Jump to content


Bombshell in San Fran


  • Please log in to reply
399 replies to this topic

#1 knarly34

knarly34

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:11 AM

"Today the Event organisers dropped a bombshell on the Americas Cup competitors when they announced they will no longer be requiring the Teams to be based on Piers 30 and 32, and more importantly would not be paying for any redevelopment of the Piers as has been promised for the last 18 months.
I am sitting here completely stunned. We are a little over 6 months from relocating our base to San Fran to what we have been told would be a fully functioning base area complete with Team hospitality spaces and full access for the public to watch the teams preparing and launching their boats. It is now going to be a concrete slab with absolutely nothing on it which will now require us to secure cranes, jettys, and all services required to function. We have never budgeted for this and to be dropped on us now is quite unbelievable.
I have to say we are a long long way from the vision presented to us back in September 2010. Larry Ellison has done a lot for this AC and has put a lot of his own financial resource into making the Americas Cup next year a big event. However I think in terms of a lot of decisions made along the way by different people here we are with only 3 challengers and now no base facility to operate out of. This is a long way from the success of 2007 in Valencia no matter how you package it.
The catamarans are great but the AC72's are just way too expensive. Not only is the design and build of the new boats extreme, but then you need a small army just to launch and retrieve the boat each day let alone the work to maintain it.
There is no question the AC72 racing next year will be spectacular. That is fortunate because the rest of the show looks to be well below expectations.
On the AC45 front we had a good practice day in what was the most amazing day I have experienced in SF. Tomorrow we have the official practice races which will be good before the racing proper kicks off Wednesday.
All for now
Dean"

FROM: http://www.kiwiyacht...bshell-san-fran

I want the old monos to make a comeback

What's everyone else think of this about turn by event organizers?

#2 nroose

nroose

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,446 posts
  • Location:Berkeley

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:24 AM

Don't hold your breath for the monos to return. It is a shame that more teams couldn't come up with the goods. You seem to be doing great, though, Deano! Just fly your 72 right into the shed! All you need to do is learn how to VTOL it!

#3 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,982 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:28 AM

Well this is going to get interesting .

#4 Dixie

Dixie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts
  • Location:SF

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:41 AM

This is truly a shame, on so many counts. Now Artemis' decision to set up camp in Alameda shows some great foresight. Is there room for more?

#5 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:48 AM

wow

does that happen in any other sport

even in high school basketball don't they share the facilities they have?

not just tell the visitors to; shit, shower and change in the parking lot

ps thanks for accepting our invitation

unfortunately the promised facilities have been subject to a budget cut back

so if you're modest about changing in the open we suggest you bring a tarp to hang from your bus

and bring a bucket for your ablutions

actually, it's probably healthier if you bring 2 buckets

so you don't mix them up

​i guess wussel will be drinking champagne tonight

and every night


#6 Rohanoz

Rohanoz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,490 posts
  • Location:Australian East Coast
  • Interests:A bad day sailing is still better than a good day at work.

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:54 AM

The apparent foot to the floor sail today by the OR72, when the guys had been focussing 110% on the AC45 series, all stinks of a horrible board meeting with the boss!

The toys were thrown out of the cradle, costs were cut, and action demanded!!!!

#7 wkd928

wkd928

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:51 AM

If they can't win on the water, what do you expect??

#8 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,731 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:51 AM

There have long been rumours that LE had cut the budgets of AC Alphabet and this seem to confirm it. He clearly has had enough. The original intention wa sthat he would underwrite and provide the initial capital to get the show on the road but that the show would not only pay for itself, but make a profit. It has become clear that the only way forward is for LE to effectively become the main sponsor. Having to pay to get the event onto US TV was a huge blow and I imagine the straw that broke the camels back is that at least one main sponsor (LV) has asked for a significant amount of their money back due to so few challengers. If there is one thing LE is famous for not tolerating, it is the failure to deliver against a business plan and he would not accept "the economy" as an excuse.

We know heads have already rolled, but you have to wonder who will be next. On the back of all of this, how tenable is RC's position. His vision has failed to deliver. He appointed the people who messed up at AC Alphabet. Iain Murray is now well in control of ASA, while Grant Simmer seems more than capable of running the design/ops side of OR. Jimmy is in charge of sailing. So what is RC doing now? If LE is true to form, RC must be in the firing line.

Maybe more worrying for OR fanboys is that the same rumours about LE being pissed about the commercial side of the Cup says that he is also pissed at the high spend of the team and that he has imposed serious budget caps. No more open chequebook.

#9 knarly34

knarly34

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:11 AM

Good lord. How have we ended up in this mess. This is far from the awesomely smooth event we were led to believe this woud be. When can we go back to the easy days? Sometimes, very rarely, I wish EB still had he cup and we were racing AC90s. Bring back syndicate row & smaller budgets.

#10 umpire

umpire

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Location:Edenbridge, UK

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:19 AM

So what is RC doing now? If LE is true to form, RC must be in the firing line.



Now that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons!!

#11 BAR KARATE

BAR KARATE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Location:Somewhere on the East Coast of OZ
  • Interests:Alcoholic with a Sailing Problem

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:27 AM

You should have seen that coming Deano, it is the AC afterall ......
Borrow a couple of Scout Tents a few porta loo's and a BBQ & your set ......

#12 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:52 AM

while the crew have been heading that way with their mobile brewery

i don't they thought it would be good enough for their sponsors to be drinking home brew and pissing in a bucket

if bruno pops round he is probably advised not to wear bare feet

#13 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

So would ETNZ be obliged to hire local or can they take their own crane and operators with them from NZ?

#14 auscat

auscat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,315 posts
  • Location:Airlie Beach

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:11 AM

Typical AC crap,Oh shit the Kiwis have a better boat,lets make so expensive they can't come.Scared to meet them on the water = make sure they can't get there.Yeh we won. :o :blink: :P

#15 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 877 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:30 AM

This change in resource allocation affects Luna Rossa as well as ETNZ .. they have come this far there is no way that they will not see it through to the end ..

Inevitably ETNZ & Luna Rossa will share the infrastructure costs and they will pay for it by a reduction in their plans (hopes OR) or by chatting up the sponsors for the shortfall ..

#16 tomtom

tomtom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 208 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:31 AM

Good lord. How have we ended up in this mess. This is far from the awesomely smooth event we were led to believe this woud be. When can we go back to the easy days? Sometimes, very rarely, I wish EB still had he cup and we were racing AC90s. Bring back syndicate row & smaller budgets.


Yup, I was trying to convince the missus that Sep 2013 would be a great time to visit her family in SF.... showed her the glossy layouts with the large screens, the hospitality tents, the sponsors, clothing stalls etc to try to take her worry away that it would be awful. Well, there goes that option, no way I am going to convince her now to go there, sit on the quay side and watch the boats go by, if that is the only thing going... sucks.

#17 knarly34

knarly34

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:33 AM

All this means in reality is a whole lotta work & distraction for ETNZ & LR

Wonder if we will get a rant by GD?

#18 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:33 AM

Survivor San Francisco, brought to you by Louis Vuitton.
I don't think it's quite the vision LV would have had in mind.

#19 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,308 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:41 AM

Surely this arrangement for the challengers was put in a contract?

#20 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,731 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:44 AM

While I do not think this is a deliberate move to screw up challengers, the impact on ETNZ and LR is totally unacceptable. Now they have less than 6 months to find extra money, design and build their whole operations base. Talk about a distraction! There is no way that this can have anything but a negative effect on their efforts. They do not have the spare manpower to focus on the issue and the team principals have better things to do than get their begging bowls out in front of the sponsors.

Based on the past, and considering this is a huge breach of promise, I bet GD is already on the phone to the lawyers.

#21 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:54 AM

Surely this arrangement for the challengers was put in a contract?


That's what I would have thought. If they are specifically covered off in individual contracts between each Competitor and the Event Authority (on behalf of GGYC), the lawyers will be checking out the Paris Motor Show.
The only reference I can find in the Protocol is Article 4.1. Management and Funding:
(a) GGYC shall have sole responsibility to organize and manage the Event as provided in this Protocol. GGYC’s responsibility shall include:

(ii) selecting the Venue(s) and reaching an agreement with the relevant authorities;

(iv) endeavoring to make space available at the Venue for the Competitors to establish an operational base at reasonable cost;

#22 Terrorvision

Terrorvision

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,778 posts
  • Interests:Taking 'the' out of Psychotherapist

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:00 AM

I wonder if Ernesto has recovered from stomach pains yet after laughing hard for several hours at this turn of events.

#23 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:01 AM

Dean is coming off as naive, in his rant. Developing the ETNZ platform in Aukland has given the kiwis a certain comfort zone up to this point. Now they are faced with throwing together a last minute facility, because they thought it was to be provided for them by uncle Larry, and cousin Russel?
Recent previous cup events the teams have negated the home team advantage by moving all but the build facility to the defender's venue. ETNZ have chosen a different route, and perhaps thought that the charity they have received from the NZ public would be matched by Larry.
One word: Wrong.
Now, ETNZ will have to go to Larry's town, negotiate their own deal, and pay the SF going rate. What is wrong with that?
Didn't they know that was going to happen?
Perhaps they should have understood. Looking back, wasn't it team NZ that lost the cup when the talent ran to the big money?
Don't get me wrong, I think ETNZ has shown up Larry's team in development of the foiling 72s. After viewing the images of the two boats performing, on foils, there is no doubt in my mind that ETNZ has a huge advantage with control, and a huge advantage with speed. Also a huge advantage with future development, due to their data collected, and time on the water.
That advantage will be lost eventually as they must be race ready months before the defender, and now face he distraction of putting a facility together on their own.
Larry will catch up, both by throwing more money into his defense, and doing anything in his ability to cripple his competition. Like forcing them to break their budget.
Game on...

#24 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:02 AM

maybe LR and etnz could use the GGYC facilities for their shindigs

seems the least they could do if it was their job to sort this stuff

#25 Albatros

Albatros

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:04 AM

hah, but there are upsides to this new debacle too ... at least from a certain perspective :

1)the AC gone F1 dream seems to be off the table for now, halelujah. Less random pzazz and more focus on sailing, good.
2)Kootie's wanking on the promotion of Kiwi agriculture gets to the forefront, bring on a couple hefty tractors to move the AC72's around, how difficulty would it be to make a slipway and drive them babies in and out the water that way, and yep, a couple tents, porta-potti's the home brew and bbq ... just to spite Larry.

and 3) can't wait to see the usual ringleaders, apologists and other assorted sockpuppets to come chiming in saying that it's all good, nothing to see here, move along .... wait and see what diversion Stinger has on offer today
B)

#26 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,731 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:12 AM

Dean is coming off as naive, in his rant. Developing the ETNZ platform in Aukland has given the kiwis a certain comfort zone up to this point. Now they are faced with throwing together a last minute facility, because they thought it was to be provided for them by uncle Larry, and cousin Russel?
Recent previous cup events the teams have negated the home team advantage by moving all but the build facility to the defender's venue. ETNZ have chosen a different route, and perhaps thought that the charity they have received from the NZ public would be matched by Larry.
One word: Wrong.
Now, ETNZ will have to go to Larry's town, negotiate their own deal, and pay the SF going rate. What is wrong with that?
Didn't they know that was going to happen?

No, they didn't know. they had been promised a base and all the other facilities. It seems that you consider it to be OK to promise the challengers one thing and then not deliver, giving them less than 6 months notice to sort out what had originally been promised to them? Don''t you think that if they had known, they wouldn't be surprised, as we all are? More telling is the fact that AC Alphabet has needed to announce this. If the challengers knew this was going to happen, why announce it as something new? I have no idea the contractural basis of entry, but morally the defender is totally in the wrong on this one.

Congrats on being the first appologist ;)

#27 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,616 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:19 AM

Oh well, another Protocol change coming up

52. AC VILLAGE

52.1.


All Competitors shall lease a Team Base at the AC Village from which they shall conduct

their operations at the Venue. If all Team Bases have been allocated the Event Authority

will endeavor to find an alternative location at the Venue but will be under no obligation.

Team Bases may not be of equal size or prominence.

52.2.


Temporary space will be allocated at the Venue of AC World Series regattas for each

Competitor. Such spaces may not be of equal size or prominence. Such temporary space

will be small and compact and some facilities may be shared.

#28 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:24 AM

"I have no idea the contractural basis of entry, but morally the defender is totally in the wrong on this one." (sn)

Finally, god has made his appearance in the ac arena!

Thank heaven,,,morality in babylon by the bay.

#29 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:34 AM

Typical. Same old bullshit bet we see this head to the courts again. What a disgrace.

#30 Danno

Danno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 417 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:36 AM

"the best Americas Cup ever", more like the biggest farce in recent sailing history......
More lies and smoke and mirrors from uncle Larry.
Seriously, this is the first time in well over 30 years that the defender of the cup hasn't been able to provide base space for a challenger.
How embarrassed would you be to support Oracle Racing about now...,what a pack of fuckwits!

#31 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:51 AM

HEADS SHOULD ROLL FOR THIS!!!!!!!!

#32 auscat

auscat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,315 posts
  • Location:Airlie Beach

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:51 AM

"the best Americas Cup ever", more like the biggest farce in recent sailing history......
More lies and smoke and mirrors from uncle Larry.
Seriously, this is the first time in well over 30 years that the defender of the cup hasn't been able to provide base space for a challenger.
How embarrassed would you be to support Oracle Racing about now...,what a pack of fuckwits!


Well said.Pretty much a case of "I'm having a party.By they way you hire the hall,the band and the piss but ,hey thanks for comming".
Wasn't there a thread about all the reclaimed docks and stuff supplied by the city?

#33 ripclaw

ripclaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:55 AM

Typical AC crap,Oh shit the Kiwis have a better boat,lets make so expensive they can't come.Scared to meet them on the water = make sure they can't get there.Yeh we won. :o :blink: :P


Funnily enough, this was my first thought as well. :o

#34 Dixie

Dixie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts
  • Location:SF

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:02 AM

I'm trying to unwind this story. Why did the piers get pulled completely? We knew much earlier this year that 30 and 32 were off the table and then a modified plan was put in place to stabilize half of the structure so the bases could be there. The village will still be built on 27/29 (or at least so far) and the city, according to this article posted last Wednesday http://blog.sfgate.c...ties-not-ready/ could be partially on the hook if those two locations are not ready by March 1.

"These latest revisions to an America’s Cup deal that has been updated and modified repeatedlysince race organizers selected San Francisco on Dec. 31, 2010, to host sailing’s premier event go before the Board of Supervisor’s budget committee Wednesday....

"So now the proposed changes include the city putting up $2.4 million as collateral to speed up construction on Pier 27, where a mostly completed cruise ship terminal is to be part of the spectator village, or Piers 30-32, where team bases will be located, if they’re not ready by March 1. The money could also be used to secure another site....


"If Pier 29, part of the planned spectator village and damaged by a fire June 20, is not ready by March 1, the construction contractor doing the repairs, Turner Construction Company, would be required to pay the city $5,000 a day. Martin said that money would be transferred to the race organizers, known as the America’s Cup Event Authority.[If Piers 30-32 aren’t ready, the port can also call upon Turner’s performance bond for work on those piers."[

Not sure if this was approved by the BoS, perhaps not and Barclay decided he didn't want to risk it without more skin in the game from the City?[/font]

#35 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:20 AM

Dixie, has all this got something to do with the Warrior's scheme to move out of Oracle Arena, and build a stadium at piers 30-32?

Seems to me that, years ago, there was an effort by Larry to buy the Warriors, and the sellers would not deal? Now the Warriors owners want to move to the sf waterfront, coincidentally the same piers that were part of the big uproar. Remember the 30-32 or 50-52 fiasco?

My other question: Why did Artimis know better than to rely on the 30-32 scheme? More money in the budget, and more realistic expectations?

My guess is a more independent, attitude. They negotiated their lease without Larry as a middleman...

#36 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:28 AM

Why did Artimis know better than to rely on the 30-32 scheme? More money in the budget, and more realistic expectations?

My guess is a more independent, attitude. They negotiated their lease without Larry as a middleman...


Or as the puppy CoR, inside information?

#37 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,616 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:28 AM

My other question: Why did Artimis know better than to rely on the 30-32 scheme? More money in the budget, and more realistic expectations?

My guess is a more independent, attitude. They negotiated their lease without Larry as a middleman...


Artemis along with Oracle were still going to have to move their bases to Pier 30-32 for the duration of the Louis Vuitton Cup and America's Cup. It was, and currently still is, a requirement of the AC34 Protocol. That is, up until today. The Protocol will have to be amended.

#38 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,731 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:28 AM

My other question: Why did Artimis know better than to rely on the 30-32 scheme? More money in the budget, and more realistic expectations?

My guess is a more independent, attitude. They negotiated their lease without Larry as a middleman...

There is a significant difference. The Artemis base was intended as their training base. Up until today, they were required to relocate to the piers. I believe that the decision to set up base was based on the decision to train in SF than it was becasue they knew the piers weren't going to happen. It seems that they got lucky. Maybe it was because they decided that Valencia wasn't suitable for working up the AC72. Maybe they see benefits in training in SF even "out of season". I certainly don't think it was anything to do with knowing or suspecting the bases they were promised wouldn't happen.

#39 Dixie

Dixie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts
  • Location:SF

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:37 AM

Yes, what I heard anecdotally at the beginning of this year was as Artemis folks watched the negotiations between the city and AC folks, they thought it best to build their own world for practice, as the pieces on the shoreline chessboard were constantly in motion. As mentioned above, they would have been obliged to move to Pier 32 come March.

I expect there's still more to this story...

Aside from the hardship it will cause on LR and ENTZ, the ACEA will join a host of other companies who have pulled out of 30/32 redevelopment. It's a shame, really a shame for the event, the teams, and for the city.

#40 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,616 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:38 AM

^^^^

Artemis announced last year they were going to move to SF to train. I suspect broken wing gave them enough downtime to re-locate earlier than planned.

#41 Dixie

Dixie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts
  • Location:SF

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:44 AM

Perhaps, again this was anecdotal - as in bits and pieces from various people closely involved with the team. But the quiet word was that they found their own base as there was too much that wasn't certain on the negotiations with the piers.

But that's not the point. What i still question is why this change now?

#42 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,616 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:07 PM

The fact that the articles mentions ACOC and the non-existent $32M ( or as the article puts it 'It turns out such a financial security instrument doesn’t exist,' ) may be telling. The funds raised by ACOC were supposed to be used to defray the Cities costs.

ACOC were supposed to pay the City something like $8.5M earlier this year to defray costs already incurred. $8M of that was to have come from ACEA who effectively bought the rights to be able to attract local sponsors from ACOC.

ACEA were to recover that cost from the sponsorships they attracted but sponsors for the AC are few and far between, particularly sponsors who are actually paying for sponsorship rights. LV would appear to be the only sponsor paying, the rest are providing services or product.

#43 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,731 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:09 PM

What i still question is why this change now?

A cynic might suggest that they ahve reached the point in time where they can no longer provide what they intended/committed to and therefore have decided to dump the responsibilty back to the teams. Irrespective of why, it adds a rather significant work and financial burden to both ETNZ and LR.

#44 acintel

acintel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:11 PM

This is a sad story

Back to 1995 style, when Americans were in charge. Well done Ehman. Well done Coutts.

Everyday brings its misery in this organisation. Whom head is going to roll? But who is left?!!

Coutts, still too smart to be the one?

Come on Larry, do what you have to do!

#45 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,134 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:17 PM

At best, it does not look right. At worst they have pulled the rug out from under ETNZ and LR.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that bases have ever been provided for the teams. Were the teams required to pay for development of their bases here, having been arranged by ACEA in the negotiations with SF? Is it now gone from 'free' to full 'pay', or is it now just we're not doing the work for you, you have to take what you were going to 'pay' and do it yourself?

#46 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,808 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:33 PM

Go ahead and accuse me of being an apologist for the following comment....but I think this may end up being a big net benefit to ETNZ. When viewed in the larger picture, this could end up costing them less money, than if they were forced to take a lease from ACEA.If nothing else, they will be living closer to their team base. HIghly unlikely that the Kiwi's, frugal as they are (wisely, I might add) would have all the team staying in San Francisco. More likely the living arrangements would have been somewhere less expensive across the bay. Saving the travel time/hassle is something that needs to be factored into the equation.I know that there are more than a couple of people who have been working behind the scenes for a long time trying to secure the Kiwi's as tenants in places like Richmond. MC Hammer's ride on the 45 was all about Oakland, and their potential to play some role as host for something about AC34.The real loss here will be the overall fan experience, and what that means for this, and future Cups. Since the last ACWS, I had been asked by several people where they should rent an apartment, or house, during the Cup, whether over by the Marina, or by the Piers. I had been advising the Marina, but said the Piers could have some advantages with the bases being located there. Now, that choice has to clearly be the Marina, if ETNZ concludes it is going to be better for them to be some place other than the Pier. They and Luna Rosa can partner up and share a base. The Village concept would have been great for this Cup. Now, without the teams all centralized there, the idea of a central fan base at the Piers just lost alot of luster.

#47 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:33 PM

Haven't there been contracts signed that guarantee certain facilities for the teams? A deal with any company about an endeavor of that size and amount of money involved should have a firm and proper contract. If ETNZ believed in the verbal proclamations, they shouldn't be too shocked, because then it wouldn't only be the defender who was/is acting in an unprofessional way.

EDIT: Oooops, I see, this has been already discussed briefly up above... never mind, I still think that the legal team inside ETNZ needs a good kick somewhere, if the team's requirements haven't been covered in writing.

#48 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,001 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:46 PM


Dean is coming off as naive, in his rant. Developing the ETNZ platform in Aukland has given the kiwis a certain comfort zone up to this point. Now they are faced with throwing together a last minute facility, because they thought it was to be provided for them by uncle Larry, and cousin Russel?
Recent previous cup events the teams have negated the home team advantage by moving all but the build facility to the defender's venue. ETNZ have chosen a different route, and perhaps thought that the charity they have received from the NZ public would be matched by Larry.
One word: Wrong.
Now, ETNZ will have to go to Larry's town, negotiate their own deal, and pay the SF going rate. What is wrong with that?
Didn't they know that was going to happen?

No, they didn't know. they had been promised a base and all the other facilities. It seems that you consider it to be OK to promise the challengers one thing and then not deliver, giving them less than 6 months notice to sort out what had originally been promised to them? Don''t you think that if they had known, they wouldn't be surprised, as we all are? More telling is the fact that AC Alphabet has needed to announce this. If the challengers knew this was going to happen, why announce it as something new? I have no idea the contractural basis of entry, but morally the defender is totally in the wrong on this one.

Congrats on being the first appologist ;)


Agree, but only if the promise was actually made. Reached out to Dalts and a couple others to find out the nature and substance of that promise; agreement or no agreement, if ETNZ did a bunch of work in reliance on that promise, OTUSA may still be on the hook under Cali Law.

#49 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,743 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:50 PM

At best, it does not look right. At worst they have pulled the rug out from under ETNZ and LR.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that bases have ever been provided for the teams. Were the teams required to pay for development of their bases here, having been arranged by ACEA in the negotiations with SF? Is it now gone from 'free' to full 'pay', or is it now just we're not doing the work for you, you have to take what you were going to 'pay' and do it yourself?

It sounds like the teams still will be based on piers 30/32. What has perhaps changed is that they have to build there own base there. Didn't everyone build their own bases at Valencia?

#50 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,616 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:56 PM

At best, it does not look right. At worst they have pulled the rug out from under ETNZ and LR.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that bases have ever been provided for the teams. Were the teams required to pay for development of their bases here, having been arranged by ACEA in the negotiations with SF? Is it now gone from 'free' to full 'pay', or is it now just we're not doing the work for you, you have to take what you were going to 'pay' and do it yourself?


Bases in the past have been leased.

The bases in SF were all going to be the same. The Teams provide their own Tent/Container bases, to the design stipulated in the Protocol, and lease the space on Pier 30-32.

#51 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,616 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:06 PM


At best, it does not look right. At worst they have pulled the rug out from under ETNZ and LR.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that bases have ever been provided for the teams. Were the teams required to pay for development of their bases here, having been arranged by ACEA in the negotiations with SF? Is it now gone from 'free' to full 'pay', or is it now just we're not doing the work for you, you have to take what you were going to 'pay' and do it yourself?

It sounds like the teams still will be based on piers 30/32. What has perhaps changed is that they have to build there own base there. Didn't everyone build their own bases at Valencia?


No, the bases were leased off ACRM. Once ACRM pulled out the bases reverted to Valencia and the teams that maintained their bases paid the lease to Valencia. As in Auckland there was a lease cost for a basic design base. Any design changes or modifications to the bases were over and above that basic lease.

#52 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:11 PM

Oh well, another Protocol change coming up

52. AC VILLAGE

52.1.


All Competitors shall lease a Team Base at the AC Village from which they shall conduct

their operations at the Venue. If all Team Bases have been allocated the Event Authority

will endeavor to find an alternative location at the Venue but will be under no obligation.

Team Bases may not be of equal size or prominence.

52.2.


Temporary space will be allocated at the Venue of AC World Series regattas for each

Competitor. Such spaces may not be of equal size or prominence. Such temporary space

will be small and compact and some facilities may be shared.


The way I read that, they would have been forced to lease a space, so why are they saying paying for space wasn't in their budget? Certainly seems there is more going on here than Larry pulling the rug out. But would one or both sides be posturing as part of their ongoing negotiations? Nah! Couldn't be that!

#53 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,776 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:17 PM

Well this is going to get interesting .


GOT THAT RIGHT

WOW!!!

#54 the paradox of thrift

the paradox of thrift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,375 posts
  • Location:Mos-Vegas
  • Interests:I like sailing

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:17 PM

What a steaming, overflowing, stinking, lumpy, repungent, recirculating, warm crock of runny diarrhea.

#55 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,616 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:19 PM


Oh well, another Protocol change coming up

52. AC VILLAGE

52.1.


All Competitors shall lease a Team Base at the AC Village from which they shall conduct

their operations at the Venue. If all Team Bases have been allocated the Event Authority

will endeavor to find an alternative location at the Venue but will be under no obligation.

Team Bases may not be of equal size or prominence.

52.2.


Temporary space will be allocated at the Venue of AC World Series regattas for each

Competitor. Such spaces may not be of equal size or prominence. Such temporary space

will be small and compact and some facilities may be shared.


The way I read that, they would have been forced to lease a space, so why are they saying paying for space wasn't in their budget? Certainly seems there is more going on here than Larry pulling the rug out. But would one or both sides be posturing as part of their ongoing negotiations? Nah! Couldn't be that!


They budgeted for the lease costs on Pier 30 - 32 but now they have to find SF waterfront space which will be at a premium price. That is what they haven't budgeted for. They will now also have to provide their own crane rather than have ACRM provide the shared crane at Pier 30 - 32 and was included in the lease costs.

#56 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,743 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:22 PM

They do not need to find SF waterfront space. They need to put a building on the concrete slab on pier 30/32.

#57 Love2Sail

Love2Sail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Location:Iowa city, Iowa

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:24 PM

I get that part of the AC is being the defender and along with the CoR (puppet or not) haveing the ability to make the rules. That is all fine and good, but to CHANGE the rule half way through the game is just wrong. IMO

#58 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,808 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:35 PM



Oh well, another Protocol change coming up

52. AC VILLAGE

52.1.


All Competitors shall lease a Team Base at the AC Village from which they shall conduct

their operations at the Venue. If all Team Bases have been allocated the Event Authority

will endeavor to find an alternative location at the Venue but will be under no obligation.

Team Bases may not be of equal size or prominence.

52.2.


Temporary space will be allocated at the Venue of AC World Series regattas for each

Competitor. Such spaces may not be of equal size or prominence. Such temporary space

will be small and compact and some facilities may be shared.


The way I read that, they would have been forced to lease a space, so why are they saying paying for space wasn't in their budget? Certainly seems there is more going on here than Larry pulling the rug out. But would one or both sides be posturing as part of their ongoing negotiations? Nah! Couldn't be that!


They budgeted for the lease costs on Pier 30 - 32 but now they have to find SF waterfront space which will be at a premium price. That is what they haven't budgeted for. They will now also have to provide their own crane rather than have ACRM provide the shared crane at Pier 30 - 32 and was included in the lease costs.


This is where you are wrong. They do not have to find space in the San Francisco waterfront. They can go anywhere they want, which may net out much less expensive in the long run.

That said, as the team that depends the most on sponsorship, the team that is hurt the most by not having a common base area which attracts alot of fans is ETNZ.

One would hope that ETNZ and LR, as well as Artemis, figure out a way to work with ACEA to get what they need at the Piers. Doing so is really in ETNZ's best long term business interest.

#59 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,731 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:37 PM

They do not need to find SF waterfront space. They need to put a building on the concrete slab on pier 30/32.

Agree that they don't need to find SF waterfront space, but it is equally rediculous to think that all they need to do is put a building on teh concrete slab. That is what the old deal was. Everything else was to be sorted, such as cranes, jettys, and all services required for a base to function. Now the teams will have to sort those things out for themselves, plus do any remedial work needed to the pier, which we were told it needed. It's like turning up at a marina having been enticed by the promise of a berth only to be told you have to build the pontoon, run the services to it, build your own hauling out facility while at the same time, ensure the whole area is safe to do what you want to do.

I think the biggest headache is that ETNZ and LR need to divert people away from their current roles to deal with this as a matter of urgency. Neither team will have suitable people just hanging around doing nothing, which means that somethings are going to have to be dropped in orrder to make this happen. It's OK for OR, who have their base up and running.

#60 dent

dent

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:43 PM

the other main issue with this is if other teams were on the fence about joining the big show, i suspect with the additional costs, manpower etc of setting up a base, those teams are now OUT.

#61 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:02 PM


They do not need to find SF waterfront space. They need to put a building on the concrete slab on pier 30/32.

Agree that they don't need to find SF waterfront space, but it is equally rediculous to think that all they need to do is put a building on teh concrete slab. That is what the old deal was. Everything else was to be sorted, such as cranes, jettys, and all services required for a base to function. Now the teams will have to sort those things out for themselves, plus do any remedial work needed to the pier, which we were told it needed. It's like turning up at a marina having been enticed by the promise of a berth only to be told you have to build the pontoon, run the services to it, build your own hauling out facility while at the same time, ensure the whole area is safe to do what you want to do.

I think the biggest headache is that ETNZ and LR need to divert people away from their current roles to deal with this as a matter of urgency. Neither team will have suitable people just hanging around doing nothing, which means that somethings are going to have to be dropped in orrder to make this happen. It's OK for OR, who have their base up and running.


They do not need to find SF waterfront space. They need to put a building on the concrete slab on pier 30/32.

Agree that they don't need to find SF waterfront space, but it is equally rediculous to think that all they need to do is put a building on teh concrete slab. That is what the old deal was. Everything else was to be sorted, such as cranes, jettys, and all services required for a base to function. Now the teams will have to sort those things out for themselves, plus do any remedial work needed to the pier, which we were told it needed. It's like turning up at a marina having been enticed by the promise of a berth only to be told you have to build the pontoon, run the services to it, build your own hauling out facility while at the same time, ensure the whole area is safe to do what you want to do.

I think the biggest headache is that ETNZ and LR need to divert people away from their current roles to deal with this as a matter of urgency. Neither team will have suitable people just hanging around doing nothing, which means that somethings are going to have to be dropped in orrder to make this happen. It's OK for OR, who have their base up and running.


If you agree they don't need to be on the SFWF, why do you proceed to talk about the expense of setting up base there? There are a lot of facilities and a lot of waterfront on the bay. The main loss will be not having a central venue, but that is a loss for the event as a whole, not just individual teams, and certainly couldn't have been the preferred outcome.

#62 Landlockedlubber

Landlockedlubber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:02 PM

Dick Dastardly and his MutLEy crew are turning this into Wacky Races - The Maritime Version.If it is a fiendish plot to foil the challegers........but I suspect there is more to this. Meantime I can hear MutLEy laughing now.

Next interview with RC will be.facinating.


#63 acintel

acintel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:03 PM

A lot of confusion as to what the bases status was in the past. In fact it was simple:

Auckland: teams were leasing the land plot and built whatever they wanted.
Valencia: Basic Base available for free. Double bases and extras at teams costs.

The important point for AC34 is that once again they fail on delivering the promises they made. Coutts must realise it is easier to speak that to do. As nothing from number of teams, number of regattas, sponsors, SF situation has been up to expectations.

That should be called a failure Mr Coutts. And you would not accept failure in your sailing team so why should anyone accept your failure. You should go. Back to being a sailor. You are a lousy ceo.

#64 Albatros

Albatros

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:16 PM

This is where you are wrong. They do not have to find space in the San Francisco waterfront. They can go anywhere they want, which may net out much less expensive in the long run.

That said, as the team that depends the most on sponsorship, the team that is hurt the most by not having a common base area which attracts alot of fans is ETNZ.

One would hope that ETNZ and LR, as well as Artemis, figure out a way to work with ACEA to get what they need at the Piers. Doing so is really in ETNZ's best long term business interest.


but do you think that it's all possible on such a tight timeline ? your idea that it might cost TNZ even less this way might have been right if they would have had more time to look around, no ? (am wondering about that, as I have no friggin' clue on how easy and quick one can set it all up on the cheap in SF)


edit, grin : ah well, maybe evil Ernie can chime in and lend the Kiwi's as well as the Italians a hand, wouldn't be a first huh ? and what a middle finger to his old friend bad Larry ;)

#65 Landlockedlubber

Landlockedlubber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:32 PM

Time for Mitt Romney to help Kiwi sheepshaggers out. He was critical of the London Olympic organisation not being ready for the Olympics. He can now be critical of his buddy MutLEy not being ready for the OR Paralympics of Sailing.

Good Grief.

Its like watching Foxnews. Are they realy like that?

#66 WetHog

WetHog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,414 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD USA

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:42 PM

I sure hope ETNZ saved the left over bits and pieces from that old shed ETNZ took down at their Auckland base. That old shed Te Koodie and friends wanted turned into a historical land mark. Those extra bits and pieces might come in handy right about now. :lol:

WetHog :ph34r:

#67 Landlockedlubber

Landlockedlubber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

I sure hope ETNZ saved the left over bits and pieces from that old shed ETNZ took down at their Auckland base. That old shed Te Koodie and friends wanted turned into a historical land mark. Those extra bits and pieces might come in handy right about now. :lol:

WetHog :ph34r:


Or bring that fn inflatable Rugby Ball as home base.

#68 Joe Mama

Joe Mama

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Location:Do you care?
  • Interests:WLIS

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:59 PM

Newport, RI 'nuff said...

#69 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,808 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:09 PM


This is where you are wrong. They do not have to find space in the San Francisco waterfront. They can go anywhere they want, which may net out much less expensive in the long run.

That said, as the team that depends the most on sponsorship, the team that is hurt the most by not having a common base area which attracts alot of fans is ETNZ.

One would hope that ETNZ and LR, as well as Artemis, figure out a way to work with ACEA to get what they need at the Piers. Doing so is really in ETNZ's best long term business interest.


but do you think that it's all possible on such a tight timeline ? your idea that it might cost TNZ even less this way might have been right if they would have had more time to look around, no ? (am wondering about that, as I have no friggin' clue on how easy and quick one can set it all up on the cheap in SF)


edit, grin : ah well, maybe evil Ernie can chime in and lend the Kiwi's as well as the Italians a hand, wouldn't be a first huh ? and what a middle finger to his old friend bad Larry ;)


I know for a fact that there are several people who have put deals in front of ETNZ for facilities not located directly on the San Francisco waterfront. There are other cities on the Bay that are dying for the opportunity to have a team located there. It's not like ETNZ has to start the real estate hunt from square one today.

I also suspect there is more to this story than what we, and Dean, know. It would not surprise me at all if this is a posturing move by ACEA with the city. Something along the lines of "if we don't get what we need, then the teams are going to have to go set up shop elsewhere around the Bay".

#70 Mariner

Mariner

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,481 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:20 PM

I actually do not have a problem with this at all. It spreads the estimated wealth of the event out to the entire Bay Area.

Whether its the Warriors arena, the City and ACEA not agreeing on something... whatever.

Don't worry about ETNZ and LR, there are many options for them.

As we discussed here 2 years ago, this now gives Richmond, Sausalito, and Alameda a chance to offer up terrific base facility options and do it much quicker and probably cheaper than SF !

The village will still be on the SF Embarcadero, but the 72s will fly over to the village and racecourse from many points on the beautiful bay.

As they say down under No worries!

#71 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,731 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:24 PM

If you agree they don't need to be on the SFWF, why do you proceed to talk about the expense of setting up base there?

I am sorry if my posts confused you. I waas agreeing that they don't need to find alternative SF waterfront, which is the point others were making. They can still put their base on the proposed site. However, wherever they now go, they are going to need cranes, pontoons, moorings etc that ACEA originally were going to provide but now aren't.

#72 Landlockedlubber

Landlockedlubber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:25 PM

I actually do not have a problem with this at all. It spreads the estimated wealth of the event out to the entire Bay Area.

Whether its the Warriors arena, the City and ACEA not agreeing on something... whatever.

Don't worry about ETNZ and LR, there are many options for them.

As we discussed here 2 years ago, this now gives Richmond, Sausalito, and Alameda a chance to offer up terrific base facility options and do it much quicker and probably cheaper than SF !

The village will still be on the SF Embarcadero, but the 72s will fly over to the village and racecourse from many points on the beautiful bay.

As they say down under No worries!


Fair enough mate. Nothing happening here so I am moving right along.

#73 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,731 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:27 PM


If you agree they don't need to be on the SFWF, why do you proceed to talk about the expense of setting up base there?

I am sorry if my posts confused you. I waas agreeing that they don't need to find alternative SF waterfront, which is the point others were making. They can still put their base on the proposed site. However, wherever they now go, they are going to need cranes, pontoons, moorings etc that ACEA originally were going to provide but now aren't.

I love the way so many of you are saying "no problems". You seem to think that ETNZ had people standing around with nothing better to do than to find a base and negotiate a lease on a base, sort out all the logistics, modify their base plans for a new location etc. Yes, it's a really easy thing to drop all your plans and start again with very short notice :wacko:

#74 Duddits

Duddits

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:30 PM

I have followed every AC since Ted Turner. This one makes me want to throw up in my mouth every time I read something new. The tradition is completely shot in the ass, and the participants including LE are all a bunch of arseholes. Thankfully there are still regattas taking place elsewhere that put a premium on skill and preparation and not engineering an aircraft on the water. Take me back to the 12m please.

#75 SellingSailing

SellingSailing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:31 PM

When is it ok to say "told ya"? It would be different if these failures weren't so forseeable to begin with. The economy sucked long before AC 34 started...

Don't understand how a management team with NO US (or major event) expereince has been allowed to continue this long without hitting a single KPI (excluding the budget busting "improve TV production")

#76 Landlockedlubber

Landlockedlubber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:33 PM

I have followed every AC since Ted Turner. This one makes me want to throw up in my mouth every time I read something new. The tradition is completely shot in the ass, and the participants including LE are all a bunch of arseholes. Thankfully there are still regattas taking place elsewhere that put a premium on skill and preparation and not engineering an aircraft on the water. Take me back to the 12m please.


I want to see the OR tankslapper race. Controlling that thing under racing pressure will be nuts!

#77 Mariner

Mariner

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,481 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:55 PM

Earthquake weather in the bay area last couple days huh Dixie?

One of those weird calm warm days on the bay out there with 17?

#78 pogen

pogen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,689 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:19 PM

So , for those of us who haven't followed every twist and turn, who here has reneged on their commitments? The City of SF, ACalphabet, or who? From an outside perspective, it seems these agreements are barely worth the paper they are printed on, if the parties can seemingly change the terms at will.

Of course, 18 months ago we were promised 8 - 10 teams, and now we have less than half that, so something has to give.

#79 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:22 PM

"So , for those of us who haven't followed every twist and turn, who here has reneged on their commitments? The City of SF, ACalphabet, or who?" (pogen)

Ha, um, Dean Barker. he has violated the gag order...

#80 march

march

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:29 PM

Newport, RI 'nuff said...


Supposedly Newport has a plan in place to step in quickly in case SF falls apart. Highly doubtful it would happen, but just in case...........

#81 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:48 PM


If you agree they don't need to be on the SFWF, why do you proceed to talk about the expense of setting up base there?

I am sorry if my posts confused you. I waas agreeing that they don't need to find alternative SF waterfront, which is the point others were making. They can still put their base on the proposed site. However, wherever they now go, they are going to need cranes, pontoons, moorings etc that ACEA originally were going to provide but now aren't.


I'm not sure this is the logistical hardship that is being inferred. The marketing one perhaps.

Logistically, 32 is already set up for the ACWS. Tents/container buildings, cranes, moorings, pontoons etc. TNZ has to pay a lease fee to be there. No big. If they want to use this stuff, all they have to do is make a call and write a lease check. Sure there will be adjustments, but I doubt much more than would be expected had they showed up to use a standard crane that needed adaptation for their particular setup.

The marketing question. This too I think is a red herring. IMO, pier 32 was/is a loser. I've been to the ACWS twice, and never even been tempted to go down to 32... even though I sailed in front of it last thursday as I took a mate's boat out for a day on the bay. Part of the reason it isn't interesting is that viewing of the boats is random and difficult. The 45's were all on buoys, not on the hard. when practice time arrived, they were towed from the buoys. How do you tell the fans that the boats aren't coming in that day because the wind is such that we'd rather leave her in the water? In a nutshell, 32 is too far from the action to matter and the setup by nature doesn't make it interesting. You can't just set the boats up like F1 cars for people to look at them. They would be better served to set up one boat in the village than expect people to go look at their team's actual boat. Furthermore, people want to see the racing and perhaps the crews afterward. This is all going to happen in the Marina and Village. 32 is a couple of miles away from that. Finally, viewing a 72 is going to be even harder. The 45 is interesting on the hard because you can see over it. the 72 I think you will be looking up at the hull.

So that far, you can call me an apologist.

As for the finances, if this change means that the teams have to make a greater expenditure in any way, I say BS. If ACWS wants to deemphasize 32 (which I think is good and no loss to the teams... probably a savings for not having to keep a second hospitality base) they can't let it cost the teams any unexpected extra funds. If the lease for 32 was to be X, then ACWS should give LR, AR, and TNZ a subsidy to cover the extra beyond X that they have to pay to replace the lost services.

2cents

#82 Chris UK

Chris UK

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Sailing.

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:55 PM

LE has the TV rights and the expectation was that these were going to be worth something....at least eventually. There is little prospect of that and so now the cash comes off the table.

#83 Guvacine

Guvacine

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Location:North CA
  • Interests:Multihulls

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:00 PM

Whining Kiwi followed by a bunch of other whining f***ing kiwis. Seriously, you get to sail around the bay on a 72 foot marvel and all we get is "whaaaaaaa - I want it how it was" - wtf?

#84 Dougefresh

Dougefresh

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Location:Hilton Head

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:08 PM

Considering how many helicopters were flying around Newport, and how horrible the coverage ended up being on the broadcast, the fault for most of the loss of interest would have to fall on the shoulders of the editors and producers. Considering our hero, LE, is the fabulously successful founder of a technology company, this technological failure must be somewhat emasculating.....
So maybe this irrational lashing out at his opponents is somewhat understandable, and this wouldn't be the first time Russel did something to hurt his countrymen

#85 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,704 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:08 PM

For sure its all tied to money. The lack of event awareness and advertising for one has not helped the first round of AC 45 racing.

The TV series couldn't be found when you used the search function on the Comcast system I searched multiple times for it and only found it after the events were being shown on TV - even then however they were not set up as a TV series so each session had to located and marked to record if you planned on recording them.

The guy with the floating Deloran in Mc Covey Cove got more prime time air time during a Giant's Game and then local news channels picked it up then I ever saw regarding the AC 45 event.

It is going to take some time and finding ways to involve the public to create a viewer base for this event and sport. They can't simply show up put some super cool well thought out TV tech on a random TV station and expect to see big audience numbers.

#86 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:10 PM



If you agree they don't need to be on the SFWF, why do you proceed to talk about the expense of setting up base there?

I am sorry if my posts confused you. I waas agreeing that they don't need to find alternative SF waterfront, which is the point others were making. They can still put their base on the proposed site. However, wherever they now go, they are going to need cranes, pontoons, moorings etc that ACEA originally were going to provide but now aren't.

I love the way so many of you are saying "no problems". You seem to think that ETNZ had people standing around with nothing better to do than to find a base and negotiate a lease on a base, sort out all the logistics, modify their base plans for a new location etc. Yes, it's a really easy thing to drop all your plans and start again with very short notice :wacko:


I'm not saying it's right. Not saying it's wrong. But I would say that if you are running a huge, multi-million dollar project, and a vital piece is tied up in a tight, complicated construction schedule, involving multiple partners and local governments all needing to put in funding and massive resources, during the biggest economic crash and recovery of our lifetime, and you have no contingency plan B even tentatively in place, then you are incompetent. I can pretty safely say that. Yes.

Cranes, moorings and pontoons? I'm sure these things are impossible to find in one of the largest seaports in the world.

I have very little doubt that this is not the way the planners of the AC wanted this to go down, but if it makes conspiracy theorists happy, well, what's the harm?

#87 Tom O'Keefe

Tom O'Keefe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Location:San Clemente, California
  • Interests:Custom Plastic Injection Molding
    Hendo 30 Power Point
    Mac Gregor 65' Lean Machine
    Spencer 65' Rag Time
    SC 50 Horizon
    R/P 68' Tax Dancer
    R/P 86' Pyewacket

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:27 PM

Didn't Oracle find some suitable space in the commercial port adjacent to Valencia for AC 33?
Haven't all the ACWS events been based out of stacked containers with some tent covers?
Didn't everyone predict that getting infrastructure built in San Francisco on such a short timeline was going to be close to impossible?
When the long term real estate deal went out the window, so did any chance that Larry was going to foot the bill for even a scaled back version. There was just no ROI.
It's still a sailboat race. San Francisco just did not get Larry to rebuild their water front.
It really shouldn't surprise anyone.

#88 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,026 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:27 PM


Newport, RI 'nuff said...


Supposedly Newport has a plan in place to step in quickly in case SF falls apart. Highly doubtful it would happen, but just in case...........


Newport RI, a city actually willing and able to host the cup without being strong-armed into being a gracious host. Just shows what a failure this whole thing has been.

I'm sure that if the organizers were to choose to hold the event there it would be totally set up by the time next September rolled around. Totally ridiculous that it's gotten to this point really.

#89 racingnews

racingnews

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Location:Northern California
  • Interests:spectating

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:30 PM

Kudos to Dean Barker for laying it down. Makes me want to root for the Kiwis. Karma. Karma. Karma.

#90 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,982 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:33 PM

We need Hastings in here for a Kiwi Pep talk . Making do with nothing , struggling against the odds and all that . If one was to believe him this change in the program should be perfect for them sleeping on a bed roll with a crackling fire made from Home Depot logs. Look they already have their entertainment covered with the home made beer you all were so delighted with so everything else is small potatoes. As for the whining about the big crane, they lost the wright to bitch about that when they picked cats to race. There are plenty of travel lifts around , I'm just sayin :)

#91 Terrorvision

Terrorvision

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,778 posts
  • Interests:Taking 'the' out of Psychotherapist

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:37 PM

Whining Kiwi followed by a bunch of other whining f***ing kiwis. Seriously, you get to sail around the bay on a 72 foot marvel and all we get is "whaaaaaaa - I want it how it was" - wtf?


Gaytor? Is that you?

#92 Dixie

Dixie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts
  • Location:SF

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:46 PM

Kudos to Dean Barker for laying it down. Makes me want to root for the Kiwis. Karma. Karma. Karma.



^I thought you were rooting for BA :-) But I agree.

32 will become more relevant, or would have, when the village moves over to Piers 27/29. Right now it's a long way away from the racing and village action. Pier 80 even further. But come next year, the village and piers are closer together. Still a mile or so apart, but closer and more accessible.

I think the arguments laid out in the thread above are compelling:
What did ACRM or EA promise the teams on the condition of them entering?
What was the material change that caused them to reneg on that (or did they - we still only have one, albeit reliable, source of info)
The need to source these services, or worse, a new location, and at the least forge a new agreement with ACRM will be a distraction from the primary goal.
This is the America's Cup, not a college dinghy race. Wherever the bases are, they should be a first class pit area, where guests can visit the teams, see the boats, etc.

#93 Guitar

Guitar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,107 posts
  • Location:Gold Country California
  • Interests:Sailing, gold detecting, meteorite hunting.

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:56 PM



Newport, RI 'nuff said...


Supposedly Newport has a plan in place to step in quickly in case SF falls apart. Highly doubtful it would happen, but just in case...........


Newport RI, a city actually willing and able to host the cup without being strong-armed into being a gracious host. Just shows what a failure this whole thing has been.

I'm sure that if the organizers were to choose to hold the event there it would be totally set up by the time next September rolled around. Totally ridiculous that it's gotten to this point really.


Yeah, just nobody can see the race offshore.

#94 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,466 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:08 PM

We need Hastings in here for a Kiwi Pep talk . Making do with nothing , struggling against the odds and all that . If one was to believe him this change in the program should be perfect for them sleeping on a bed roll with a crackling fire made from Home Depot logs. Look they already have their entertainment covered with the home made beer you all were so delighted with so everything else is small potatoes. As for the whining about the big crane, they lost the wright to bitch about that when they picked cats to race. There are plenty of travel lifts around , I'm just sayin :)


Spot on, but when have the Kiwis not bitched about anything and everything given the chance, with farmer grant leading by example ?

Wasn't tekoodies's last episode one of how comfortable they were hanging out in a sheep sheering shed or somesuch nonsense ?

I'm sure they can come up with something equivalent.

#95 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,455 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:10 PM

This is truly a shame, on so many counts. Now Artemis' decision to set up camp in Alameda shows some great foresight. Is there room for more?


certainly..

#96 RDL

RDL

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:sailing, painting, orchestra concerts, watching rugby

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:10 PM

More and more I'm reminded of the saying: 'be careful of what you wish for . . . '.
I enjoyed seeing Oracle's trimaran win in Valencia. Now? well another saying (from France): 'the more things change, the more they remain the same'.

#97 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,777 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:10 PM

I sure wish the idiotic SFBOS had jumped on the early offer on the table, whereby LE would have had long-enough term leases that he could take control of the situation at P30/32 with options on a few nearby ones. AC preps would surely have been very far along by now, even despite the surprises they found underneath the deck. SF had the chance to take that offer and blew it, completely.

There is yet another dysfunctional f*ckup in between the city and Turner Construction (who lit effing P27 on fire this summer), is my guess.

DB is parroting GD's latest money-gripe after having to share an uncomfortable beer convo the night before, is my other guess. Can't see how it helps team morale, but maybe the 'underfarmer' angle will somehow work for them? :)

A crane and a toilet has to be a 'drop in the honeybucket' in the larger scheme, big deal.

#98 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,028 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:25 PM

I sure wish the idiotic SFBOS had jumped on the early offer on the table, whereby LE would have had long-enough term leases that he could take control of the situation at P30/32 with options on a few nearby ones. AC preps would surely have been very far along by now, even despite the surprises they found underneath the deck. SF had the chance to take that offer and blew it, completely.

There is yet another dysfunctional f*ckup in between the city and Turner Construction (who lit effing P27 on fire this summer), is my guess.

DB is parroting GD's latest money-gripe after having to share an uncomfortable beer convo the night before, is my guess. Can't see how it helps team morale, but maybe the 'underfarmer' angle will somehow work for them? :)

A crane and a toilet has to be a 'drop in the honeybucket' in the larger scheme, big deal.



Been saying for a long time that not enough was happening to convince me SF was taking things seriously enough to host a really worthy event.

Could still be good - but it's not just about dollars ad sense. You are the host, you choose the location, you set the rules, you tell teams where they have to accommodate themselves for commercial and practical reasons. You negotiate with the host city, your 'home turf'.
You surely have a responsibility to follow through or find satisfactory alternatives, not just say 'Too hard - you're on your own now'.
Piss poor.

#99 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,777 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:40 PM

The way the Prot was worded, it seems they were pretty wary of SF. That wisdom turned out to be prophetic, it's damn near impossible to get anything done even if in the end you agree to a city-controlled operation, even with performance-penalty threats.

But they do still have P30/32 to offer to teams, it's just that there's no guarantees over what all facilities will be provided above deck.

It does Not bode well for a successive defense in SF, which is the real cry for me in all of this dysfunctionalism. Too bad, because the table was well set before the idiots who were on the BOS at the time did their stupid, self-destructive, dramatic grandstanding.

My only hope left is that if LE does defend then a 'village' of bases Valencia-style might still happen next time somewhere else on the Bay within easy enough reach of the cityfront; or just take the damn thing to Lanai where people have better tune-songs to sing.

The SFBOS is ridiculous.

#100 Rohanoz

Rohanoz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,490 posts
  • Location:Australian East Coast
  • Interests:A bad day sailing is still better than a good day at work.

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:41 PM

Best option for ETNZ would be to contact Paul Allen and see if the old 'biggest boat wins' battle is still on.

Be great to see them bankrolled for a facility in SF Bay that makes Larry's setup look paltry in comparison.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users