Jump to content


Deed of Gift


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:09 AM

ORDER WITH RESPECT TO ADMINISTRATION OF GIFT DATED DECEMBER 17, 1956
NEW YORK YACHT CLUB, having filed a verified petition dated September 21, 1956, praying that an order be made pursuant to Section 12 of the Personal Property Law or otherwise, directing that the gift by George L. Schuyler of the America’s Cup which was won by the yacht AMERICA at Cowes, England on August 22, 1851, in trust under a Deed of Gift dated October 24, 1887, shall be administered as if the minimum load water-line length of the competing yachts or vessels of one mast and thereby required to be forty-four (44) feet and without regard to and free from the direction contained therein that yachts or vessels competing for the America’s Cup shall sail on their own bottoms to the port where the contest is to take place, and that such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper be granted to petitioner; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court from said petition and the papers annexed thereto that circumstances have so changed since the execution of said Deed of Gift, in a manner not known to the said donor and not anticipated by him, as to render impractical a literal compliance with the aforesaid terms of said Deed of Gift; and it further appearing that the grantor of said Deed of Gift has died and that the Attorney General of the Sate of New York is the only person interested in this proceeding; and said Attorney General having appeared and certified that he has no objections to the entry of an order as prayed for by petitioner,
NOW, upon motion of Carter, Ledyard and Milburn, attorneys for petitioner, it is
ORDERED that New York Yacht Club, as trustee of the America’s Cup given under the Deed of Gift dated October 24, 1887 made by George L. Schuyler, hereby is directed to administer the said Gift as if said Deed of Gift included no provision requiring yachts or vessels competing for the America’s Cup to sail, on their own bottoms, to the port where the contest is to take place, and as if the minimum load water-line length of the competing yachts or vessels of one mast was thereby required to be forty-four (44) feet.
Enter, Hon. Edgar J. Nathan, Jr. J.S.C. Justice

#2 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,623 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:49 AM

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

#3 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,839 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:53 AM

If the DoG hadn't been amended in 1956 the AC would today be a footnote in sailing history. Nobody was interested in challenging in J-Class sized yachts.

#4 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:01 PM

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.

Interesting all that KJ. Thanks.

I was thinking that if they had kept the requirement for boats being capable of getting to the venue on own bottom then maybe AC would have kept the spirit of adventure and ocean racing that seems to be flourishing today with sponsors and sailors and spectators of the Volvo? While in contrast the AC in the process of converting to inshore circuit racing is descending into low visibility with sponsors and sailors and spectators. Maybe they should re-instate the "own bottom" clause and get back the spirit of adventure?



#5 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:03 PM

If the DoG hadn't been amended in 1956 the AC would today be a footnote in sailing history. Nobody was interested in challenging in J-Class sized yachts.

There is no evidence for that is there? J-Class are not mandated by the deed. It's the removal of the sailing on own bottom that changed everything not the class of boat.

#6 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,044 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:09 PM

The development of composite construction (steel frames with wooden planking), and then all metal construction meant that it was much easier to build boats with inshore scantlings, compared to building boats with wood timbers and planking. I would think that America's scantlings were pretty much the same as the British boats. Had the own-bottom requirement remained, I doubt very much that there would be much interest in building alloy boats that could survive a tow across the Atlantic only to get mashed by American boats built to a much lighter standard. Lipton and Sopwith were happy to do it, but I don't think you would have found anybody happy to piss away cash like that after the war. Lipton was selling tea, anyway.

#7 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,839 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:29 PM


If the DoG hadn't been amended in 1956 the AC would today be a footnote in sailing history. Nobody was interested in challenging in J-Class sized yachts.

There is no evidence for that is there? J-Class are not mandated by the deed. It's the removal of the sailing on own bottom that changed everything not the class of boat.


I didn't say "J-Class", I said "J-Class sized". In 1956 the minimum size requirement in the DoG was reduced from 65 to 44 feet to make 12Ms eligible for the AC. This followed discussions between the NYYC and the RYS. There is ample evidence that nobody in this period believed a return to yachts of the size previous used was viable. Read Fisher's account, for example.

#8 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:12 PM



If the DoG hadn't been amended in 1956 the AC would today be a footnote in sailing history. Nobody was interested in challenging in J-Class sized yachts.

There is no evidence for that is there? J-Class are not mandated by the deed. It's the removal of the sailing on own bottom that changed everything not the class of boat.


I didn't say "J-Class", I said "J-Class sized". In 1956 the minimum size requirement in the DoG was reduced from 65 to 44 feet to make 12Ms eligible for the AC. This followed discussions between the NYYC and the RYS. There is ample evidence that nobody in this period believed a return to yachts of the size previous used was viable. Read Fisher's account, for example.

Yes but your post was based on the presumption that unless the deed had been altered it would have fallen into disuse. This theory is not correct as evidenced by AC33 and the new J-Class boat proposed by SNG. The Cup may have remained dormant for some time but sooner or later someone would have revived it.

#9 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:14 PM

The development of composite construction (steel frames with wooden planking), and then all metal construction meant that it was much easier to build boats with inshore scantlings, compared to building boats with wood timbers and planking. I would think that America's scantlings were pretty much the same as the British boats. Had the own-bottom requirement remained, I doubt very much that there would be much interest in building alloy boats that could survive a tow across the Atlantic only to get mashed by American boats built to a much lighter standard. Lipton and Sopwith were happy to do it, but I don't think you would have found anybody happy to piss away cash like that after the war. Lipton was selling tea, anyway.


I don't agree as some of the fastest boats today are ocean racers. I do agree that NYYC used the own bottom rule to their advantage but with modern construction this should no longer be an issue.

#10 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,839 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:35 PM

Yes but your post was based on the presumption that unless the deed had been altered it would have fallen into disuse. This theory is not correct as evidenced by AC33 and the new J-Class boat proposed by SNG. The Cup may have remained dormant for some time but sooner or later someone would have revived it.


Those involved at the time believed it was cost reduction or bust and the history of yachting is full of once-prestigious trophies gathering dust. Admiral's Cup, Ton Cups etc. You can believe the AC is uniquely immune from that possibility if you want to. Nobody believed it in 1956 and I don't believe it now.

#11 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,044 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:36 PM

Yes but your post was based on the presumption that unless the deed had been altered it would have fallen into disuse. This theory is not correct as evidenced by AC33 and the new J-Class boat proposed by SNG. The Cup may have remained dormant for some time but sooner or later someone would have revived it.


Maybe. Maybe not. The One Ton cup is now dead. The Admirals Cup is now dead. The Southern Cross is now dead. The SORC is dead. The Kenwood Cup is dead. The longer anything goes without competition, the lower the likelihood of revival.

The British economy went from one where there were 2 people rich enough to afford multiple big boat challengers on their own to one where a syndicate could afford a 12 metre. The top marginal tax rate on investment income in the UK in 1945 was 97.5%. The choice the NYYC had was between accepting the Sceptre challenge and definitely keeping the AC alive to not agreeing to amend the deed, declining the challenge and hoping for the best. Hoping for the best could just have resulted in the AC being a dust receptacle in a corner of the NYYC clubhouse. Where is the One Ton Cup now?

#12 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,044 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:41 PM

I don't agree as some of the fastest boats today are ocean racers. I do agree that NYYC used the own bottom rule to their advantage but with modern construction this should no longer be an issue.

Only because nobody is building boats that only have to survive one summer on LIS, because there isn't a competition that calls for it. What did they have to do to the most extreme inshore TP52s before taking them offshore? (Hint. It involved adding structure).

#13 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,839 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:54 PM

Where is the One Ton Cup now?


IIRC nobody seems quite sure. Last raced for in 2001 I believe in what are now called Farr 45s. Anyone know different?

Posted Image

#14 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,044 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:59 PM

And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

#15 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,321 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:33 PM

I was thinking that if they had kept the requirement for boats being capable of getting to the venue on own bottom then maybe AC would have kept the spirit of adventure and ocean racing that seems to be flourishing today with sponsors and sailors and spectators of the Volvo? While in contrast the AC in the process of converting to inshore circuit racing is descending into low visibility with sponsors and sailors and spectators. Maybe they should re-instate the "own bottom" clause and get back the spirit of adventure?

Agree but one has to remember that the purpose of that requirement was to oblige the Brits to build heavy vessels fit to cross the atlantic in order to race, in summer, against light NYYC yachts.

So, agree, the idea would be interesting at only the condition of removing the to race in summer in the Northern Emisphere.

#16 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,321 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:35 PM

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.


SF and ACRM in Jersey?

#17 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,044 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:40 PM

Agree but one has to remember that the purpose of that requirement was to oblige the Brits to build heavy vessels fit to cross the atlantic in order to race, in summer, against light NYYC yachts.

My guess is that the own-bottom requirement originated in the way that America came over to the UK and won, so anybody who wants to win the cup should do the same and sail to the regatta, with the home team advantage as a secondary benefit.

#18 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,731 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:42 PM


Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.


SF and ACRM in Jersey?


good thread topic PJF

the D OF G -as I posted many times has been mangled by ny courts for nyyc and others

acrm isnt independent of evilsin so those Independence claims is more evilsin - ehman BS



#19 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,044 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:49 PM

Where is the One Ton Cup now?

IIRC nobody seems quite sure. Last raced for in 2001 I believe in what are now called Farr 45s. Anyone know different?

Posted Image

There was a brief proposal that the KOD 33 should race for it in about 2003. Didn't happen, as the boat never got any traction
http://www.k-yachtin...loc%20kod33.htm

Boat's for sale now, if anybody wants to spend €29,500 on an orphan prototype of a failed one design.
http://www.yachtworl...KOD-33-2356474/

#20 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:09 PM

And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

#21 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,459 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:26 PM

Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.


Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.

#22 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 07:54 PM

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.


Wrong as usual. Where were RNZYS and SNG in 1956? The blame for the balls up rests with NYYC and NYAG.

#23 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,459 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:00 PM


Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.


Wrong as usual. Where were RNZYS and SNG in 1956? The blame for the balls up rests with NYYC and NYAG.


Did my post have anything to do with you?

What a piece of work.....

#24 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:03 PM



Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.


Wrong as usual. Where were RNZYS and SNG in 1956? The blame for the balls up rests with NYYC and NYAG.

Wrong as usual. Where were RNZYS and SNG in 1956? The blame for the balls up rests with NYYC and NYAG.

#25 Damaged Goods

Damaged Goods

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,614 posts
  • Location:1600 Penn Ave
  • Interests:Community organizing.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:33 PM

The problem is not the Cup or its history. The problem is Larry Ellison and Ernesto Bertinelli and their ilk. These ego-maniacs could give a ratz arse about the public, tradition, or even sailing. It's all about THEM all the time. Period.

#26 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:42 PM

The problem is not the Cup or its history. The problem is Larry Ellison and Ernesto Bertinelli and their ilk. These ego-maniacs could give a ratz arse about the public, tradition, or even sailing. It's all about THEM all the time. Period.


Ah yes, what with the loss of JP Morgan (owner of the first Columbia) and the Vanderbilts (owners of Defender, Reliance, Enterprise, Rainbow, and Ranger) the AC just can't find a good man-of-the-people billionaire anymore.

#27 trenace

trenace

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,282 posts
  • Location:Ocala, FL

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:47 PM

How is an expressed interest for the Cup to be in the long-term hands of an outside party that he doesn't control exactly an example of Ellison being all about him all the time, period?

#28 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:53 PM

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?


If the NYSC had refused to allow a change to the DoG and continued the very 19th century requirement that challenger had to sail on it's own bottom the cup would still be sitting on its perch at the NYYC. Even with today's materials, if you think you would be able to sail across the Atlantic in your 90' catamaran (say Banco Populair) and defeat the NYYC's version of Dogzilla with a wingsail in the fluky winds of Newport you are quite the dreamer.

The thing that really changed the cup was the commercialization of the syndicates and the attempts to make it into a 'profession'.

#29 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:58 PM


Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?


If the NYSC had refused to allow a change to the DoG and continued the very 19th century requirement that challenger had to sail on it's own bottom the cup would still be sitting on its perch at the NYYC. Even with today's materials, if you think you would be able to sail across the Atlantic in your 90' catamaran (say Banco Populair) and defeat the NYYC's version of Dogzilla with a wingsail in the fluky winds of Newport you are quite the dreamer.

The thing that really changed the cup was the commercialization of the syndicates and the attempts to make it into a 'profession'.


I suggested that the boat only has to be designed to be seaworthy for ocean passage.

#30 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:05 PM

How is an expressed interest for the Cup to be in the long-term hands of an outside party that he doesn't control exactly an example of Ellison being all about him all the time, period?

Of course it's all about Ellisons power and desire to remake the deed (or what's left of it) in his and RCs own image. RW only recently said the deed was in ACEA way and that's why Ellison want Coutts WS will be the driver for AC sailing leaving the deed as coat hanger and a claim to an importance that the WS could never achieve left free range as its not commercially voiable.

#31 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:59 PM

How is an expressed interest for the Cup to be in the long-term hands of an outside party that he doesn't control exactly an example of Ellison being all about him all the time, period?

Maybe this?


41.3 The net surplus revenue shall be determined (at least on a provisional basis) within 180
days after the last race of the Match and shall be paid as a contribution towards the
costs incurred by Competitors to compete in the Event as forming part of the costs
incurred in holding the Match as required by the Deed of Gift, and shall be paid within 90
days of its determination as follows:
(a) the management fee under Article 4.2; then
(B) 5% of the remainder of the net surplus up to a maximum of !10,000,000 to ACRM
toward the costs of the 35th America’s Cup, provided that the winner of the Match
and its challenger of record gives the Event Authority an unconditional
undertaking within 90 days of the last race of the Match that, for the 35th America’s
Cup:
(i) all dispute resolution shall be by way of arbitration;
(ii) provision shall be made for multiple challengers and a challenger series;
(iii) ACRM shall be maintained and provide neutral, independent, professional,
and fair management for all racing for the 35th America’s Cup;
(iv) an annual series of regattas shall commence within nine months of the last
race of the 34th Match; and
(v) hold the 35TH America’s Cup Match within five years.
If no such undertaking is provided, the payment to ACRM shall not be made, the
assets of ACRM shall be liquidated, and such sums and proceeds shall remain
part of the net surplus revenue to be distributed to the Competitors as provided
below; then
© one half of the remainder to GGYC, subject to 41.4 and 41.5; then
(d) the remainder to Challengers, subject to 41.4 and 41.5 as follows:
• 70% divided equally between all Challengers;
• 10% divided equally between all Challenger semi-finalists;
• 10% divided equally between both Challenger finalists;
• 10% to the winner of the America’s Cup Challenger Series; and
provided that, prior to the commencement of the Regatta, by unanimous
agreement the Challengers may alter this distribution formula.
41.4 A winner of the Match and its challenger of record (if entitled to a share of the net
surplus revenue) that have failed to give the undertakings referred to in Article 41.3(B)
shall not be entitled to any distribution of the net surplus revenue, and their shares shall
be redistributed to the other entitled Competitors as set out in Article 41.3© and (d).
Any forfeited shares shall be redistributed to the other entitled Competitors as set out in
Article 41.3© and (d) less the entitlement of the Competitor whose share of the net
surplus revenue has been forfeited.




#32 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,623 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:32 PM


Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.


Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.


Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.

#33 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:49 PM



Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.


Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.


Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.


That is just the funniest thing KJ
I just spilled my beer. .
The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?
Really?
After all the hate the OR gang heap on SNG who actually have an annual regatta on the Med?

#34 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,459 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:06 PM




Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.


Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.


Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.


That is just the funniest thing KJ
I just spilled my beer. .
The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?
Really?
After all the hate the OR gang heap on SNG who actually have an annual regatta on the Med?


Ok I'll take that. A good arse kicking kj - immaculate AC history.

Small points only then:

RNZYS could have simply said NO instead of deferring.

Great lakes not the same as Swiss duck pond.

Rule #1: Never make the mistake of losing (the race or your crew) to the mickey mouse club you let in just to make up the numbers.

#35 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,321 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:04 AM


And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.



#36 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,044 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:10 AM

Do you think Reliance was seaworthy?

Posted Image


#37 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:11 AM





Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.


Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.


Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.


That is just the funniest thing KJ
I just spilled my beer. .
The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?
Really?
After all the hate the OR gang heap on SNG who actually have an annual regatta on the Med?


Ok I'll take that. A good arse kicking kj - immaculate AC history.

Small points only then:

RNZYS could have simply said NO instead of deferring.

Great lakes not the same as Swiss duck pond.

Rule #1: Never make the mistake of losing (the race or your crew) to the mickey mouse club you let in just to make up the numbers.

You can't spin this one NavTroll
CYC sail on an inland pond and have their annual regatta on that same land locked pond.
But that's okay because they come from the land of John Wayne

#38 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:15 AM



And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.


The problem about seaworthy yachts is that the AC72 would not qualify as seaworthy under the 1881 amendment.




#39 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,623 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:17 AM





Did you know that San Diego Yacht Club, in its capacity as trustee of the America's Cup, petitioned the New York Supreme Court, seeking interpretation or amendment of the Deed of Gift to authorize a continuation of the traditional 12-meter yacht elimination series format employed by both the New York Yacht Club and the Royal Perth Yacht Club, the only two prior trustees. The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts, supported San Diego's position in the action.

Supreme Court rightly rejected San Diego's application to interpret or amend the Deed of Gift.

If it had succeded we wouldn't be having monohull vs multihull arguments. We would still be watching 12-meters.

Larry E has mentioned several time over the years when talking about his vision for the America's Cup, the first being in an interview after the Moet Cup, the need to amend the Deed of Gift to remove the Defenders right to choose a venue for the Match and the right to organise the Match so that the America's Cup could be held in one location on an ongoing basis and run by an independent management organisation.


Note: Prior to Ernesto's 'lack of an eligible venue' no one had considered that the Deed gave any such 'right to chose a venue for the Match'. Most still consider that the DOG's definition of the required 'Annual Regatta course' for all challenging Club's, to be a clear indication that that is where future races would be held, if the challenge were successful.

Blame RNZYS for allowing the ineligible Swiss Club's challenge.


Really? So NYYC moved the America's Cup to Newport, RI in 1930 because it had moved it's annual regatta there or was it because of the sheer number of spectator craft and commercial traffic that running the races off New York had become an impossibility.

Royal Perth Yacht Club evaluated 3 venues, none of them near RPYC, before deciding on Fremantle.

San Diego Yacht Club created a venue selection committee after winning the Cup in '87. Hawaii was one of the venues being considered. A fair way away from San Diego wouldn't you say.

At the time SNG entered AC31 it had held a regatta on the Med.

Do you not think that the New York Supreme Court created a precedence in 1986 when it ruled that Chicago Yacht Club and its Heart of America challenge as a valid challenger for the 26th America's Cup despite never having run a regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It ruled that allowing the CYC challenge was in the interest of the sport.

The Swiss Club Nautique de Morges and it FAST2000 challenge were accepted as a challenger in for the 30th America's Cup without a wimper.

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Club deferred the decision to accept or reject SNG and it's Alinghi Challenge for the 31st America's Cup to the Challengers Committee.


That is just the funniest thing KJ
I just spilled my beer. .
The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?
Really?
After all the hate the OR gang heap on SNG who actually have an annual regatta on the Med?


Ok I'll take that. A good arse kicking kj - immaculate AC history.

Small points only then:

RNZYS could have simply said NO instead of deferring.

Great lakes not the same as Swiss duck pond.

Rule #1: Never make the mistake of losing (the race or your crew) to the mickey mouse club you let in just to make up the numbers.


RNZYS were in no position, morally or probably legally, to say no to SNG's challenge.

1 - Precedence for a non DoG compliant yacht club to challenge for the America's Cup was set by the NYSC 10 years previous.
2 - It would have looked like RNZYS were punishing SNG for Alinghi employing our top AC sailors.
3 - It would have legitimised the despicable Black Heart campaign which RNZYS were keeping well away from.

RNZYS took the fairest option and left the decision to the challengers.

There is no difference between the Great Lakes and a Swiss lake, apart from size. Neither can be considered the sea or an arm of the sea.

Schuyler deliberately re-wrote the first Deed of Gift to exclude Great Lakes yacht clubs from challenging for the America's Cup by adding the 'having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea or on an arm of the sea (or one which combines both)' and 'Vessels intending to compete for this Cup must proceed under sail on their own bottoms to the port where the contest is to take place.' clauses.

#40 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:20 AM

You can't spin this one NavTroll
CYC sail on an inland pond and have their annual regatta on that same land locked pond.
But that's okay because they come from the land of John Wayne

You are the one doing the spinning. You are trying to blame the Americans for this, but wasn't the Aussies who wanted to let CYC in to the 86 AC, not SDYC? SDYC would have no interest in letting the CYC into the AC. When they were challenging, they didn't want competition and when defending they wouldn't have been petitioning to let CYC to challenge.

#41 Asymptote

Asymptote

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,602 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:26 AM



And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.




Nope. Wrong again. And wrong again.

The US defenders were never sea-worthy after the first few defenses using the whole NYYC fleet (which were harbor-racers or coastal cruisers on the waters between Maine and NYC). The NYYC had no interest in racing sea-worth vessels as a goal. They just wanted to win. By the end of the J-boat era the defenders were being fabricated out of a mash-up of iron, steel, aluminum and copper - creating giant galvanic batteries that essentially corroded out in months. The hull plating was so thin that bow sections were literally bashed back into shape during races.

The 1881 amendment was not for some noble "seaworthy vessel" purpose, it was to eliminate the attempts by the Canadians to enter light-weight boats that could readily be towed to the venue which might threaten the defender's advantage. And to get rid of the Canadian "riffraff" that were just not up to NYYC social standards.

And if you wish to compare Chicago's challenge with SNG's, recognize that Lake Michigan has extensive ocean-going commercial traffic connected to the Atlantic by the St. Lawrence Seaway. Not that much of stretch to call it "an arm of the sea" compared to pretty little Lac Leman.

You can try to stop reading into the deed what you want to find to support your personal, peculiar vision, but I doubt you will succeed....or even try.

#42 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:36 AM




And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.




Nope. Wrong again. And wrong again.

The US defenders were never sea-worthy after the first few defenses using the whole NYYC fleet (which were harbor-racers or coastal cruisers on the waters between Maine and NYC). The NYYC had no interest in racing sea-worth vessels as a goal. They just wanted to win. By the end of the J-boat era the defenders were being fabricated out of a mash-up of iron, steel, aluminum and copper - creating giant galvanic batteries that essentially corroded out in months. The hull plating was so thin that bow sections were literally bashed back into shape during races.

The 1881 amendment was not for some noble "seaworthy vessel" purpose, it was to eliminate the attempts by the Canadians to enter light-weight boats that could readily be towed to the venue which might threaten the defender's advantage. And to get rid of the Canadian "riffraff" that were just not up to NYYC social standards.

And if you wish to compare Chicago's challenge with SNG's, recognize that Lake Michigan has extensive ocean-going commercial traffic connected to the Atlantic by the St. Lawrence Seaway. Not that much of stretch to call it "an arm of the sea" compared to pretty little Lac Leman.

You can try to stop reading into the deed what you want to find to support your personal, peculiar vision, but I doubt you will succeed....or even try.

Not so sure GLS would have considered that man-made locks would form an arm of the sea but hell when you're losing best to clutch for anything.

#43 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:37 AM


You can't spin this one NavTroll
CYC sail on an inland pond and have their annual regatta on that same land locked pond.
But that's okay because they come from the land of John Wayne

You are the one doing the spinning. You are trying to blame the Americans for this, but wasn't the Aussies who wanted to let CYC in to the 86 AC, not SDYC? SDYC would have no interest in letting the CYC into the AC. When they were challenging, they didn't want competition and when defending they wouldn't have been petitioning to let CYC to challenge.

Nope. Not me. NYSC spun the deed.

#44 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:44 AM

Not so sure GLS would have considered that man-made locks would form an arm of the sea but hell when you're losing best to clutch for anything.


While I don't think GLS would have considered that the CYC conformed to the deed and overall think it was a mistake that opened the door for clubs like SNG, one has to acknowledge that Lake Michigan is more than 6000 square miles larger than Switzerland itself. It is large enough that some might even consider that it is a sea (a fresh water one).

#45 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:49 AM

Nope. Not me. NYSC spun the deed.


Certainly not you . . . except that this is a quote from your post:

The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?

#46 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:53 AM


Not so sure GLS would have considered that man-made locks would form an arm of the sea but hell when you're losing best to clutch for anything.


While I don't think GLS would have considered that the CYC conformed to the deed and overall think it was a mistake that opened the door for clubs like SNG, one has to acknowledge that Lake Michigan is more than 6000 square miles larger than Switzerland itself. It is large enough that some might even consider that it is a sea (a fresh water one).

Who says size matters? It's still a lake. SNG have an annual regatta on the Mediterranean Sea.

#47 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:54 AM


Nope. Not me. NYSC spun the deed.


Certainly not you . . . except that this is a quote from your post:

The Yanks were the first to accept an inland YC challenge?


Unless I am mistaken the NYSC is in Yankland. N'est-ce pas?

#48 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,321 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:06 AM




And another thought. Why would the Aussie or Kiwis have bothered with any challenges at all, given that they would have had to deliver through the Southern Ocean?

Seems no reason why the deed could be returned to the original intent on design in that challenger boats should be sufficiently seaworthy to contemplate an ocean crossing but maybe not be required to do so in practice or maybe to have made at least a measured distance at sea in order to qualify as an acceptable design?

Agree, seaworthy yachts would be a big plus for the AC, and also very much in its spirit.

The obligation to cross the ocean at their own bottom was not kept, but the reason of the race with a YC "having for its annual regatta on ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea" was precisely the result of a 1881 amendment written after a weak canadian challenge and in order to have seaworthy vessels.


Nope. Wrong again. And wrong again.

The US defenders were never sea-worthy after the first few defenses using the whole NYYC fleet (which were harbor-racers or coastal cruisers on the waters between Maine and NYC). The NYYC had no interest in racing sea-worth vessels as a goal. They just wanted to win. By the end of the J-boat era the defenders were being fabricated out of a mash-up of iron, steel, aluminum and copper - creating giant galvanic batteries that essentially corroded out in months. The hull plating was so thin that bow sections were literally bashed back into shape during races.

The 1881 amendment was not for some noble "seaworthy vessel" purpose, it was to eliminate the attempts by the Canadians to enter light-weight boats that could readily be towed to the venue which might threaten the defender's advantage. And to get rid of the Canadian "riffraff" that were just not up to NYYC social standards.

And if you wish to compare Chicago's challenge with SNG's, recognize that Lake Michigan has extensive ocean-going commercial traffic connected to the Atlantic by the St. Lawrence Seaway. Not that much of stretch to call it "an arm of the sea" compared to pretty little Lac Leman.

You can try to stop reading into the deed what you want to find to support your personal, peculiar vision, but I doubt you will succeed....or even try.

You seem to confuse everything,

You are right to say that the reason for the 1881 amendment was to eliminate Canadian challenges, however the official reason given was to race against seaworthy yachts, even if they did not respected it for their own yachts.
The Deed did not change, the amendment is still valid.

Now it is entertaining that you and some consider the Great Lakes to be a lake when it was worthwhile to eliminate the Canadians, Ocean to allow Chicago, and that Leman is a lake because of the Swiss.
And I am sure that you are part of the guys that defend a challenger venue in winter in the Northern Emisphere. And after you speak of fair play...
You have the same kind of selective reading of the Deed that the NYYC had during decades...

BYW, GLS was willing to replicate his own race, and.............................. he crossed the Atlantic with his vessel.

#49 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,198 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:32 AM

You seem to confuse everything,
...
the 1881 amendment ...
The Deed did not change, the amendment is still valid ...

Thanks for another brilliant education about the history of Deed amendments, TCI... Can I please have those 10 seconds back?

#50 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,321 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:17 AM


You seem to confuse everything,
...
the 1881 amendment ...
The Deed did not change, the amendment is still valid ...

Thanks for another brilliant education about the history of Deed amendments, TCI... Can I please have those 10 seconds back?


^^
Not aware of the 1881 amendment Spinboy ? or maybe you want to call it second Deed ? too much Pinault Noir tonight ? :D

#51 SmartPig

SmartPig

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Location:Chesapeake Bay

Posted 22 February 2012 - 03:12 PM

All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

#52 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:02 PM

All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

When ocean racing is all the rage why is it that GGYC are trying to reinvent the the oldest ocean race of all as an inshore race?


The idea that yacht racing can't make mass media unless it bis viewed from the shore is proven wrong by the Volvo.


Why is new AC Inshore in trouble getting sponsors and teams together when modern ocean races are thriving?

Maybe the reason is that flashing around in a big beach cat lacks the sense of adventure that is the key to media success today?



#53 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,832 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:06 PM


All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

When ocean racing is all the rage why is it that GGYC are trying to reinvent the the oldest ocean race of all as an inshore race?


The idea that yacht racing can't make mass media unless it bis viewed from the shore is proven wrong by the Volvo.


Why is new AC Inshore in trouble getting sponsors and teams together when modern ocean races are thriving?

Maybe the reason is that flashing around in a big beach cat lacks the sense of adventure that is the key to media success today?


1-It was certainly not GGYC, the AC has been inshore for ages.
2-6 boats on teh VOR, not really thriving. The PR is good and fun to follow, tho.



#54 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:11 PM



All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

When ocean racing is all the rage why is it that GGYC are trying to reinvent the the oldest ocean race of all as an inshore race?


The idea that yacht racing can't make mass media unless it bis viewed from the shore is proven wrong by the Volvo.


Why is new AC Inshore in trouble getting sponsors and teams together when modern ocean races are thriving?

Maybe the reason is that flashing around in a big beach cat lacks the sense of adventure that is the key to media success today?


1-It was certainly not GGYC, the AC has been inshore for ages.
2-6 boats on teh VOR, not really thriving. The PR is good and fun to follow, tho.


1. No so.
2. More interest in human endeavor and adventure than in F1 style circuit sailing.




#55 SmartPig

SmartPig

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Location:Chesapeake Bay

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:21 PM

I'll be watching in 2013, with all the interest of something bizarre like this ..........

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4eTMDkbS0fc

What I won't find though, is sailboat racing. Pretty freaking sad ....

#56 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,832 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:28 PM

1. No so.
2. More interest in human endeavor and adventure than in F1 style circuit sailing.

1- Then I'd be interested what "ocean racing" is for you.
2 -6 boats, really?

#57 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 22 February 2012 - 06:05 PM




All this is interesting ....... but the event is suffering. Bash the 12s all you want, but there never has been a series to come close to equaling the '87 Louis Vuitton Cup . The bar is very high.

Consider this -- the days of AC racing in 30 knots are over.

When ocean racing is all the rage why is it that GGYC are trying to reinvent the the oldest ocean race of all as an inshore race?


The idea that yacht racing can't make mass media unless it bis viewed from the shore is proven wrong by the Volvo.


Why is new AC Inshore in trouble getting sponsors and teams together when modern ocean races are thriving?

Maybe the reason is that flashing around in a big beach cat lacks the sense of adventure that is the key to media success today?


1-It was certainly not GGYC, the AC has been inshore for ages.
2-6 boats on teh VOR, not really thriving. The PR is good and fun to follow, tho.


1. No so.
2. More interest in human endeavor and adventure than in F1 style circuit sailing.



1. Really? The Hauraki gulf is 'free from headlands'?

#58 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 06:33 PM


1. No so.
2. More interest in human endeavor and adventure than in F1 style circuit sailing.

1- Then I'd be interested what "ocean racing" is for you.
2 -6 boats, really?

Maybe I should have said offshore in the sense that you won't see much from the beach? That's what GGYC are trying to change. I'm saying that with Volvo it makes no difference and that endeavor and adventure drive more public and media interest than choreographed inshore drag race.

Oh and that live coverage is for core supporters not for mass media because sailing can't guarantee a live broadcast schedule.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users