Jump to content


Why do people keep blaming costs on the boats?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Dazz

Dazz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Location:Tasvegas

Posted 20 September 2013 - 12:40 AM

Welcome to Sail-World.com's latest Newsletter for the 34th America's Cup

 

As the 34th America's Cup marches to what most believe will be an inevitable conclusion, thoughts turn to the future.

Certainly most whole heartedly want to stay with this concept of boat, but are aware of the need to get more competitors into the game, and believe that can be done by dramatically lowering the costs.

The only way to do this is to tackle the issue head on, and introduce salary caps, and budget caps. They exist in other sports and the penalties for breach are so eye-watering you wouldn't contemplate a work-around for fear of being caught.

 

Fiddling with the boat size won't work. Even if the regatta were held in a tiny P-class dinghy, you are dealing with a breed that could assemble a 30 strong design team to develop the ultimate 7fter, and add another 30 into the support team.

Simply if the objective is to reduce cost, then the 65% of the budget that is personnel must be addressed head-on.

 

This is the current Sail-world newsletter, I don't know how accurate the figures are, but if we take the reported $120m budget, we can assume the salary's are in the order of $80m and the boats $40m. so halving the cost of the boat brings that back to $100m?!?! that is still an epic amount of cash for a boat race...

 

I think weaving into the next set of rules will have to be some sort of budget constraints for each area of expertise is probably the best chance at lowing costs. 



#2 gliderguider

gliderguider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Location:Wellington, New Zealand
  • Interests:Have owned a laser, but these days I really only sail in the sky.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 01:22 AM

Welcome to Sail-World.com's latest Newsletter for the 34th America's Cup

 

As the 34th America's Cup marches to what most believe will be an inevitable conclusion, thoughts turn to the future.

Certainly most whole heartedly want to stay with this concept of boat, but are aware of the need to get more competitors into the game, and believe that can be done by dramatically lowering the costs.

The only way to do this is to tackle the issue head on, and introduce salary caps, and budget caps. They exist in other sports and the penalties for breach are so eye-watering you wouldn't contemplate a work-around for fear of being caught.

 

Fiddling with the boat size won't work. Even if the regatta were held in a tiny P-class dinghy, you are dealing with a breed that could assemble a 30 strong design team to develop the ultimate 7fter, and add another 30 into the support team.

Simply if the objective is to reduce cost, then the 65% of the budget that is personnel must be addressed head-on.

 

This is the current Sail-world newsletter, I don't know how accurate the figures are, but if we take the reported $120m budget, we can assume the salary's are in the order of $80m and the boats $40m. so halving the cost of the boat brings that back to $100m?!?! that is still an epic amount of cash for a boat race...

 

I think weaving into the next set of rules will have to be some sort of budget constraints for each area of expertise is probably the best chance at lowing costs. 

 

Raw materials for a boat don't cost $40 million.

 

I doubt there's much in an AC72 that costs more than carbon fibre, so let's assume all 7 tonnes of the boat is made of it. At $20/kg that's $140,000 for raw materials.

 

The *vast* majority of the cost is the labour to design and create the shapes you want from the raw materials. And then sail it.

 

I agree with the article that even if the cup was sailed in P class boats, if a team could raise $140m then they'd find a way to spend it.

 

I don't think spending limits can be effectively enforced. It's too easy to get "soft money" help at free or reduced prices.

 

A personnel limit could perhaps be enforced, along with a requirement that all inputs to the ring-fenced personnel must be catalogue components available to anyone, not custom.



#3 brian weslake

brian weslake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 01:38 AM

Welcome to Sail-World.com's latest Newsletter for the 34th America's Cup

 

As the 34th America's Cup marches to what most believe will be an inevitable conclusion, thoughts turn to the future.

Certainly most whole heartedly want to stay with this concept of boat, but are aware of the need to get more competitors into the game, and believe that can be done by dramatically lowering the costs.

The only way to do this is to tackle the issue head on, and introduce salary caps, and budget caps. They exist in other sports and the penalties for breach are so eye-watering you wouldn't contemplate a work-around for fear of being caught.

 

Fiddling with the boat size won't work. Even if the regatta were held in a tiny P-class dinghy, you are dealing with a breed that could assemble a 30 strong design team to develop the ultimate 7fter, and add another 30 into the support team.

Simply if the objective is to reduce cost, then the 65% of the budget that is personnel must be addressed head-on.

 

This is the current Sail-world newsletter, I don't know how accurate the figures are, but if we take the reported $120m budget, we can assume the salary's are in the order of $80m and the boats $40m. so halving the cost of the boat brings that back to $100m?!?! that is still an epic amount of cash for a boat race...

 

I think weaving into the next set of rules will have to be some sort of budget constraints for each area of expertise is probably the best chance at lowing costs. 

 

Raw materials for a boat don't cost $40 million.

 

I doubt there's much in an AC72 that costs more than carbon fibre, so let's assume all 7 tonnes of the boat is made of it. At $20/kg that's $140,000 for raw materials.

 

The *vast* majority of the cost is the labour to design and create the shapes you want from the raw materials. And then sail it.

 

I agree with the article that even if the cup was sailed in P class boats, if a team could raise $140m then they'd find a way to spend it.

 

I don't think spending limits can be effectively enforced. It's too easy to get "soft money" help at free or reduced prices.

 

A personnel limit could perhaps be enforced, along with a requirement that all inputs to the ring-fenced personnel must be catalogue components available to anyone, not custom.

 

Look at the size of the design teams on the AmericasCup.com team pages, 30 for Oracle, 33 for ETNZ, 33 for Artemis. And that doesn't include consultants and contractors.

 

For sports like football and baseball you can apply a salary cap because its the player's salaries that are the problem, but the cost in the AC is not the sailors, its the rest of the team. It's an equipment sport more than any other outside of high end motorsport, and its very hard to cap equipment costs, particularly the R&D and design of the equipment.

 

Simplifying the boat will reduce costs, but making it smaller will not reduce design team costs significantly. Standardizing some components may help, but then you have to ask how feasible that is. For example, a standard wing from a single manufacturer is fragile and would need repairs over its lifetime. Not an easy item to keep precisely in spec, and a measurement nightmare for the measurement committee. Standardizing boards would remove a lot of the development interest from a foiling class and standard hulls are hard to do within the DoG.



#4 armchair-sailor

armchair-sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Location:Tokoroa, New Zealand

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:07 AM

But if free help is given, then so what?
 
The aim is to reduce the costs, not to reduce the man hours!
 
If there isn't enough money, but there is enough passion, then it could still work out.

To me though, desigh does not seem like it needs to cost a lot, I'd love to design one.
It's the building, now if they had 3D printers for Americas cup sized boats....

#5 gliderguider

gliderguider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Location:Wellington, New Zealand
  • Interests:Have owned a laser, but these days I really only sail in the sky.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:09 AM

 

Welcome to Sail-World.com's latest Newsletter for the 34th America's Cup

 

As the 34th America's Cup marches to what most believe will be an inevitable conclusion, thoughts turn to the future.

Certainly most whole heartedly want to stay with this concept of boat, but are aware of the need to get more competitors into the game, and believe that can be done by dramatically lowering the costs.

The only way to do this is to tackle the issue head on, and introduce salary caps, and budget caps. They exist in other sports and the penalties for breach are so eye-watering you wouldn't contemplate a work-around for fear of being caught.

 

Fiddling with the boat size won't work. Even if the regatta were held in a tiny P-class dinghy, you are dealing with a breed that could assemble a 30 strong design team to develop the ultimate 7fter, and add another 30 into the support team.

Simply if the objective is to reduce cost, then the 65% of the budget that is personnel must be addressed head-on.

 

This is the current Sail-world newsletter, I don't know how accurate the figures are, but if we take the reported $120m budget, we can assume the salary's are in the order of $80m and the boats $40m. so halving the cost of the boat brings that back to $100m?!?! that is still an epic amount of cash for a boat race...

 

I think weaving into the next set of rules will have to be some sort of budget constraints for each area of expertise is probably the best chance at lowing costs. 

 

Raw materials for a boat don't cost $40 million.

 

I doubt there's much in an AC72 that costs more than carbon fibre, so let's assume all 7 tonnes of the boat is made of it. At $20/kg that's $140,000 for raw materials.

 

The *vast* majority of the cost is the labour to design and create the shapes you want from the raw materials. And then sail it.

 

I agree with the article that even if the cup was sailed in P class boats, if a team could raise $140m then they'd find a way to spend it.

 

I don't think spending limits can be effectively enforced. It's too easy to get "soft money" help at free or reduced prices.

 

A personnel limit could perhaps be enforced, along with a requirement that all inputs to the ring-fenced personnel must be catalogue components available to anyone, not custom.

 

Look at the size of the design teams on the AmericasCup.com team pages, 30 for Oracle, 33 for ETNZ, 33 for Artemis. And that doesn't include consultants and contractors.

 

For sports like football and baseball you can apply a salary cap because its the player's salaries that are the problem, but the cost in the AC is not the sailors, its the rest of the team. It's an equipment sport more than any other outside of high end motorsport, and its very hard to cap equipment costs, particularly the R&D and design of the equipment.

 

Simplifying the boat will reduce costs, but making it smaller will not reduce design team costs significantly. Standardizing some components may help, but then you have to ask how feasible that is. For example, a standard wing from a single manufacturer is fragile and would need repairs over its lifetime. Not an easy item to keep precisely in spec, and a measurement nightmare for the measurement committee. Standardizing boards would remove a lot of the development interest from a foiling class and standard hulls are hard to do within the DoG.

 

I'm not talking about standardizing wings or preventing development.

 

I'm saying that you can buy in electric motors and valves and pipes and rope and carbon fiber cloth and the like, but anything that is custom designed and custom made/machined must be designed AND manufactured by people who fall within your personnel limit.



#6 gliderguider

gliderguider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Location:Wellington, New Zealand
  • Interests:Have owned a laser, but these days I really only sail in the sky.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:11 AM

But if free help is given, then so what?
 
The aim is to reduce the costs, not to reduce the man hours!
 
If there isn't enough money, but there is enough passion, then it could still work out.

To me though, desigh does not seem like it needs to cost a lot, I'd love to design one.
It's the building, now if they had 3D printers for Americas cup sized boats....

 

If free help is given then people are reducing their income, or possibly even living off welfare, in order to do it. That's a donation to the team budget just as much as is Larry writing a check for $100m.

 

That's why personnel numbers are what you can realistically count and control, not money.



#7 Lat35sowth

Lat35sowth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 242 posts
  • Location:Aotearoa
  • Interests:Sea ,Sun,Sports

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:13 AM

Designers and engineers comand high prices.

Especially when demand outstrips supply.



#8 bob202

bob202

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:18 AM

Look at the size of the design teams on the AmericasCup.com team pages, 30 for Oracle, 33 for ETNZ, 33 for Artemis. And that doesn't include consultants and contractors.

Yep... Shore crew: Oracle over 100 people, ETZN 30. Marketing/Comms: Oracle 15, ETNZ 2.

 

These people will be averaging $100k/year in salaries, and then transport, accommodation for many of them etc. Costs add up really quickly.

 

Simplifying the boat will reduce costs, but making it smaller will not reduce design team costs significantly. Standardizing some components may help, but then you have to ask how feasible that is.

Efforts to control costs in F1 a few years back proved to be a complete shambles as there's simply no way to police it. I think standardising some key components would be one key area they could look into which could have the desired effect both in unit cost and in doing away with the need for as much design manpower.

 

That said, people will find a way to spend whatever they can raise.



#9 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,112 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:22 AM

".. the 34th America's Cup marches to what most believe will be an inevitable conclusion, thoughts turn to the future.

Certainly most whole heartedly want to stay with this concept of boat, but are aware of the need to get more competitors into the game"

Disagree with the 'but' premise.

It does not help me one bit if GD attracts a bunch of pansies. Would far prefer to see ACSF run again in AC72 V2's.

#10 NonOnion

NonOnion

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:22 AM

The current boats not only "allow" huge staffs of designers, builders and shore support, they "require" it.

 

25,000 man hours to build a single wing?  I don't know how much of that is design time vs fabrication.

 

30-40 shore staff to launch the boat each morning.

 

In order to effectively allow lower budget teams to compete the rule has to provide a point at which throwing more money at the challenge doesn't net significant advantage.  That is difficult to achieve with any first generation box rule when so much has yet to be optimized.  Limiting such teams to one boat doesn't actually help, because it too easily locks them into early mistakes.

 

I'm thrilled by the introduction of foils and rigid wingsails.  However, as long as they remain (and, I hope that they do remain part of the AC) their design and optimization is going to play an increasingly important role.  The hulls will increasingly be simply a foil delivery vessel with sufficient bouyancy to save everyone from their occassional fuck ups.  You could one design the hulls in future events with limited impact on the eventual winner.  That would save some money.  But, the big budget teams will simply plow those savings into foil research, design and fabrication.

 

Providing articulating trim surfaces to the underwater foil package could possibly actually save money.  Each foil might have a larger effective window and teams wouln'td be required to have as many different board combos for the various conditions.  But, the big budget guys still would.

 

The size of the wings and the logistics with regard to daily launching procedures:  I don't see a way that wing sailed craft are going to be left in the water very often.  Not when they require crews onboard to keep them from sailing off the mooring.  But, perhaps systems and size could be simplified to a degree where it wouldn't require dozens on the shore crew to launch the things each day.  If the onboard crew plus a dozen warm bodies could get the thing in the water each day with the use of smaller (potentially purpose built and transportable) cranes, it could go a long way to sorting this aspect of the equation.

 

So, my solution:

 

A foiling mutlihull of appropriate size.

 

One design hull kits for the teams with sufficiently large foil boxes to provide plenty of design lattitude and fixed interface points that allow them to build their own above water aero kits.  At these speeds, above water aero has really potential.

 

Give 'em trim tabs on all foils.

 

Require an open pits/garage approach to each launch day, so the fans and each other can actually see and marvel at what defines the difference between teams.  This also provides a great copycat equalizing factor for the lower budget teams.  Just look what OTANZAC has accomplished using this approach:-)  Complete shitbox to competitive in under 10 days:-)



#11 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:23 AM

Salary caps are impossible to enforce.  This is an international competition - how does anyone propose equalising teams between countries?  China has skilled engineers and boat builders that get paid a pittance compared to those in the USA.  Football teams have salary caps for the players in some competitions.  I don't see salary caps for the rest of the team, and these are for sports that are played in one country, where the costs are much the same between teams in monetary terms. 

 

There is absolutely no chance at all that the CoR and defender will agree on a competition that involves a salary cap.  Bleating on about one is simply wasting breath.

 

The class rule for the boat is the only place where you can cut down costs - and it is only done by making a rule that doesn't reward bleeding edge development all that much.  Other than that, a protocol that only ever allows one boat on the water at a time. 



#12 In the Jailhouse Now

In the Jailhouse Now

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:44 AM

Even I know enough to say "go back to Tasvegas"



#13 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,775 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 08:20 AM

The class rule for the boat is the only place where you can cut down costs - and it is only done by making a rule that doesn't reward bleeding edge development all that much.  Other than that, a protocol that only ever allows one boat on the water at a time. 

 

I agree. Can anyone point at a sport involving development of equipment where budget caps are effective?



#14 LateNite

LateNite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Location:Windy City

Posted 20 September 2013 - 08:47 AM

You want to save money? Outlaw the wings and bring back soft sails.

Advantage 1. R&D costs picked up by sail makers

Advantage 2. Much smaller shore crews.    *

Advantage 3. You can reef sails so no wind limit

 

 

 

 *I think GD said this in an interview last week)



#15 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,022 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:05 AM

Welcome to Sail-World.com's latest Newsletter for the 34th America's Cup
 
As the 34th America's Cup marches to what most believe will be an inevitable conclusion, thoughts turn to the future.
Certainly most whole heartedly want to stay with this concept of boat, but are aware of the need to get more competitors into the game, and believe that can be done by dramatically lowering the costs.
The only way to do this is to tackle the issue head on, and introduce salary caps, and budget caps. They exist in other sports and the penalties for breach are so eye-watering you wouldn't contemplate a work-around for fear of being caught.

 
Fiddling with the boat size won't work. Even if the regatta were held in a tiny P-class dinghy, you are dealing with a breed that could assemble a 30 strong design team to develop the ultimate 7fter, and add another 30 into the support team.
Simply if the objective is to reduce cost, then the 65% of the budget that is personnel must be addressed head-on.

 
This is the current Sail-world newsletter, I don't know how accurate the figures are, but if we take the reported $120m budget, we can assume the salary's are in the order of $80m and the boats $40m. so halving the cost of the boat brings that back to $100m?!?! that is still an epic amount of cash for a boat race...
 
I think weaving into the next set of rules will have to be some sort of budget constraints for each area of expertise is probably the best chance at lowing costs. 

This is a very very good point.

Just do the numbers.

sir Russell has over 20 million on property in NZ alone since between 1996 and 2006

So if Sir Russ has invested say 50%, and it will be less than that, of his income on property, in ten years then he is earning at least 4,000,000.00 per annum.

Rumour has it Dalton is earned well over 10,000,000.00 since taking on ETNZ

Generally 30% of teams costs are wages. And remember the supposed ETNZ cost for this campaign is 150 million and that is just for this campaign (since the last AC) so that is $50 million wages.

Builders wages will be part of the builders contract cost so its $50 million between sailors, shore crew and maybe design team?

Don,t limit the boats they are the highlight! Limit the cost of wages, design teams...

And remember these guys were all rich millionaires before 2000.

#16 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,022 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:10 AM

The class rule for the boat is the only place where you can cut down costs - and it is only done by making a rule that doesn't reward bleeding edge development all that much.  Other than that, a protocol that only ever allows one boat on the water at a time. 

 
I agree. Can anyone point at a sport involving development of equipment where budget caps are effective?

Don,t limit the technology let it evolve! It could even be commercialized to provide fast pollution free water taxis of the future.

Limit the over paid sailors a team numbers / extravagence. just look at where all the ETNZ sailors and family are staying in SF.

These guys are over paid big time for how mAny races every five years!

#17 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,467 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:12 AM

 

Welcome to Sail-World.com's latest Newsletter for the 34th America's Cup
 
As the 34th America's Cup marches to what most believe will be an inevitable conclusion, thoughts turn to the future.
Certainly most whole heartedly want to stay with this concept of boat, but are aware of the need to get more competitors into the game, and believe that can be done by dramatically lowering the costs.
The only way to do this is to tackle the issue head on, and introduce salary caps, and budget caps. They exist in other sports and the penalties for breach are so eye-watering you wouldn't contemplate a work-around for fear of being caught.

 
Fiddling with the boat size won't work. Even if the regatta were held in a tiny P-class dinghy, you are dealing with a breed that could assemble a 30 strong design team to develop the ultimate 7fter, and add another 30 into the support team.
Simply if the objective is to reduce cost, then the 65% of the budget that is personnel must be addressed head-on.

 
This is the current Sail-world newsletter, I don't know how accurate the figures are, but if we take the reported $120m budget, we can assume the salary's are in the order of $80m and the boats $40m. so halving the cost of the boat brings that back to $100m?!?! that is still an epic amount of cash for a boat race...
 
I think weaving into the next set of rules will have to be some sort of budget constraints for each area of expertise is probably the best chance at lowing costs. 

This is a very very good point.

Just do the numbers.

sir Russell has over 20 million on property in NZ alone since between 1996 and 2006

So if Sir Russ has invested say 50%, and it will be less than that, of his income on property, in ten years then he is earning at least 4,000,000.00 per annum.

Rumour has it Dalton is earned well over 10,000,000.00 since taking on ETNZ

Generally 30% of teams costs are wages. And remember the supposed ETNZ cost for this campaign is 150 million and that is just for this campaign (since the last AC) so that is $50 million wages.

Builders wages will be part of the builders contract cost so its $50 million between sailors, shore crew and maybe design team?

Don,t limit the boats they are the highlight! Limit the cost of wages, design teams...

And remember these guys were all rich millionaires before 2000.

 

The problem is not the boats but the inflated salaries these guys "demand". Simple math. ETNZ spends $100 mill (a lot more than that) has a 100 people on the payroll for 3 years and openly admits that "around" 60% is salary. That is an "average" of $200,000 per team member.......................................



#18 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,370 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:27 AM

The difference between using a wing or "horse blankets" (Ray Davies words) is marginal in terms of costs.

The boats and wings are built by external contractors and are 1-time expenses, unlike the designers, sailors, shore crew, facilities, etc.

 

If they really want to save cost there has to be a reduction of personnel:

-Reduce the size of the boats: This means less sailing and shore crew and the managers that go with it.

-No two boat testing allowed: Again, this reduces the number of sailors needed.

-Stick with multihulls: Even a small boat like the TP52 requires 12 crew, as a reminder the IACC v5's had a crew of 17(!).

-Allow the use of engines: Not a popular thing to do but this would eliminate the need for grinders, which make up about 50% of the crew.

-Raise more money from the event: This could offset some of the costs the teams make, possibly by selling TV or naming rights (call it the "<name of sponsor> America's Cup").

 

Dalts words about the "ridiculous" costs should be taken with a grain of salt though, winding up the defender is a hobby of his (as it should).



#19 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,370 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:32 AM

The problem is not the boats but the inflated salaries these guys "demand". Simple math. ETNZ spends $100 mill (a lot more than that) has a 100 people on the payroll for 3 years and openly admits that "around" 60% is salary. That is an "average" of $200,000 per team member.......................................

That is what a low level soccer player earns somewhere at a club no-one has ever heard of.

These guys are the best in the sport and should be rewarded as such if we expect anyone to take this sport seriously on a global level.



#20 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,467 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:40 AM

The problem is not the boats but the inflated salaries these guys "demand". Simple math. ETNZ spends $100 mill (a lot more than that) has a 100 people on the payroll for 3 years and openly admits that "around" 60% is salary. That is an "average" of $200,000 per team member.......................................

That is what a low level soccer player earns somewhere at a club no-one has ever heard of.

These guys are the best in the sport and should be rewarded as such if we expect anyone to take this sport seriously on a global level.

Tell that to the fans who can go to the stadium and watch their players play and see it on TV. If you believe that the "average" wage in AC should be in excess of $200,000 per annum then good on you.



#21 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

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

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:55 AM

Just replace the grinders with electric motors and a rechargeable battery .. then you can sail the boat with 4 or 5 people .



#22 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,775 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:58 AM

^

 

Good thinking but why not go the whole hog and replace the entire event with a CGI epic?



#23 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:01 AM

You want to save money? Outlaw the wings and bring back soft sails.

Advantage 1. R&D costs picked up by sail makers

Advantage 2. Much smaller shore crews.    *

Advantage 3. You can reef sails so no wind limit

 

 

 

 *I think GD said this in an interview last week)

 

4. Much less bother to launch and retrieve boats as they are depowerd during the process.

5. Boats can be safely left on the mooring overnight even in pretty hairy conditions.

6. Can be depowered very rapidly in an emergency and avoid expensive damage, not that this saved Spindrift mind you...



#24 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,775 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:05 AM


The problem is not the boats but the inflated salaries these guys "demand". Simple math. ETNZ spends $100 mill (a lot more than that) has a 100 people on the payroll for 3 years and openly admits that "around" 60% is salary. That is an "average" of $200,000 per team member.......................................

That is what a low level soccer player earns somewhere at a club no-one has ever heard of.


 
 
Actually, no. http://news.bbc.co.u...all/4898392.stm
 
Salaries drop considerably in lower divisions, although they are still substantial.
Championship players earn an average salary of £195,750, League One players £67,850 and League Two £49,600.
 
Roughly x 1.5 for US$ and 2x for NZ$. Still doesn't get to $200K for league one/two.

P.S. A club local to me failed to pay players salaries at all recently. Ran out of £££.

#25 Kiwing

Kiwing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:06 AM

I'm for finding a way to keep the wings and foiling !!  and drop the grinders, sailors are not grinders !



#26 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,775 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:10 AM

The difference between using a wing or "horse blankets" (Ray Davies words) is marginal in terms of costs.

 
So it's been said by Foyle. Not convinced I believe it. 25,000 hours to build an AC72 wing.
 

The boats and wings are built by external contractors and are 1-time expenses, unlike the designers, sailors, shore crew, facilities, etc.

Not one-off because of the shore-crew needed to handle wings - and because 3 wings have been trashed in the course of the AC34 cycle.

#27 laser 173312

laser 173312

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Location:South Wales
  • Interests:Sailing,
    Skiing,
    Motor Sports,
    Rugby,
    Annoying the neighbours with my guitar,
    Siamese Cats,

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:21 AM

I can't see it ever changing the money pit is bottomless just like the cup it self and in reality you only need a defender and challenger to hold a cup match. All the side stuff like the AC45 series and the LV cup are not really needed. Even the original America cost far more to build than was ever materially gained by her.



#28 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,370 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:25 AM

I hate soccer so dont want to get into this too much, but NZ$200k equates to about €125k, that is the bottom of the pay scale overhere for pro players at an average club.

Completely different sports anyway, but during the financial crisis football teams invested more in youth programs instead of buying expensive players from overseas.

That is why salaries dropped and cost came down, I think AC teams have been doing this as well, but no 19yo can replace the experience of BA, DB, or JS.

 

Part of the sailing crew is also involved with lowering and raising the wings, its not like there is a big team running around dedicated to this (not rocket science).

 

Unlike in kiting, where people have made a career of launching kites:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users