Salty Seacock

Emirates Team New Zealand.

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

Ah you see it was all part of the GD master plan, oven ready scapegoat... 

 

Hard to tell if M&C are getting blamed.
 

The ‘outrage’ and ‘fury’ by GD is all aimed directly at LR, instead of aimed at the Port of Auckland. The tone and target of the accusations hint at there being bigger problems for GD on the horizon, those coming ones possibly more directly LR-related. Again, I say ‘follow the money’ is often the best guess for when GD gets roiled. 

 

Recent tweet:

"An application by The Challenger of Record @lunarossa to the AC Arb Panel to destroy city public viewing of @americascup racing has been successful,"

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sounds like it may be too late. 

The mayor and others, I think even BB, have suggested there’s chances of a remedy if the courses can be used also through the RR’s and Semi’s. 

Share this post


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

The mayor and others, I think even BB, have suggested there’s chances of a remedy if the courses can be used also through the RR’s and Semi’s. 

Then why the need for arbitration? The panel has ruled, isn’t the panels verdict final? 

Share this post


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

The mayor and others, I think even BB, have suggested there’s chances of a remedy if the courses can be used also through the RR’s and Semi’s. 

Maybe this is BB’s way of making his mark on this Cup cycle. Putting the cat amongst the pigeons if you will.

Share this post


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

Then why the need for arbitration? The panel has ruled, isn’t the panels verdict final? 

Yes, final. Seems to me the AP ruled the only way it could, but left open and encouraged the various parties to find a solution. It was written somewhere that any ‘outside’ agreement would need to be unanimous; can’t remember the grounds for that claim. 

Share this post


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

Maybe this is BB’s way of making his mark on this Cup cycle. Putting the cat amongst the pigeons if you will.

We’ve seen the same course-access issues in previous cycles, this case is just a little different but will likely get worked out too.

One argument to bring forward is that the RR’s and semi’s are actually a lot of the racing that will happen. Why not enable all of that to also be raced on nicely-visible courses B and C? 

Share this post


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

Not according to this...

https://emirates-team-new-zealand.americascup.com/en/news/477_AUCKLAND-CITY-SETS-RECORD-STRAIGHT.html?fbclid=IwAR3gSkAU05CRiPzwvJz8R-fOIEfOw7KduKEqf2glmnlUdd1pmuxpxvN9854

Apparently they knew and agreed back in February, but something must've happened between now and then that made Luna Rossa think twice about it.

But the Protocol had not been changed!  The city and ETNZ can claim anything they want, but unless the protocol gets changed or amended it means nothing.  And since the committee agreed that they were not following the rules, this “uproar” is all nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put money on BB's new job description being 'Fuck with Dalts as much as possible. Leave no stone unturned in attempts to distract him, lose any influence he has with the media, all manner of mind games should be used. If ETNZ lose public support, all the better.' 

BB and Dalts I doubt are mates, and BB's a pro at planning this stuff, Dalts is 'ready, fire, aim'.

15-love to BB, ( he just served an ace)  and there's plenty more to come. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

Sounds like it may be too late. If the agreement was in place in February, why the need to go to arbitration in September?

What agreement?  This is the America’s Cup, not some fricking regatta.  Changes to the Protocol have to be recorded.  Show us any proof of this agreement beyond some “he said”....

Share this post


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

sorry if I missed it, but why nobody here is considering that ETNZ took 8 (EIGHT!) fucking months to tell LR and the other challengers the Harbour decision?
And then blame it on the Harbormaster? or on the CoR? We were all expecting a different style from ETNZ.

ACE, via Mayo&Calder, were the proper channel for informing the CoR, not ETNZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the new guy on the block will have better pull than GD, with matters like ACE’s interactions with the Port and others. 

 

Nick Hill, Independent Chair of the AC36 Joint Chief Executive Group ....

Hill was today announced as head of the Auckland Council's Event and Economic Development Agency - a merger of the former ATEED (Auckland Tourism, Events Economic Development) and RFA (Regional Facilities Auckland).

https://www.sail-world.com/news/232585/Americas-Cup-Council-claims-deal-made-in-Feb

Share this post


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

The Harbormaster only said no for the prelims.

That was not the problem. The problem was the conspiracy-persuaded Italians believing that Courses B&C were being "reserved" for ETNZ's 2-boat testing during the ACWS/Prada Cup, fuelling the suspicion that they were being denied the opportunity to train on these courses deliberately to advantage the Defenders, and they managed to convince the other Challengers to buy into their conspiracy.

...Huh..sounds like US politics :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That was not the problem. The problem was the conspiracy-persuaded Italians believing that Courses B&C were being "reserved" for ETNZ's 2-boat testing during the ACWS/Prada Cup, fuelling the suspicion that they were being denied the opportunity to train on these courses deliberately to advantage the Defenders, and they managed to convince the other Challengers to buy into their conspiracy.

Until they got called on it, what was there to prevent ETNZ from doing exactly that? 

Share this post


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

That detail was missing or I missed it in the judgement :blink:

One might have reasonably expected a rather FUCKTON MORE CONTRITE response from TNZ if thats the case.

Why was it ETNZ's obligation to inform the CoR when there was an entity charged with precisely that, in ACE? I truly noted the testiness in ETNZ's media release, but it may be related to other issues not unrelated to the simple fact that Mayo&Calder were in charge at the time the Harbourmaster's proposal was tabled for consideration at the next meeting of the stakeholders back in January - and they failed to inform the CoR. As M&C were also working for CoR36, ETNZ would be justifiably pissed off at yet another failure by M&C.

But it's interesting that there are still 2 secret-squirrel outstanding applications under decision by the Arb.Panel, ACAP#9 and 11, with no information on either. #9 dates back to at least July, and one or both might be contributories to the testiness...:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the solution should be - tell the Harbourmaster/ Auckland Council that the Cup is bigger than their concerns about shipping or whatever and they should just let all courses be available for all racing OR ETNZ agree not to use those courses when the challengers are not able to.  Does it have to be more complex than that? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

ACE, via Mayo&Calder, were the proper channel for informing the CoR, not ETNZ.

True, my mistype. Still I suspect Everyone else in Auckland was pretty aware of what was going on. Let's say everybody was expecting some more seamanship on land.

 

8 minutes ago, Indio said:

That was not the problem. The problem was the conspiracy-persuaded Italians believing that Courses B&C were being "reserved" for ETNZ's 2-boat testing during the ACWS/Prada Cup, fuelling the suspicion that they were being denied the opportunity to train on these courses deliberately to advantage the Defenders, and they managed to convince the other Challengers to buy into their conspiracy.

We're talking AC here: not a single tenth of inch is supposed to be left to the opposant.
And, BTW, an AC without some legal firm involved it's not an AC: it's like a Christmas without trees.
Even considering, as someone suggested here, that it can be just a move to put pressure on the Harbour. 

Share this post


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

So the solution should be - tell the Harbourmaster/ Auckland Council that the Cup is bigger than their concerns about shipping or whatever and they should just let all courses be available for all racing OR ETNZ agree not to use those courses when the challengers are not able to.  Does it have to be more complex than that? 

Nope! Simple, isn't it?:) Goff and Nick Hill will get it sorted - course B&C will be in play for the Match.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Nodrog said:

I would put money on BB's new job description being 'Fuck with Dalts as much as possible. Leave no stone unturned in attempts to distract him, lose any influence he has with the media, all manner of mind games should be used. If ETNZ lose public support, all the better.' 

BB and Dalts I doubt are mates, and BB's a pro at planning this stuff, Dalts is 'ready, fire, aim'.

15-love to BB, ( he just served an ace)  and there's plenty more to come. 

You'd lose your money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mako23 said:

No commander works entirely own their own. A corps will have  a divisional commander meeting to decide tactics. Usually 20 or 30 people will be in such a meeting.

and percival continually overruled them all

 

13 hours ago, mako23 said:

Success in war is a team effort,

dont try and tell montgomery that

13 hours ago, mako23 said:

.this is not how the British army operates ... Fact.

in the 70's they were still the most sycophantic armed forces i have come across

that observation was reinforced by the watching horror they went through if they heard an opposing view

Share this post


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

 

in the 70's they were still the most sycophantic armed forces i have come across

that observation was reinforced by the watching horror they went through if they heard an opposing view

Well I am obviously not as old as you so can't comment about the 70s, but as some who is ex-forces and who has worked with forces from 6 countries, I would say that is complete bollocks. And lest you think I  am biased I have spoken to several members of other forces (in particular US and French) who said how surprised the they were at the strength of relationships, trust and respect between all ranks in both directions. Not sycophancy but trust and respect based on listening and working as a team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the fuck are you guys talking about?  Sailing?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

What agreement?  This is the America’s Cup, not some fricking regatta.  Changes to the Protocol have to be recorded.  Show us any proof of this agreement beyond some “he said”....

The Agreement that apparently exists between all interested parties in regards to course options, parameters and availabilities that was agreed in February. Maybe the teams thought since they agreed, and since the apparent restrictions were only in place for a short period that a protocol change wasn’t necessary. Either way, it shows the incompetence of who ever negotiated/ agreed to the course restrictions from the LR side, as they are ultimately responsible for the organisation of the Prada Cup. 

Share this post


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

Until they got called on it, what was there to prevent ETNZ from doing exactly that? 

Nothing. There’s also nothing stopping the other teams from training either. The courses are only unavailable for the Prada Cup Preliminaries. The judgement says nothing about training.

Share this post


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

and percival continually overruled them all

 

dont try and tell montgomery that

in the 70's they were still the most sycophantic armed forces i have come across

that observation was reinforced by the watching horror they went through if they heard an opposing view

Your thinly disguised hatred of British Forces is plain to see. Regardless of your views they have managed to come out of the right side of nearly every war they have been involved in. In relation the New Zealand armed forces are a joke. The use of  the  word "armed forces" is almost verging on a lie. A country that doesn't even have Fighter Aircraft. Yet a country that seem to think its ok to get other Countries like Australia and the USA to provide security. There's a word for that.....Being a Bum country mooching off others.  In fact Australia should send a bill to NZ for providing security.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LR's behaviour and intransigence seems to be losing them brownie points all round. I'm going to suggest that the only way they'll be involved in the decision-making in AC37 is if they win AC36. My guess for CoR in AC37 would be:

If ETNZ defends successfully OR if either Team Ineos OR LR wins: NYYC would be AC37 CoR;

If Team NYYC wins: ETNZ will be AC37 CoR

There doesn't appear to be too much amore in the air between LR and Ineos, while it seems to be rapidly dissipating between the Defenders - while NYYC seem to go out of their way to avoid LR :D

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Well I am obviously not as old as you so can't comment about the 70s,

i used the 70s as it was closer to the war years than nowadays ( the time we are talking about )

and yes by the 80s i was noting a sea change .. but there was still the odd old school type around

they were seconded in enforced obedience by the yanks

i did not include a few others like india where the caste system was and still is a huge influence

the most likely to make independent or contrary decisions ( not including nz in any part of this ) would be aussies, canuks, dutch, danish and germans

french i didnt have a lot to do with .. but they seemed pretty independent at times

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Your thinly disguised hatred of British Forces is plain to see. Regardless of your views they have managed to come out of the right side of nearly every war they have been involved in. In relation the New Zealand armed forces are a joke. The use of  the  word "armed forces" is almost verging on a lie. A country that doesn't even have Fighter Aircraft. Yet a country that seem to think its ok to get other Countries like Australia and the USA to provide security. There's a word for that.....Being a Bum country mooching off others.  In fact Australia should send a bill to NZ for providing security.

 

Mako, you're sounding like the classic whinging pom of the mid-80's :angry:. Leave the Aussies alone, and if you feel so strongly about the mother country, here's a suggestion: use your British passport and fuck off back there!!!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Your thinly disguised hatred of British Forces is plain to see.

must be plainer to you than me

it was part of my job to work out what any ( ship ) would do in any likely situation

finding out everything thats possible to learn helps with those decisions

i only worked in what is not what i would or would not like

if you asked me my actual thoughts on brit troops i .. my first comment would go back to the popular ww1 comment .. " lions led by donkeys "

nowadays the donkeys have changed to be sure .. the lions likely not

 

Share this post


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

If ETNZ defends successfully OR if either Team Ineos OR LR wins: NYYC would be AC37 CoR;

if nyyc want to go back to slow mono's im picking ineos might be in the front seat

Share this post


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

if nyyc want to go back to slow mono's im picking ineos might be in the front seat

We might be in for our 3rd DoG match in 35 years if there's no agreement :)

Share this post


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

 

if you asked me my actual thoughts on brit troops i .. my first comment would go back to the popular ww1 comment .. " lions led by donkeys "

nowadays the donkeys have changed to be sure .. the lions likely not

 

My View on New Zealand Troops

The NZ second division was known as Alibaba and the forty thousand thieves. So notorious was their stealing that other divisions were wary of them. There was nothing they wouldn't steal. This included attacking Italians and robbing them at gunpoint. To this day Italians are aggrieved about their behaviour 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Mako, you're sounding like the classic whinging pom of the mid-80's :angry:. Leave the Aussies alone, and if you feel so strongly about the mother country, here's a suggestion: use your British passport and fuck off back there!!!

Here here.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mako23 said:

The NZ second division was known as Alibaba and the forty thousand thieves.

part of the reason they succeeded setting up the LRDG where it had failed miserably before they took it over

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/war-chronicles-that-speak-volumes/5G27YRXF4UQPRNDW6SPLHTDNMQ/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

other than all the inbred local bickering ... is NZ showing a B2 any of the coming days or will it still be the local gossip shoppe dailies ?

Share this post


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

part of the reason they succeeded setting up the LRDG where it had failed miserably before they took it over

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/war-chronicles-that-speak-volumes/5G27YRXF4UQPRNDW6SPLHTDNMQ/

 

I give you fair credit and respect  for acknowledging the notorious thieving of the  NZ division.  Even though I disagree  about your Lions lead donkeys comment. I accept its your honest held view.  Shall we leave the bickering at that

Share this post


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

Nothing. There’s also nothing stopping the other teams from training either. The courses are only unavailable for the Prada Cup Preliminaries. The judgement says nothing about training.

I wondered about this as well, but reckoned I had missed something in the legalese. Any lawyerly thoughts?

I guess other than the fact that the challs may be busy with chall business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not lawyerly

but im picking LR doesn't want to race on courses that have a greater possibility of shifty winds

all their training i have seen has been flat water drag racing

perhaps the systems perhaps the boat or maybe just not enough training in those conditions to make it an advantage to try to remove them

who knows

but my guess is its one of those

i also smell some sort of stinky worthless butter in that greasy sandwich  as well

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I wondered about this as well, but reckoned I had missed something in the legalese. Any lawyerly thoughts?

I guess other than the fact that the challs may be busy with chall business.

I prefer Graham McKenzie's dissent supporting Ineos' submission as an alternative that

"..the Panel could rule that courses B and C may be retained for possible use for the CSS Final and Match by banning the use of those areas by Competitors during the CSS round robins and semi-final. I prefer this interpretation whereby any
Competitors not racing during the period courses B and C are not available due to the Harbour Master local law compliance permit conditions, they would be prohibited from using courses B and C. This would include the Defender for such applicable period."

This is a lot better than the blanket ban ruling, subject to unanimous agreement otherwise by the Competitors - they just need to convince the Harbourmaster to pull his head in!

Share this post


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

i also smell some sort of stinky worthless butter in that greasy sandwich  as well

I guess it wouldn't be the Americas Cup without intrigue and suspicion  :D  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that weather patterns change in Feb and the Challs would have been busy racing on the only courses allowed, and all the while ETNZ were allowed to go off and get used to sailing AC75’s on what the most likely courses to be used were, come March, B and C because of the expected wind direction changes come early March. 
 

Is it that big a deal to the Challs? Maybe not but why would they leave it open to ETNZ? All it took was an appeal, which they won.

My Hope is that, despite all the massive financial hits this event has taken, that it will somehow work beautifully for both the locals and the global audience... And that it will be a fair competition, with the Match boats competitive because there will be no ‘throw the ball as far as you can’ English-word Rule wordage stretchary that creates a ridiculous mismatch. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mako23 said:

The Gallipoli campaign had lots of good logic. The real reason was to knock turkey out and let Russian and allied ships into the Black Sea so the Russians could of been supplied during the winter months  when All northern ports were inaccessible. If successful it would of dramatically shorten the war. The Russians had large number of men without equipment. If armed properly the Russians would of won the eastern war and the whole war  would  of been over a lot sooner.

British failure to maximize its advantage in the first 24 hours count for a lot. Gallipoli was the right idea but wrong place. The original idea was to knock out Turkish gun batteries which were blocking the British navy.  I think landing further west in Greece and marching east would of been better 

 

 

It's a pity you weren't a general in the British Army in 1915...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NZL3481 said:

It's a pity you weren't a general in the British Army in 1915...

In the beginning of the war British Generals were not very good. However after the Somme a lot of old fuddy Generals were retired or straight out fired. The remaining Generals got the message, adept to new tactics or be fired. Also men who had talent were quickly moved up the ranks. The difference between 1915 and 1918 in the skills of the Generals was massive. By 1918 the British army was well lead and very efficient. This is a major factor in the rapid pushing the Germans out of France and Belgium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

Share this post


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

So the solution should be - tell the Harbourmaster/ Auckland Council that the Cup is bigger than their concerns about shipping or whatever and they should just let all courses be available for all racing OR ETNZ agree not to use those courses when the challengers are not able to.  Does it have to be more complex than that? 

Government could enact a law stating that no vessels allowed on the five courses during races. Cargo ships will just have to wait in the gulf until racing for the day is over. If they don’t like it..........tough luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Government could enact a law stating that no vessels allowed on the five courses during races. Cargo ships will just have to wait in the gulf until racing for the day is over. If they don’t like it..........tough luck

Remember the Aircraft carrier in 95. Might is right

Share this post


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

Mako, you're sounding like the classic whinging pom of the mid-80's :angry:. Leave the Aussies alone, and if you feel so strongly about the mother country, here's a suggestion: use your British passport and fuck off back there!!!

Thanks for that, seeing you annoyed gives more reasons to carry on. 
You really have brightened my day 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Government could enact a law stating that no vessels allowed on the five courses during races. Cargo ships will just have to wait in the gulf until racing for the day is over. If they don’t like it..........tough luck

remember a Labour Government and City Council will be directed by the maritime unions to do what ever they want to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Thanks for that, seeing you annoyed gives more reasons to carry on. 
 

Carry on in that tone and I'll dox you! I know who you are in real life, you pathetic old whiner. If you don't like it here, fuck off!

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

The Agreement that apparently exists between all interested parties in regards to course options, parameters and availabilities that was agreed in February. Maybe the teams thought since they agreed, and since the apparent restrictions were only in place for a short period that a protocol change wasn’t necessary. Either way, it shows the incompetence of who ever negotiated/ agreed to the course restrictions from the LR side, as they are ultimately responsible for the organisation of the Prada Cup. 

LR says they did not know.  So the agreement you claim exists is purely speculative.  So, if it never surfaces it shows incompetence from the NZ side at a minimum, or obvious mischief.   My guess is that ETNZ and the Harbour Master May have made an agreement, but that is irrelevant when it comes to the AC.  ETNZ does not have the power to do that by themselves.  Which is proven by the verdict from the committee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Carry on in that tone and I'll dox you! I know who you are in real life, you pathetic old whiner. If you don't like it here, fuck off!

Go ahead and try....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mako23 said:

In the beginning of the war British Generals were not very good. However after the Somme a lot of old fuddy Generals were retired or straight out fired. The remaining Generals got the message, adept to new tactics or be fired. Also men who had talent were quickly moved up the ranks. The difference between 1915 and 1918 in the skills of the Generals was massive. By 1918 the British army was well lead and very efficient. This is a major factor in the rapid pushing the Germans out of France and Belgium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

The French have been thanking Sir John Monash ever since...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NZL3481 said:

The French have been thanking Sir John Monash ever since...

Normally I would of stopped by now ...in regards to talking about the war. But because people demand I stop, I carry on

Monash is a legend and one the most capable commanders in the whole war. Top bloke and a Aussie Legend 

 

Share this post


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

Horn Rock & Mako,

There is AC action available to discuss right now.  If you want to discuss fighting the Japs, making a new thread is easy.  I will even throw in a please for all it is worth. 

Wasn’t a week ago both you and me were being complained about in regards to messages that were not relevant. I think we had our own thread as well. 
I happily admit guilt but your behaviour seems to indicate  short term memory lose.

unless your being hypocritical and don’t care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that they should have done it this year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

:(

That’s shitty news. He was a hero of my generation and I had the honour of sailing against him in the 470.

His final few years have been rough by all accounts.

I hope there’s a 470 for him to tweak, wherever he’s gone.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

LR says they did not know.  So the agreement you claim exists is purely speculative.  So, if it never surfaces it shows incompetence from the NZ side at a minimum, or obvious mischief.   My guess is that ETNZ and the Harbour Master May have made an agreement, but that is irrelevant when it comes to the AC.  ETNZ does not have the power to do that by themselves.  Which is proven by the verdict from the committee.

So you're trying to tell me, the Harbourmaster and the Ports of Auckland, issued a letter to all "on water stakeholders"of which the CoR is clearly one, the others are ETNZ, ACE and the other Challengers. Not only that, but Auckland City Council is also knew about it, so it seems the only ones who were in the dark about it was Luna Rossa. In the world of the Americas Cup, a game rife with spying and recon programs, that Luna Rossa were unaware of a letter that literally everyone else knew about? 

Share this post


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

Why did the arbitration panel uphold the complaint then? 

Because the Protocol states as below:

In January / February 2021, COR shall organise and conduct a Challenger Selection Series for
all Challengers
(“CSS”), at the venue of the Match and within the course areas of the Match,
to be governed under the CSS Conditions.

RACE AREA
4.1 The Racing Area, Course Areas for the Match as detailed in COR/D Notice to
Competitors No 7 dated the 30th of August 2018 will apply to the Prada Cup as also
confirmed in the COR/D Notice to Competitors No 27 dated 6th February 2020
which
include the Auckland Course Location Guidelines.

This is the letter in question:

Ports of Auckland Limited, following a discussion with Auckland Transport Harbour master, would like to put forward
the following scenario for consideration in regards to race courses used during the Prada Cup and Americas Cup
Race series.

We would like the following scenario to be tabled for discussion and adoption at the next on water stakeholder 
meeting, currently scheduled for Thursday 30th January 2020.

1) All key dates ie: Christmas Cup (17-20 December 2020), Prada Cup Finals only (Potentially 2 weeks at the end of February 2021)
are guaranteed to have all race courses available on all designated race and reserve days (excluding Monday 8th March 2021)

2) The Prada Cup Round Robin races are restricted to Race courses A, D or E. Race courses B and C cannot be used
for these races. 

In itself, as the ruling stated, there was no breach by ETNZ or ACE, as the Race courses still allocate all race courses for both the match, and the Prada Cup.

What the Challengers wanted was clarification that the words "Prada Cup" meant the entire Prada Cup and not just part of it.

What it did expose is the incompetence of whoever was responsible from Luna Rossa of organising the Prada Cup as was their responsibility as per the Protocol.

The letter was issued on the 29th of January for discussion on the 30th of January at the on water stakeholders meeting, which involved Luna Rossa. All on water stakeholders were aware of the letter and the discussion around it.

Following that stakeholders meeting, an agreement was made (or so ETNZ, and Auckland City Council thought) to accommodate the Port and Harbour masters request. 

Auckland City Council have issued a public press release confirming the agreement, so its not just ETNZ that is under the impression that Luna Rossa knew. Auckland City Council obviously thought so too.

Nick Hill, Independent Chair of the AC36 Joint Chief Executive Group, says the courses were agreed by all parties including the Challenger of Record and Defender in February, 2020 contrary to claims by the Challenger of Record that they only knew of the arrangement over six months later in September.

Hill was today announced as head of the Auckland Council's Event and Economic Development Agency - a merger of the former ATEED (Auckland Tourism, Events Economic Development) and RFA (Regional Facilities Auckland).

The full statement issued by Hill reads:

We’ve been clear that the parties need to work together to resolve these issues as quickly as possible.

The uses of the courses and the parameters around their use were agreed to by all of the agencies, including the Challenger of Record representative and the Defender in February.

We expect to see an event where Aucklanders and visitors can share in the experience, an event that will showcase Auckland to the world, and we will work with the parties to help achieve that outcome

Someone at Luna Rossa knew, as they are an on water stakeholder, but it seems who ever received, and discussed that information sat on the outcome until it could be used to their advantage at a later date.

The problem is, there is no end game. They want the spectators to miss out? Why? Is it in the name of fairness? If so, why would they want all the racing to be held in the one patch of water ETNZ have done the most training (The back paddock)?? 

Did they want to try and do ETNZ for breach of protocol? Because that didn't work.

Is it to pressure the Ports and Harbour master to reinstate the courses? Probably should've done that a few months ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mako23 said:

My View on New Zealand Troops

The NZ second division was known as Alibaba and the forty thousand thieves. So notorious was their stealing that other divisions were wary of them. There was nothing they wouldn't steal.

just to correct you a bit

it wasn't just the nz second division

it was used to describe all the on station anzac forces

im also pretty sure you know nothing of who coined it

why it was coined

and the incidences cited for it to be coined

and just to keep you wondering it had nothing to do with pay backs by the anzacs  on local bazaars that had ripped off them and or their mates

Share this post


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

im also pretty sure you know nothing of who coined it

why it was coined

and the incidences cited for it to be coined

and just to keep you wondering it had nothing to do with pay backs by the anzacs  on local bazaars that had ripped off them and or their mates

WW2 is not my specialty.....so feel free to enlighten 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this agreement in Feb exists there should be a signed piece of paper they can show to prove it.

Why wouldn't they have provided it to the AP for this ruling?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If this agreement in Feb exists there should be a signed piece of paper they can show to prove it.

Why wouldn't they have provided it to the AP for this ruling?

GD says in this audio that they did provide the agreement to the AP. Near the end he also mentions having to relocate TV transmitters if B and C can’t be restored.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/123185216/team-new-zealand-vow-to-move-heaven-and-earth-to-restore-lost-americas-cup-courses

from the text: 

“.. this organisation will move heaven and earth and already is talking to the council, ports of Auckland, the harbour master to see if we can change this.”

Share this post


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

Because the Protocol states as below:

In January / February 2021, COR shall organise and conduct a Challenger Selection Series for
all Challengers
(“CSS”), at the venue of the Match and within the course areas of the Match,
to be governed under the CSS Conditions.

RACE AREA
4.1 The Racing Area, Course Areas for the Match as detailed in COR/D Notice to
Competitors No 7 dated the 30th of August 2018 will apply to the Prada Cup as also
confirmed in the COR/D Notice to Competitors No 27 dated 6th February 2020
which
include the Auckland Course Location Guidelines.

This is the letter in question:

Ports of Auckland Limited, following a discussion with Auckland Transport Harbour master, would like to put forward
the following scenario for consideration in regards to race courses used during the Prada Cup and Americas Cup
Race series.

We would like the following scenario to be tabled for discussion and adoption at the next on water stakeholder 
meeting, currently scheduled for Thursday 30th January 2020.

1) All key dates ie: Christmas Cup (17-20 December 2020), Prada Cup Finals only (Potentially 2 weeks at the end of February 2021)
are guaranteed to have all race courses available on all designated race and reserve days (excluding Monday 8th March 2021)

2) The Prada Cup Round Robin races are restricted to Race courses A, D or E. Race courses B and C cannot be used
for these races. 

In itself, as the ruling stated, there was no breach by ETNZ or ACE, as the Race courses still allocate all race courses for both the match, and the Prada Cup.

What the Challengers wanted was clarification that the words "Prada Cup" meant the entire Prada Cup and not just part of it.

What it did expose is the incompetence of whoever was responsible from Luna Rossa of organising the Prada Cup as was their responsibility as per the Protocol.

The letter was issued on the 29th of January for discussion on the 30th of January at the on water stakeholders meeting, which involved Luna Rossa. All on water stakeholders were aware of the letter and the discussion around it.

Following that stakeholders meeting, an agreement was made (or so ETNZ, and Auckland City Council thought) to accommodate the Port and Harbour masters request. 

Auckland City Council have issued a public press release confirming the agreement, so its not just ETNZ that is under the impression that Luna Rossa knew. Auckland City Council obviously thought so too.

Nick Hill, Independent Chair of the AC36 Joint Chief Executive Group, says the courses were agreed by all parties including the Challenger of Record and Defender in February, 2020 contrary to claims by the Challenger of Record that they only knew of the arrangement over six months later in September.

Hill was today announced as head of the Auckland Council's Event and Economic Development Agency - a merger of the former ATEED (Auckland Tourism, Events Economic Development) and RFA (Regional Facilities Auckland).

The full statement issued by Hill reads:

We’ve been clear that the parties need to work together to resolve these issues as quickly as possible.

The uses of the courses and the parameters around their use were agreed to by all of the agencies, including the Challenger of Record representative and the Defender in February.

We expect to see an event where Aucklanders and visitors can share in the experience, an event that will showcase Auckland to the world, and we will work with the parties to help achieve that outcome

Someone at Luna Rossa knew, as they are an on water stakeholder, but it seems who ever received, and discussed that information sat on the outcome until it could be used to their advantage at a later date.

The problem is, there is no end game. They want the spectators to miss out? Why? Is it in the name of fairness? If so, why would they want all the racing to be held in the one patch of water ETNZ have done the most training (The back paddock)?? 

Did they want to try and do ETNZ for breach of protocol? Because that didn't work.

Is it to pressure the Ports and Harbour master to reinstate the courses? Probably should've done that a few months ago.

 

All of this doesn't really matter unless they agreed to change the protocol!   The host has all types of negotiations and arrangement to make that are all needed to follow the protocol. 

The fault falls squarely on ETNZ for not getting the matter resolved.  They knew that the local authorities had put a restriction on the venue, they knew it wasn't in the protocol, they didn't attempt to change the protocol, etc...   

It doesn't matter if one of the competitors (LR) hears about some possible restrictions that may violate the protocol.  How are they to know if the defender had already removed these restrictions or not.  All that the challengers know for certain is what is in the protocol.  If the protocol doesn't change, then the restrictions do not exist!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So you're trying to tell me, the Harbourmaster and the Ports of Auckland, issued a letter to all "on water stakeholders"of which the CoR is clearly one, the others are ETNZ, ACE and the other Challengers. Not only that, but Auckland City Council is also knew about it, so it seems the only ones who were in the dark about it was Luna Rossa. In the world of the Americas Cup, a game rife with spying and recon programs, that Luna Rossa were unaware of a letter that literally everyone else knew about? 

this means nothing.  Was it in the protocol?

Share this post


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

GD says in this audio that they did provide the agreement to the AP. Near the end he also mentions having to relocate TV transmitters if B and C can’t be restored.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/123185216/team-new-zealand-vow-to-move-heaven-and-earth-to-restore-lost-americas-cup-courses

from the text: 

“.. this organisation will move heaven and earth and already is talking to the council, ports of Auckland, the harbour master to see if we can change this.”

Now that it affects them, it is important enough to get it resolved.  This is all a little disingenuous, since they did nothing to try and fix it before they got caught trying to violating the protocol.

Share this post


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

If this agreement in Feb exists there should be a signed piece of paper they can show to prove it.

Why wouldn't they have provided it to the AP for this ruling?

Verba volant, scripta manent, as my ancestors used to say

 

Share this post


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

Now that it affects them, it is important enough to get it resolved.  This is all A LITTLE ?? disingenuous, since they did nothing to try and fix it before they got caught trying to violating the protocol.

 

Share this post


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

Now that it affects them, it is important enough to get it resolved.  This is all a little disingenuous, since they did nothing to try and fix it before they got caught trying to violating the protocol.

I think the point being alleged by ETNZ is that everyone discussed and agreed with the configuration at the time.

That statement isn't disproved by at a later stage someone going to arb to rule on the configuration to determine if it is compliant.

Share this post


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

I think the point being alleged by ETNZ is that everyone discussed and agreed with the configuration at the time.

That statement isn't disproved by at a later stage someone going to arb to rule on the configuration to determine if it is compliant.

Meaning no offense, but you don’t seem to have many contract administrators, locally

 

Share this post


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

Meaning no offense, but you don’t seem to have many contract administrators, locally

 

I don't understand what you mean sorry?

Share this post


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

I don't understand what you mean sorry?

It’s a basic tenet in project management that any deliberation has to be signed for acceptance by all interested parties.  When this would entsil a change to Contract stipulations, however, this is not sufficient and a dedicated procedure (included in the Contract) must be followed, lest the change be null and void. You have no idea how many times I’ve seen that happen

Share this post


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

I think the point being alleged by ETNZ is that everyone discussed and agreed with the configuration at the time.

That statement isn't disproved by at a later stage someone going to arb to rule on the configuration to determine if it is compliant.

Well if there was an agreement, why didn’t they follow through and record it on the protocol, or make it official according to the rules of the Americas Cup?

Share this post


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

All of this doesn't really matter unless they agreed to change the protocol!   The host has all types of negotiations and arrangement to make that are all needed to follow the protocol. 

The fault falls squarely on ETNZ for not getting the matter resolved.  They knew that the local authorities had put a restriction on the venue, they knew it wasn't in the protocol, they didn't attempt to change the protocol, etc...   

It doesn't matter if one of the competitors (LR) hears about some possible restrictions that may violate the protocol.  How are they to know if the defender had already removed these restrictions or not.  All that the challengers know for certain is what is in the protocol.  If the protocol doesn't change, then the restrictions do not exist!

Its always been in the protocol, and still is. The protocol states "The Prada Cup" which is why it went to arbitration. Whether that meant part, or all of the Prada Cup.

Secondly, No. It doesn't fall squarely at ETNZ, it falls squarely on Luna Rossa, because according to the Protocol, ETNZ has no responsibility organising the Prada Cup.

ETNZ has the responsibility of establishing Mutual Consent with LR to organise the AC match.

This is LR's mess, not ETNZ's. They are the CoR, it was their job to organise the Prada Cup.

Share this post


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

Now that it affects them, it is important enough to get it resolved.  This is all a little disingenuous, since they did nothing to try and fix it before they got caught trying to violating the protocol.

LR messed up and now the Kiwi's are left to clean up the mess. 

Share this post


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

It’s a basic tenet in project management that any deliberation has to be signed for acceptance by all interested parties.  When this would entsil a change to Contract stipulations, however, this is not sufficient and a dedicated procedure (included in the Contract) must be followed, lest the change be null and void. You have no idea how many times I’ve seen that happen

 

46 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Well if there was an agreement, why didn’t they follow through and record it on the protocol, or make it official according to the rules of the Americas Cup?

Now that I understand what @Xlot means, I agree it is a very good question. I would have thought it a material enough decision to have documented.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ex-yachtie said:

^Thanks. I see Tom Ehman has always been a dick. 

Funny! I actually like the guy, he’s smart, experienced and has a good sense of humor. His SI Live show starts at the top of the hour, I’m sure it will another fun one. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Funny! I actually like the guy, he’s smart, experienced and has a good sense of humor. His SI Live show starts at the top of the hour, I’m sure it will another fun one. 

So one hears. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

Why did the arbitration panel uphold the complaint then? 

They didn't. The Arb.Panel dismissed the complaints which alleged that ETNZ had breached the Protocol and the Venue Management Agreement.

They did make a King-Solomon majority ruling under their narrow mandate prescribed in their RoP's, which Graham McKenzie dissented from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites