses paid renovation. Am not slamming that, just pointing it out as something ETNZ has for free, unlike anyone else.

Share this post


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

Indeed lots of ways to measure "budget" but $300K grinders (e.g., Spooner) start to add up. 

Wonder if the elite sailors would push for more affordable Cups if they included salary caps?  Blame most always (except GD quote) seems to fall on the bizarre musical chairs of different boats instead of a nice stable class FRAMEWORK but how about sharing the austerity?  

Sorry I missed my sarcasm font. : )

1 minute ago, barfy said:

Booo. Back to the fail gp retired AC boats thread with you. This is the design class thread. :D

Yeah and why should design and build budgets be the bad girls? :)

Share the affordability and see if that makes a "better" Cup LOLOL 

Share this post


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

Yes, GD makes a good point about salaries being 60% of budget and yes, teams will spend whatever budget they have, but with going to a ten-sailor crew (plus presumably a few alternates) the AC75 is definitely more demanding in that sense.

^^ Yes, they basically were ‘given’ the Events Center building, plus an all-expenses paid renovation. Am not slamming that, just pointing it out as something ETNZ has for free, unlike anyone else.

This explains the agreement.

And this is what happens when investors/ stakeholders, including councils and Government gain healthy return on their investment, and not a huge financial black hole like those that Ellison and Coutts left after their AC tenure.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/102672658/team-nz-remain-waterfront-nomads-under-new-americas-cup-base-plan

 

Share this post


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

Yeah and why should design and build budgets be the bad girls? :)

Because it is a design competition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it actually known based on some kind of numbers that Cup "success" is greater with more challengers?  What numbers?

I can understand how there can be more events, longer regattas, etc. But how does that translate into NET $$$$ impact and for who?  How does that translate into popularity of the Cup? Sailing? Sponsor ROI?  

New technologies make whatever sailing there is easier to see and to know more about in great detail. I mean, I know you talk about the great Cups with all those challengers...but those were obscure to me since basically I read about it in the newspaper and magazines. I learned a lot more about Cuo history off the web than I ever knew as it happened.

Share this post


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

Because it is a design competition?

That makes them the good girls taking the rap for greedy sailors :)

if a grinder makes $300k how much do team executives get?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go. Salary caps. Sustainability, blah, blah fucking blah.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am asking about what the financial basis is behind the claims that more challengers are better, and if so,  better for whom. Everybody? Somebody? 

Sustainability sounds much nicer than financially viable, or profitable, doesn't it. ;)

 

 

Share this post


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

Is it actually known based on some kind of numbers that Cup "success" is greater with more challengers?  What numbers?

In the now-gone ETNZ thread we covered in great detail the shitfight in Auckland, including the Economic Impact Statement used as argument for making the case for hundreds of millions of $’s contributions by Auckland and by the NZ govt. The ‘benefit’ numbers in the EIS was hugely skewed by the number of Challengers.

That said, ‘success’ need not be purely in $’s. The country of NZ will likely be riveted by the event, regardless how much they ended up paying for the party.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Is it actually known based on some kind of numbers that Cup "success" is greater with more challengers?  What numbers?

I can understand how there can be more events, longer regattas, etc. But how does that translate into NET $$$$ impact and for who?  How does that translate into popularity of the Cup? Sailing? Sponsor ROI?  

New technologies make whatever sailing there is easier to see and to know more about in great detail. I mean, I know you talk about the great Cups with all those challengers...but those were obscure to me since basically I read about it in the newspaper and magazines. I learned a lot more about Cuo history off the web than I ever knew as it happened.

Depends on the perspective you're looking at it from I guess. Event-wise, AC32 in Valencia is up there with some of the best. Great venue, Lots of teams, beautiful weather for the most part, and great racing, but its no secret, once the circus left town, Valencia took a major financial hit from the event and could possibly be considered a huge failure from a financial perspective.

the two Auckland series, the opposite can be said, still lots of challengers, great venue, great racing and two memorable cycles, but those two events leave a long lasting legacy, not only with the sport, but with the Viaduct and Waterfront areas, which is still evident and growing now.

It all depends on your perspective. I loved AC32 in Valencia, but I'm betting those that paid for it probably wish it never happened.

Same can be said from San Francisco. They were happy to let Larry and Russell take their shiny cup somewhere else.

Bermuda...well, who knows. Great racing, but will it leave a good and long lasting legacy? Guess time will tell.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

In the now-gone ETNZ thread we covered in great detail the shitfight in Auckland, including the Economic Impact Statement used as argument for making the case for hundreds of millions of $’s contributions by Auckland and by the NZ govt. The ‘benefit’ numbers in the EIS was hugely skewed by the number of Challengers.

That said, ‘success’ need not be purely in $’s. The country of NZ will likely be riveted by the event, regardless how much they ended up paying for the party.

Yeah - even a cursory look at the numbers shows it's a disaster compared to what was initially projected/promised in those various studies. NZ is definitely losing a crapton of money (and prestige) on this cycle. And it's also interesting to see that the Kiwi sailors themselves are getting paid pennies on that sinking dollar compared to the other teams. I'm sure GD and the other teams are giving up their salaries too?

The article also still mentions 4 challengers - as does the AC website. So there are shenanigans still afoot to try to convince someone, somewhere that it's not as bad as it seems. Honest articles like this don't help that look.

Share this post


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

Yeah - even a cursory look at the numbers shows it's a disaster

You need to update your LinkedIn profile.  Must be nice to be able to add all these in to your principal employment of being retired and pretending you know how to sail.

-yacht designer

-forensic accountant

-market researcher

-expert race analyst

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Same can be said from San Francisco. They were happy to let Larry and Russell take their shiny cup somewhere else.

The only thing SF did for AC34 was spend around $60M sooner than planned for the new cruise ship terminal upgrade, and allow them to use it. Piers 80 and 32 for base space were cheap rents too. By AC35, the cruise ships were using it.
 

The Auckland numbers are an order of magnitude higher, and ETNZ even threatened to Defend in Italy if they couldn’t get that taxpayer support, it was a very serious shitfight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The only thing SF did for AC34

what about that 12M that they laid out but never got reimbursed?

Share this post


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

Yeah - even a cursory look at the numbers shows it's a disaster compared to what was initially projected/promised in those various studies.

 

43 minutes ago, smackdaddy said:

NZ is definitely losing a crapton of money (and prestige) on this cycle.

need some figures and references to where and how .. or ... thats just trolling

44 minutes ago, smackdaddy said:

the Kiwi sailors themselves are getting paid pennies on that sinking dollar

the kiwis are racing for the team they want to .. and where are your figures for a sinking dollar .. if none then ... thats just trolling

44 minutes ago, smackdaddy said:

there are shenanigans still afoot to try to convince someone, somewhere that it's not as bad as it seems.

the only one trying to convince people its bad is you .. thats just trolling

Share this post


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

The only thing SF did for AC34 was spend around $60M sooner than planned for the new cruise ship terminal upgrade, and allow them to use it. Piers 80 and 32 for base space were cheap rents too. By AC35, the cruise ships were using it.
 

The Auckland numbers are an order of magnitude higher, 

err where have they gone anywhere near $ 600 mil

or are you costing in the move of poa to northport ?

Share this post


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

err where have they gone anywhere near $ 600 mil

or are you costing in the move of poa to northport ?

I can’t be bothered to find all the numbers but it is for sure in that $600M range, split roughly equally between the Auckland City Council and the Govt. It’s all in public docs.

Point is, the event was sold to them through rosy numbers, including for the number of Challengers, and a major shitfight over that amount of put-out did happen - including during Auckland City Council meetings that were impressively, like in SF too, streamed live.

At the time the advertised benefit projection was at around twice the investment, $1.2B, but  now things look to be break-even at best.

Not being an Auck rate-payer or NZ tax-payer it makes no difference to me and I may even fly down but finances-wise this looks a lot more ‘catastrophic’ than even Valencia was.. even with all those Challengers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

err where have they gone anywhere near $ 600 mil

or are you costing in the move of poa to northport ?

Just trolling.

Can't be asked to back up anything with fact.

44 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

what about that 12M that they laid out but never got reimbursed?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whinging about AC costs will always be the case when you have brand new designs like the AC75 which is big and complex. Not sure this will ever change. Larry did try to reel the costs in with the AC50's? But history will show it's always been expensive and for the elite few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure i have EVER been through an AC period without someone ( or most ) complaining the costs were ... to high / prohibitive / contrary to a good AC / a barrier to  more challengers / unsustainable

 

yet

 

they all spend it

and more

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I can’t be bothered to find all the numbers but it is for sure in that $600M range, split roughly equally between the Auckland City Council and the Govt. It’s all in public docs.

Point is, the event was sold to them through rosy numbers, including for the number of Challengers, and a major shitfight over that amount of put-out did happen - including during Auckland City Council meetings that were impressively, like in SF too, streamed live.

At the time the advertised benefit projection was at around twice the investment, $1.2B, but  now things look to be break-even at best.

Not being an Auck rate-payer or NZ tax-payer it makes no difference to me and I may even fly down but finances-wise this looks a lot more ‘catastrophic’ than even Valencia was.. even with all those Challengers. 

As you said, Sting, we already talked about this in another thread. I provided the numbers from the original EA evaluation (cost-to-benefit ratio estimates between 1.8 and 1.2) and even from the second downwardly revised EA evaluation thereafter (cost-to-benefit ratio estimates between 1.14 and 0.97) as well as links to the latter report itself - which I have - and various press stories surrounding it all.

The second more conservative report showed that loss with 6 challengers. We now realistically have 3. So, yes, it's economically catastrophic for NZ.

Of course, that's not what these KiWhingersTM want to hear - so "it's trolling" to even say such a thing...though it's fully backed up by facts if someone really wants to see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remembered this and googled for it. It's  a critical view of Bay Area impact of the 2013 SF AC and has an $11.5m loss to the city.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/America-s-Cup-put-San-Francisco-5-5-million-in-5050201.php

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/America-s-Cup-cost-to-S-F-more-than-doubles-5222510.php

Looks like the big benefit drop came from way fewer than projected spectators coming and occupying hotel rooms etc. I do not claim to know the relationship between challengers and spectators. I would assume most were from US does anyone know the breakdown? 

 

Share this post


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

Of course, that's not what these KiWhingersTM want to hear - so "it's trolling" to even say such a thing...though it's fully backed up by facts if someone really wants to see them

trolling again

Share this post


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

As you said, Sting, we already talked about this in another thread. I provided the numbers from the original EA evaluation (cost-to-benefit ratio estimates between 1.8 and 1.2) and even from the second downwardly revised EA evaluation thereafter (cost-to-benefit ratio estimates between 1.14 and 0.97) as well as links to the latter report itself - which I have - and various press stories surrounding it all.

The second more conservative report showed that loss with 6 challengers. We now realistically have 3. So, yes, it's economically catastrophic for NZ.

Of course, that's not what these KiWhingersTM want to hear - so "it's trolling" to even say such a thing...though it's fully backed up by facts if someone really wants to see them.

Your numbers are made up - imaginary - fake, which is why they're WAY OFF.

Lord knows if its on the internet, its GOT to be true lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when people who probably had never heard about NZ outside the AC tell me what a disaster it is for my city and country, they know this place better than those of us who drove down to the viaduct back when it was a shitty fishing basin on that sunday (I think?) morning in 95 and drank all day celebrating a win which changed the city in ways most people will never realize.

But they must be right, they are on the internet,  and have google. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord, you guys really are disingenuous idiots. It's amazing.

Below is just one of many expert offerings - this one from a University of Auckland Business School of Economics professor and others (did these Kiwis avoid the viaduct and the booze too?):

Quote

The 2021 America's Cup should see an end to overblown official estimates on how hosting big events will earn New Zealand "millions and millions of dollars" in burgeoning economic benefit.

For too long, says Tim Hazledine, professor of economics at the University of Auckland Business School, such estimates have been painting rosy pictures of the financial bounty for host nations of big events – when the reality is otherwise.

"There are good reasons to host big events like the America's Cup, the Lions tour and the Rugby World Cup," he says. "But direct economic benefit usually isn't one of them."

Hazledine points to a now-discounted economic study by consultants commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) last year – looking into the benefits that would accrue from the Cup hosting.

The initial report used a technique known as "multiplier analysis" and pictured up to $1 billion injected into the New Zealand economy, with thousands of jobs created and a return of more than $7 for every dollar invested in new wharf facilities.

"It just wasn't right," said Hazledine. "There's no way it could have been right. If you had a development that was promising you a $7 return on every dollar of investment, you wouldn't wait around for the America's Cup – you'd do it anyway."

MBIE later corrected the report – on December 21 last year. Its initial cost-to-benefit ratio estimate was between 1.8 and 1.2, meaning benefits would outweigh cost by between 80 and 20 per cent. However, it today revised this to a high of 1.14 and a low of 0.997 – with the latter scenario meaning the cost would outweigh the benefits.

The report passed quietly by – Hazledine says close to Christmas is a terrific time to release such news as few people are thinking about anything except a holiday – after it was detected as mistaken by policy think tank the New Zealand Initiative.

At the time Research Fellow Sam Warburton pointed out that the alleged net benefit of the Cup was relied on by key decision makers (including Economic Development Minister David Parker and Auckland Mayor Phil Goff) adding: "As in every public project, cost blow-outs and optimism biases are a possibility when hosting the America's Cup. A benefit-cost ratio of just around 1 is not a sufficient basis for committing taxpayers' money to this event."

"Fake numbers"? This is from the actual amended MBIE report as I said above.

1512320274_ScreenShot2019-12-05at10_55_10PM.thumb.png.e8f08909c5de7d5550fc00b1dee68381.png

So who to believe - those in the know or the increasingly desperate and dishonest KiwIdiotsTM on this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

err we have explained MBIE and its competencies

however

to go over it again

if you ( YOU ) met the members of that particular group

even you would be laughing at the amazing levels of incompetence they run with

 

sooo

we dont take much of anything they say as fact .. more as a highly unlikely possibility

 

haha

i just read the uni profs dig

and i quote

"  For too long, says Tim Hazledine, professor of economics at the University of Auckland Business School, such estimates have been painting rosy pictures of the financial bounty for host nations of big events – when the reality is otherwise.

"There are good reasons to host big events like the America's Cup, the Lions tour and the Rugby World Cup," he says. "But direct economic benefit usually isn't one of them."

Hazledine points to a now-discounted economic study by consultants commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) last year – looking into the benefits that would accrue from the Cup hosting.

The initial report used a technique known as "multiplier analysis" and pictured up to $1 billion injected into the New Zealand economy, with thousands of jobs created and a return of more than $7 for every dollar invested in new wharf facilities.

"It just wasn't right," said Hazledine. "There's no way it could have been right. If you had a development that was promising you a $7 return on every dollar of investment, you wouldn't wait around for the America's Cup – you'd do it anyway."

MBIE later corrected the report – on December 21 last year. Its initial cost-to-benefit ratio estimate was between 1.8 and 1.2, meaning benefits would outweigh cost by between 80 and 20 per cent. However, it today revised this to a high of 1.14 and a low of 0.997 – with the latter scenario meaning the cost would outweigh the benefits. "

 

Share this post


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

Im happy it's here...where i can watch it live from my boat. Cheers my fellow taxpayers. NZ...home of the Americas Cup.

Unless your boat can do 50 knots you had better put a large screen in the saloon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

Unless your boat can do 50 knots you had better put a large screen in the saloon.

Don't be jelly now....being out on the water with the action happening in home waters...seeing the boats flying by and being amongst the on shore atmosphere that Auckland provides. Can't bloody wait. You should come to see it for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched Louis Vuitton / AC 2000 from the boat decent race action view was minimal.

Chose terra firma to watch on big screen view much improved in 2003 but given the result would have preferred to be at sea far far away.

Share this post


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

Watched Lois Vuitton / AC 2000 from the boat race action view was minimal.

Chose terra firma to watch 2003 wished I had gone to sea.

Well come on down..it's going to be a spectacle however the cards unfold.

I remember sailing my laser through the ac field 2002? When they were preparing for 2003. And now its back. All the bitching fades away when it's in your backyard...you just sit back and marvel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parted recently with my old log of wood after 20 years so 2021 will be a telly affair for us.

Do hope the promise of free to air AC coverage becomes a reality.

Been doing 49er action from the new Akarana facility at Okahu Bay as the app is geo blocked locally and don’t have Sky.

Great atmosphere great racing mingle with legends and kids of legends but a beer is $11.00 so going to strap a box and ice to my new carbon cycle tomorrow happy days.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The price of beer...now thats something i can definitely bitch about. Okahu bay has been my boats (and parents/grandparents boats) home until recently...but we got kicked out. Does make sense though..great spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Okahu is cracker spot but relocating the swing moorings around the corner with no breakwater is negligent planning at best.

Adding to the idiocy was the removal of all tide dinghy facility on Tamaki Drive many moons ago.

I have no objection to people’s making monies but $11 for a beer just clouds it’s taste for me and the food also is up there to price wise.

Ice pack from home box of beers from Quay St $20.00 visit to the deli section $20.00 weekend sorted.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could I'd be out on some gin palace near the start / finish, drone for shits and giggles, with a tv in the salon for the course,  and a esky for the beers. Now wheres that lotto ticket.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guy was spouting off in the sailing club bar last night. Fella looked like he'd looted the INEOS merchandise store, but in his rush he'd only managed to pick up the kids sizes. He had some interesting theories on the AC, none of which are worthy of posting here.  I think he'd had a beer. 

 

Share this post


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

He had some interesting theories on the AC, none of which are worthy of posting here. 

Probably thinks Ben going to win it?

Share this post


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

Some guy was spouting off in the sailing club bar last night. Fella looked like he'd looted the INEOS merchandise store, but in his rush he'd only managed to pick up the kids sizes. He had some interesting theories on the AC, none of which are worthy of posting here.  I think he'd had a beer. 

 

I bloody love those kinds of people!!

I remember being in a bar with a guy dressed head to toe in Alpha Romeo kit, telling stories of the seven seas........ He didn't realise that he was telling a few real crew members their stories. He was slightly embarrassed and ran away with his tail between his legs. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

err we have explained MBIE and its competencies

however

to go over it again

if you ( YOU ) met the members of that particular group

even you would be laughing at the amazing levels of incompetence they run with

 

sooo

we dont take much of anything they say as fact .. more as a highly unlikely possibility

 

haha

i just read the uni profs dig

and i quote

"  For too long, says Tim Hazledine, professor of economics at the University of Auckland Business School, such estimates have been painting rosy pictures of the financial bounty for host nations of big events – when the reality is otherwise.

"There are good reasons to host big events like the America's Cup, the Lions tour and the Rugby World Cup," he says. "But direct economic benefit usually isn't one of them."

Hazledine points to a now-discounted economic study by consultants commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) last year – looking into the benefits that would accrue from the Cup hosting.

The initial report used a technique known as "multiplier analysis" and pictured up to $1 billion injected into the New Zealand economy, with thousands of jobs created and a return of more than $7 for every dollar invested in new wharf facilities.

"It just wasn't right," said Hazledine. "There's no way it could have been right. If you had a development that was promising you a $7 return on every dollar of investment, you wouldn't wait around for the America's Cup – you'd do it anyway."

MBIE later corrected the report – on December 21 last year. Its initial cost-to-benefit ratio estimate was between 1.8 and 1.2, meaning benefits would outweigh cost by between 80 and 20 per cent. However, it today revised this to a high of 1.14 and a low of 0.997 – with the latter scenario meaning the cost would outweigh the benefits. "

 

Oh you guys have "explained" many things in these threads. The problem is - virtually none of them hold up under even the slightest scrutiny. After all, as you say, when smarter and more capable people who actually know what they are talking about state facts...

"we dont take much of anything they say as fact"

Exactly. The earth is flat.

So feel free to keep talking, but fewer and fewer people are listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explained Smacky?  Are you looking to get smacked again?

Share this post


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

 

So feel free to keep talking, but fewer and fewer people are listening.

ironic words from a guy who's been kicked off every forum in sailing (and people have written here even some nonsailing forums) except for this one.  fewer and fewer indeed

Share this post


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

Is it actually known based on some kind of numbers that Cup "success" is greater with more challengers?  What numbers?

I can understand how there can be more events, longer regattas, etc. But how does that translate into NET $$$$ impact and for who?  How does that translate into popularity of the Cup? Sailing? Sponsor ROI?  

New technologies make whatever sailing there is easier to see and to know more about in great detail. I mean, I know you talk about the great Cups with all those challengers...but those were obscure to me since basically I read about it in the newspaper and magazines. I learned a lot more about Cuo history off the web than I ever knew as it happened.

The more challengers (usually from different countries), the more the public in these countries is interested in "their" team, and by proxy the AC.
When the country I live in had a team in the mix (and later, when one of our most accomplished sailors had a leading role at Alinghi), the AC even made it into mainstream media. Not overwhelmingly often, but noticeably. I think that can be extrapolated to other countries as well.
So yes, the more challengers, the more interest, media exposure for the sport and the sponsors, sponsor money changing hands, people reached... If you define this as "success" then more challengers mean more success.

But... in the end it only needs one Defender and one Challenger (deliberate capitalization!) for us to have fun.
 

18 hours ago, Forourselves said:

Depends on the perspective you're looking at it from I guess. Event-wise, AC32 in Valencia is up there with some of the best. Great venue, Lots of teams, beautiful weather for the most part, and great racing, but its no secret, once the circus left town, Valencia took a major financial hit from the event and could possibly be considered a huge failure from a financial perspective.

the two Auckland series, the opposite can be said, still lots of challengers, great venue, great racing and two memorable cycles, but those two events leave a long lasting legacy, not only with the sport, but with the Viaduct and Waterfront areas, which is still evident and growing now.

It all depends on your perspective. I loved AC32 in Valencia, but I'm betting those that paid for it probably wish it never happened.

Same can be said from San Francisco. They were happy to let Larry and Russell take their shiny cup somewhere else.

Bermuda...well, who knows. Great racing, but will it leave a good and long lasting legacy? Guess time will tell.

 

Valencia was corruption-riddled, the AC (and F1, mind you) were just welcome opportunities for shady politicians and greedy members of a certain class to open their hands at the expense of the Spanish and EU tax payers. VLC would have been left with her dept in any case, but my, what a wonderful city it still is!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

ironic words from a guy who's been kicked off every forum in sailing (and people have written here even some nonsailing forums) except for this one.  fewer and fewer indeed

I've been banned from CruisersForum and Sailnet. In fact, so has my friend Bob Perry (and a couple others around here). Bob and I are perfectly fine with those bannings. You're welcome to ask him if you'd like.

CF was an experiment in moderation hypocrisy (you ought to read the study) and SN is now dead. So who cares? Certainly nothing I'm ashamed of.

As for the other nonsailing forums that "other people have written here" - as you like to furtively claim - in your own words "cite please"?

 

PS - I do think it's hilarious that you feel so threatened by me that you feel compelled to follow me everywhere I go and nip at my heels. I'm getting PMs asking me why you have such a boner for me. Truth is - I have no idea.

Share this post


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

so has my friend Bob Perry

bob agrees that you have exactly zero friends here

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You need to update your LinkedIn profile.  Must be nice to be able to add all these in to your principal employment of being retired and pretending you know how to sail.

-yacht designer

-forensic accountant

-market researcher

-expert race analyst

 

So wtf is your point of brining up this?  I know Smack says things that upset you, but in this thread all you have done is stalk him and throw out insults.

If you claim to be better then him, then grow up and act like it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites