Jump to content


DELAY.....


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,814 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:56 AM

AC34 potential cup delay deserves it own thread.

#2 Landlockedlubber

Landlockedlubber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:15 AM

AC34 potential cup delay deserves it own thread.


Yes, but not just yet!

#3 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,814 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:32 AM

I cant imagine them delaying it if there was a fully functional OR17,

I cant imagine them delaying the Americas Cup since the planning that goes into it is extensive.

#4 Donjoman

Donjoman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Location:Hong kong

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:54 AM

It would significantly increase the cost for everyone. I doubt it would happen.

#5 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:55 AM

Here we go, another chance to paint OR as the bogeyman who will delay the AC in order to ensure they win it. *yawn*

#6 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,944 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:57 AM

at sometime in the future I would consider a thread on a Delay

But I see no rush

Not saying Never But .............................

#7 the paradox of thrift

the paradox of thrift

    Anarchist

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:30 AM

Other than a few conspiracy theorists in these forums, who ever intimated, hinted, implied, suggested or commented that there would ever be a delay in the staging of the next AC?

#8 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • Location:Orkland

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:31 AM

I had expected there might be some action to delay after the capsize.
But to have any credence it really should have been immediately after the capsize & needs to have a lot of $$$ compensation attached for those who have boats/wings that aren't fucked.

To make any attempt to delay now a couple of months after the capsize & if it doesn't come with compensation would be very bogeymen like indeed.

#9 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:45 AM

Other than a few conspiracy theorists in these forums, who ever intimated, hinted, implied, suggested or commented that there would ever be a delay in the staging of the next AC?


Ex-zachary! Nobody did. Its just a fear and loathing of OR.
I want ETNZ to win the AC as much as any one but this boogeyman stuff is just childish.

#10 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,482 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:47 AM

I had expected there might be some action to delay after the capsize.
But to have any credence it really should have been immediately after the capsize & needs to have a lot of $$$ compensation attached for those who have boats/wings that aren't fucked.

To make any attempt to delay now a couple of months after the capsize & if it doesn't come with compensation would be very bogeymen like indeed.


i guess this is the issue

even exploring the issue now, just in case they feel they need it as a contingency

weakens the events next year

what's the risk for people making plans and bookings to attend?

do the teams without busted boats need to start being even more careful with their money in case the wage bill blows out next year

does it make things harder for teams like korea, energy, bar to put together sponsorship deals if ac35 ends up being another year delayed due to ac34 being delayed

i think it would be much better to stand by larry's reputed claim that he didn't mind losing the cup as long as he had a fair chance of getting it back

to that end, rather than a delay to ac34 they could try and get the challengers to lock in a date for ac35 2015 in their respective club waters

#11 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,944 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:54 AM


I had expected there might be some action to delay after the capsize.
But to have any credence it really should have been immediately after the capsize & needs to have a lot of $$$ compensation attached for those who have boats/wings that aren't fucked.

To make any attempt to delay now a couple of months after the capsize & if it doesn't come with compensation would be very bogeymen like indeed.


i guess this is the issue

even exploring the issue now, just in case they feel they need it as a contingency

weakens the events next year

what's the risk for people making plans and bookings to attend?

do the teams without busted boats need to start being even more careful with their money in case the wage bill blows out next year

does it make things harder for teams like korea, energy, bar to put together sponsorship deals if ac35 ends up being another year delayed due to ac34 being delayed

i think it would be much better to stand by larry's reputed claim that he didn't mind losing the cup as long as he had a fair chance of getting it back

to that end, rather than a delay to ac34 they could try and get the challengers to lock in a date for ac35 2015 in their respective club waters


Just think of the implications of posts (on forums that we don't even know of)

reguarding arrangements for the delays

Only Fitting to Delay thinking about it ...........eh

#12 Dirty technique

Dirty technique

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Location:on top of the sailing world
  • Interests:Taking the cup home

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:58 AM

Not happening . let this thread be denied and die

#13 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,482 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:29 AM

it's a legitimate thread

about a legitimate threat

if not here

then where?

it'll sink off the page

when it's no longer relevant

#14 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:12 AM

Other than a few conspiracy theorists in these forums, who ever intimated, hinted, implied, suggested or commented that there would ever be a delay in the staging of the next AC?


It was reported in several European sailing publications recently that the defenders lawyers have been tasked with investigating whether the AC dates could be delayed. One of those publications has a pretty good track record of getting rumours right.

#15 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,362 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:22 AM

The circle of news. Stuff gets made up here, journos pick up on it and write about it, we read about it, it makes its way back here and somehow it gained credibility.
Its like news laundering

Just another kiwi attempt to make the opposition look bad.

#16 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,634 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:36 AM

I'm no friend of OR but I'll be very surprised indeed if there's any reality to these rumours. It's obvious it would trip a legal shit-fight.

#17 fastyacht

fastyacht

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,916 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:40 AM

Luna Rossa will win the cup.

#18 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:53 AM

The circle of news. Stuff gets made up here, journos pick up on it and write about it, we read about it, it makes its way back here and somehow it gained credibility.
Its like news laundering


The first time it was mentioned here was several days ago. The article in the Italian publication was several days older than that.

Your argument doesn't wash.

#19 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:58 AM

I'm no friend of OR but I'll be very surprised indeed if there's any reality to these rumours. It's obvious it would trip a legal shit-fight.


It wouldn't be the first time. After spending months in front of the NYSC arguing against SNG that AC33 had to held in Feb 2010, OR petitioned the court late in 2009 to delay the Feb 2010 date a month because they weren't ready. The court dismissed the motion.

#20 422797

422797

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:51 PM

The circle of news. Stuff gets made up here, journos pick up on it and write about it, we read about it, it makes its way back here and somehow it gained credibility.
Its like news laundering

Just another kiwi attempt to make the opposition look bad.


Delay or no delay, gotta love reading this forum and the skewed sense of worth some people seem to apply to it!

#21 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,634 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:35 PM

^

You reckon? Once upon a time I penned a few paragraphs here and two hours later my exact words turned up on a well-known sailing blog under another by-line.

I then got accused here of plagiarism. Kind of amusing.

#22 the loose cannon

the loose cannon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:49 PM

How about a thread on best cup series ever. Great LVC. Close match racing. Eye opening coverage. Universal exposure for the freak show called sailing.

Can't believe that the AC was decided on the last downwind leg by someone taking a flyer up on foils chasing a puff and actually catching up to it, then gybing while staying up on the foils, and punching through to leward as they rounded outside the leader at the final mark rounding.

OK, maybe not - but it is at least as likely at this point in time as any other conjecture that is going on.....

#23 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,792 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:56 PM


The circle of news. Stuff gets made up here, journos pick up on it and write about it, we read about it, it makes its way back here and somehow it gained credibility.
Its like news laundering


The first time it was mentioned here was several days ago. The article in the Italian publication was several days older than that.

Your argument doesn't wash.

Dunno whether you've got the chronology right. These idea came up here immediately after the capsize, was "shouted down" equally immediately and popped up again every now and then,Hints were posted by more or less knowing posters, until "the thing" manifested as a rumor on other sailing sites, supported by more factual wording ("lawyers blah blah").

#24 WetHog

WetHog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,497 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD USA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

I say provide links to these sail rag articles or put down the crack pipe.

WetHog :ph34r:

#25 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,792 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:55 PM

It was on one or two Italian sites, the quote was posted in another thread.

EDIT: Found one: http://www.zerogradi...ornano-le-spie/
Don't know whether this hints at the issue as well, but looks so: http://www.farevela....-oracle-racing/

BTW, crack's not my style, I prefer this forum.

#26 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,944 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:16 PM

I have some FACTS & Links to post

But I'm Puttin it off

#27 Hastings

Hastings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,172 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:52 PM

If there is a delay, who do I sue?

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

Larry, ACEA?

Who?

#28 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,817 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:58 PM

If there is a delay, who do I sue?

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

Larry, ACEA?

Who?

Travel Insurance?

#29 Hastings

Hastings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,172 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:01 PM


If there is a delay, who do I sue?

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

Larry, ACEA?

Who?

Travel Insurance?


Is against my religion.

I assume (maybe incorrectly) people like LE have their shit together.

So, when they announce an event, it will happen.

#30 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,825 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:18 PM

Delay. What nonsense.

#31 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,064 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:35 PM



If there is a delay, who do I sue?

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

Larry, ACEA?

Who?

Travel Insurance?


Is against my religion.

I assume (maybe incorrectly) people like LE have their shit together.

So, when they announce an event, it will happen.


Might want to ask Venice about that.

#32 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,817 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:05 PM



If there is a delay, who do I sue?

For worthless air tickets and lost hotel bookings.

Larry, ACEA?

Who?

Travel Insurance?


Is against my religion.

I assume (maybe incorrectly) people like LE have their shit together.

So, when they announce an event, it will happen.

Assuming shit is never a good idea, especialy as this is supposition at the moment.

#33 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,944 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:18 PM

No Wait

#34 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,814 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:24 PM

I think everyone is hoping and praying the AC34 goes off on schedule without a hitch. But we would be fools not to look at the history of the cup. Lets hope it never gets to this.

#35 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:27 AM

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.

#36 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,123 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:48 AM

I think that the negligible opportunity is 24.2:

"24.2. If.....due to the failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority, GGYC, in consultation with the Event may select....and/or dates for the Regatta. "

It would not be difficult for GGYC to declare that SF city did not abide by their agreement, they already have enough meat for that. Also, contrarily to what has already been said from some, the Jury has no hability to decide on that matter.

Also interesting: "GGYC shall give Competitors as much notice as reasonably possible both that a change to the venue or dates are being considered and of the new venue and dates."


However I don't know why Larry would accept to discredit himself in front of competitors, sponsors, and the world.

#37 ice9a

ice9a

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts
  • Interests:1

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:51 AM

There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.


You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

#38 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:01 AM


There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.


You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?

#39 ice9a

ice9a

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts
  • Interests:1

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:07 AM



There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.


You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?


If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.

#40 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:16 AM




There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.


You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?


If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.

If their entry was denied because it was not submitted within the deadline, nor paid the necessary fees....or because the Defender Selection Series they wanted to compete in did not exist, I don't think it's a flyer. And if not a competitor..... :blink:

#41 ice9a

ice9a

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts
  • Interests:1

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:36 AM





There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.


You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?


If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.

If their entry was denied because it was not submitted within the deadline, nor paid the necessary fees....or because the Defender Selection Series they wanted to compete in did not exist, I don't think it's a flyer. And if not a competitor..... :blink:


Well, that would be for the court to decide. So far they have at least not thrown the ADM case out as without grounds. I agree its unlikely, but so are all the possibilities. It is the one possibility that would be most difficult for the TNZ/LR to challenge.

#42 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • Location:Auckland, New Zealand
  • Interests:Flying sea monsters

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:39 AM




There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.


You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?


If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.


There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.
If someone doesn't invite you to a private party that doesn't generally mean you can sue them.

#43 ice9a

ice9a

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts
  • Interests:1

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:04 AM





There are negligible opportunities to delay AC34 under the Protocol which ranks only second to the Deed of Gift in priority. As I see it:

1: The Mutual Consent requirement under the Deed is satisfied under Protocol Art 12: thereafter, the Deed is out of the picture as the AC34 is governed by the Protocol.

2: Under the Protocol (Art 24.2), the only way GGYC can attempt to postpone AC34 is if SF cannot honour its obligations under the Hosting Agreement: there are no other grounds for postponement;

3: The only way AC34 can be postponed under the Deed would be if GGYC ceases to exist and "the Cup (is) transferred to some Club of the same nationality", resetting the whole process.

So for GGYC to postpone, they would have to somehow manipulate the SF state government into reneging on their hosting obligations, or dissolve itself and transfer the Cup to (say) St Francis YC. I would say the chances of postponement are next to nonexistent.


You are missing the third option. . . . the NYSC orders the match be delayed. Unlikely, but theoretical possibility.

How hard would it be to claim that SF "failure or inability of the host city/region/country to abide by their agreement with the Event Authority" . . . anyone know what their agreement actually entails these days?

I actually do not see how the NYSC can order a delay to AC34 under the Deed or Protocol. The Deed requirement for Mutual Consent is satisfied by the GGYC-CoR agreement, the same agreement which states that the format of AC34 shall be governed by the Protocol. And the Protocol states that competitors accept the jurisdiction of the IJ in resolving all AC34-related matters, without resorting to external courts. Even if a competitor feels that a Jury decision contravenes the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the competitor still has to argue it in front of the Jury.

So in your theoretical world, under what conditions could a competitor take a case to NYSC seeking a delay?


If they were refused entry and are in fact not a 'competitor' constrained by the protocol.


There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.
If someone doesn't invite you to a private party that doesn't generally mean you can sue them.


Again, That's the court's decision to make. Probably they will agree with you, but perhaps not. As I said, so far they have not seen fit to just throw the case out as completely groundless. Just for instance as a grounds . . . Discrimination (based on color) is illegal in the US. So, is breaching a fiduciary responsibility.

#44 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,682 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:15 AM

The dumbest thread ever, even by Enzedel standards.

Indio, did you start this silly crap? Why? It's supposed to be another 'everyone else is scared of ETNZ' because we're the best and a 'OR is the devil we have to fight' round-the-troops message?

Weird! Lmao. ETNZ better be ready, they won't get this break.

#45 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,814 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:37 AM

The dumbest thread ever, even by Enzedel standards.

Indio, did you start this silly crap? Why? It's supposed to be another 'everyone else is scared of ETNZ' because we're the best and a 'OR is the devil we have to fight' round-the-troops message?

Weird! Lmao. ETNZ better be ready.


Right Stingray cause we all know the AC34 will start on September 7th. Please. They are cracks starting to form on multiple levels. I wouldnt be shocked at all if the AC34 was delayed. Where do I start?
  • SF has been welching time after time on promises
  • Only 3 challengers
  • A defender with no boat. Of course they will eventually get one but trust me, the lack of water time for OR will hurt. They can overcome it but its not ideal.
  • Crowds and TV ratings not showing up
  • ACWS venues being cancelled.
I wouldnt call that a robust racing circuit by any stretch.
Shall I continue?

#46 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:58 AM

The dumbest thread ever, even by Enzedel standards.

Indio, did you start this silly crap?

Whacha talking 'bout, Willis!!? Not me, hopefully everyone will move over to Hutch's obituary thread for a more topical thread. I feel for Hutch - he strikes me as a bit like Kostecki: puts the head down and does the job to the best of his ability. I've always had a lot of time for Hutch since his ETNZ days. Good luck to him wherever he ends up. Maybe he didn't quite fit into the Cayard school of team management..

#47 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,682 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:17 AM

Indio, if you were not the one to press this silly rumor first, then to keep going on and on and on about it, then I must be mistaken and have to apologize.

Somehow the silly notion reached FV (Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you? jumping on Indio's bs?) and the ZG's normal parroting of FV and vise versa, and k_j pointing to both as supposedly 'reliable European sources' and to point (very bizarrely, as if in an attempt to provide more 'credence') that OR had asked for a one month delay, after OR had spent so much time trying so desperately to get EB onto the facking water, and only after the court finally forced EB to the water, and EB suggested Australia, and OR agreed, but only if they got a month to set the damn base up there if they had to, all by k_j to try bolster that stupid shit? Why?

Why are some squint-eyed people pushing this complete, utter bullshit? What's the point? Some parochial psycho-war tar-feathering attempt?

I seriously doubt that OR or anyone else gives one shit about it, whatever the obviously Indio, or else otherwise NZ based, dumbassed source of it is.

The ultimate Challenger and the Defender better be there on Sept 4 w their best boat. There is no other way to have a shot at the Cup. GGY ~will~ hold everyone to it, the point/to/able evidence, unlike the smelly's, on the real facts are abundant.

#48 ro!

ro!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,257 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 05:12 AM

Indio, if you were not the one to press this silly rumor first, then to keep going on and on and on about it, then I must be mistaken and have to apologize.

Somehow the silly notion reached FV (Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you? jumping on Indio's bs?) and the ZG's normal parroting of FV and vise versa, and k_j pointing to both as supposedly 'reliable European sources' and to point (very bizarrely, as if in an attempt to provide more 'credence') that OR had asked for a one month delay, after OR had spent so much time trying so desperately to get EB onto the facking water, and only after the court finally forced EB to the water, and EB suggested Australia, and OR agreed, but only if they got a month to set the damn base up there if they had to, all by k_j to try bolster that stupid shit? Why?

Why are some squint-eyed people pushing this complete, utter bullshit? What's the point? Some parochial psycho-war tar-feathering attempt?

I seriously doubt that OR or anyone else gives one shit about it, whatever the obviously Indio, or else otherwise NZ based, dumbassed source of it is.

The ultimate Challenger and the Defender better be there on Sept 4 w their best boat. There is no other way to have a shot at the Cup. GGY ~will~ hold everyone to it, the point/to/able evidence, unlike the smelly's, on the real facts are abundant.


could youse pleese pash the pinot....

#49 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 01 December 2012 - 05:20 AM


Indio, if you were not the one to press this silly rumor first, then to keep going on and on and on about it, then I must be mistaken and have to apologize.

Somehow the silly notion reached FV (Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you? jumping on Indio's bs?) and the ZG's normal parroting of FV and vise versa, and k_j pointing to both as supposedly 'reliable European sources' and to point (very bizarrely, as if in an attempt to provide more 'credence') that OR had asked for a one month delay, after OR had spent so much time trying so desperately to get EB onto the facking water, and only after the court finally forced EB to the water, and EB suggested Australia, and OR agreed, but only if they got a month to set the damn base up there if they had to, all by k_j to try bolster that stupid shit? Why?

Why are some squint-eyed people pushing this complete, utter bullshit? What's the point? Some parochial psycho-war tar-feathering attempt?

I seriously doubt that OR or anyone else gives one shit about it, whatever the obviously Indio, or else otherwise NZ based, dumbassed source of it is.

The ultimate Challenger and the Defender better be there on Sept 4 w their best boat. There is no other way to have a shot at the Cup. GGY ~will~ hold everyone to it, the point/to/able evidence, unlike the smelly's, on the real facts are abundant.


could youse pleese pash the pinot....

He never sccchhares....

#50 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,792 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:08 AM

Both parties asked for a delay independently (!) during AC33. The judge told them "go and talk to each other and agree it". But this was apparently too much and could have resulted in a form of MC, and so there was no talk and no delay. Little, funny story that was never really published.

As for discussing the current delay speculations here: Why stop? It wouldn't be the first rumor that's filling a thread hereabouts. Just imagine what would have happened if was about EB/Alinghi. This thread would have already 212 pages and the rumor would be treated as fact by now.

#51 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,634 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:49 AM

There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.


Not true. Teams that have paid entry fees have a contract with ACEA. Breach of the protocol would be breach of contract and remedy could be sought in the courts.

#52 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:10 AM


There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.


Not true. Teams that have paid entry fees have a contract with ACEA. Breach of the protocol would be breach of contract and remedy could be sought in the courts.


Really? Even when the terms of the contract specify that that remedy is not available to you?

#53 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,482 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:17 AM

^

well that's where it becomes interesting isn't it

an illegal contract can easily be challenged

pre-nups in many countries can be torn up by the courts if they have no standing in law

certainly the judges of the NY courts don't want to have to spend time on this crap

which is why "rights" to challenge decisions of the IJ seem to have been signed away by entering

but if the injustice is egregious enough

it could be challenged

and we'd be right back to legal challenges as per the DOG

which is why, in all probability

the dates are cast in stone

ps it bugs me that korea are still officially challengers

or at least no official news release seems to have counteracted the news releases that said they were in

if they can't - won't tidy that up

it seems to devalue the official communication channels

and so we, and everyone else, is forced back to sites like SA

to work out what the fuck is going on

with all the risk that that entails

#54 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,839 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:32 AM

Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you?


Moi? I only deal in serious, technical stuff ... Although in this case, I saw the preposterous item on FV and ZG and couldn't resist the temptation of relaying it here, knowing full well what would happen ..



#55 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,634 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:55 PM



There is only one party who cannot be refused entry and that's the COR, anyone else is only there on the good graces of the defender and the COR.


Not true. Teams that have paid entry fees have a contract with ACEA. Breach of the protocol would be breach of contract and remedy could be sought in the courts.


Really? Even when the terms of the contract specify that that remedy is not available to you?


Well if we wanted to follow a fairly absurd hypothetical chain of events, suppose that:

ETNZ has paid the entry fees of protocol clause 9.

ACEA then says, sod off we don't like you.

ETNZ refers to the Jury which would certainly uphold ETNZ's entry.

ACEA says, sod off Jury.

Then a court would certainly not see 15.14 as an obstacle to upholding the contract that exists between ETNZ and ACEA.

#56 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:15 PM

Waste a bit more time on this.

Your hypothetical : ACEA are in breach of the protocol, ETNZ protests them to the Jury (not the courts). That's correct and is exactly what I stated.

ACEA refuse to abide by the Juries decision - they now have a problem with their own Jury, not ETNZ.

What measures would the Jury would take in such a ridiculous situation - hmmm, daily fine until compliance might get their attention?? Who cares, ain't gonna happen.

#57 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,682 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:00 PM


Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you?


Moi? I only deal in serious, technical stuff ... Although in this case, I saw the preposterous item on FV and ZG and couldn't resist the temptation of relaying it here, knowing full well what would happen ..

Lol, cool.
But it does make their posts the more curious, if they weren't sourced from the speculation being promoted here.

#58 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:32 PM

Waste a bit more time on this.

Your hypothetical : ACEA are in breach of the protocol, ETNZ protests them to the Jury (not the courts). That's correct and is exactly what I stated.

ACEA refuse to abide by the Juries decision - they now have a problem with their own Jury, not ETNZ.

What measures would the Jury would take in such a ridiculous situation - hmmm, daily fine until compliance might get their attention?? Who cares, ain't gonna happen.

The Jury and/or ETNZ would then apply to the NYSC to enforce the Jury decision under the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards.

#59 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

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

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:47 PM



Xlot, being often MT's source for wth is going on in the AC world for him, was it you?


Moi? I only deal in serious, technical stuff ... Although in this case, I saw the preposterous item on FV and ZG and couldn't resist the temptation of relaying it here, knowing full well what would happen ..

Lol, cool.
But it does make their posts the more curious, if they weren't sourced from the speculation being promoted here.


Well duh.

Italian publications
Mentioned in articles about Luna Rossa

Do the maths. It's not hard.

#60 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,682 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

^ That both sites cite, as a reason for LR's appeal over Venice, supposed bad intentions by the Defender to intentionally disrupt Chall preparations (by holding two events in NY, instead of just one, in Venice) does suggest they're getting some of the story from an LR source; but the delay speculation - maybe especially if it is LR sourced - still strikes me as overly dramatic. There is no, as in zero, evidence that lawyers are 'secretly' working on it. There is also no plausible reason for why anyone would want them to.

Other thread but I wonder if ETNZ and AR will argue for or against LR's push to reinstate Venice?

#61 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:29 PM

^ That both sites cite, as a reason for LR's appeal over Venice, supposed bad intentions by the Defender to intentionally disrupt Chall preparations (by holding two events in NY, instead of just one, in Venice) does suggest they're getting some of the story from an LR source; but the delay speculation - maybe especially if it is LR sourced - still strikes me as overly dramatic. There is no, as in zero, evidence that lawyers are 'secretly' working on it. There is also no plausible reason for why anyone would want them to.

It's not a secret any longer is it?

#62 fubaru

fubaru

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts
  • Location:Clarksdale, Ms

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:29 PM

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that SF doesn't perform and the
cup moves to Newport. Who benefits from a lighter-air venue, fully-foiling or foil-assisted boats?

#63 HHN92

HHN92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,932 posts
  • Location:Tampa Bay Fla
  • Interests:Sailing, Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie & Chevrolets, History,1970 Chevelle SS

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:33 PM

IF the delay becomes fact, what amount of momentum they have gained will be lost, and many of the faithfull will be disillusioned also.

It's a fart bomb in the car that no one will want to see happen.

#64 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:41 PM

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that SF doesn't perform and the
cup moves to Newport. Who benefits from a lighter-air venue, fully-foiling or foil-assisted boats?

That would be a big meal ticket for the lawyers.

#65 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,849 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:52 AM

If there is a delay, who do I sue?


ACEA, Oracle Racing, GGYC, the state of California, the NYSC, the US, Sweeden, and everybody else.

Simply contact your pal MSP, I'm sure he'll file suit tomorrow, just ask him :lol:.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users