Jump to content


Hamilton Island Challenge ~ Validity

Deed Compliant

  • Please log in to reply
354 replies to this topic

#1 Wildwave

Wildwave

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:52 AM

Is the Hamilton Island (hip pocket) document outlining their challenge available / accessible to
the sailing community ?

I would think that such a document (proof copy) should be made available ( to any interested party)given the specific requirements outlined in the Deed of Gift ~ notably when the Defender has
published the acceptance of Challenge.

#2 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,204 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:56 AM

Is the Hamilton Island (hip pocket) document outlining their challenge available / accessible to
the sailing community ?

I would think that such a document (proof copy) should be made available ( to any interested party)given the specific requirements outlined in the Deed of Gift ~ notably when the Defender has
published the acceptance of Challenge.

 

Why do you care?  Feeling left out? You have a better club/place from where to challenge?



#3 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,052 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:59 AM

Interesting how many here think they should have access to all kinds of different information.

 

Why do you think they have any obligation to make it public ?



#4 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,849 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:05 AM

Is HI a Yacht Club or a resort? How many members do they have?

#5 Terrafirma

Terrafirma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:12 AM

Really don't understand why all the questions re Hamilton Island Yacht Club making a challenge.? The bigger question is if Bob Oatley is doing this on his own or has some affiliation with Ernesto Bertarelli who was at Hamilton Island Race week chartering the smaller Wild Oats. Ernesto had his superyacht there as well and undoubtedly they had some time together. The good news as far as I am concerned is that Australia is finally back in the game given the Aussie contingent on Oracle and ETNZ.



#6 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,204 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:18 AM

RHough will probably be along soon to tell us about the definition of a yacht club, and what that means per the Deed.

 

And even is HIYC has a relationship with Ernesto, so what?  He'll be good for some new drama.



#7 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:19 AM

Is HI a Yacht Club or a resort? How many members do they have?

 

It's a yacht club with a huge high tech clubhouse that runs a major international yacht regatta every year and has run Australian and World Championships in a variety of classes.

 

I don't know exactly how many members it has, but it's a large club with a marina full of boats owned by its members.

 

It's owned by the company that owns the lease on Hamilton Island. The island is leased from the government by a company owned by the Oatleys.



#8 cra-ver

cra-ver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Location:Whistsunday Islands, Australia
  • Interests:multihulls, offshore cruising, boat design

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:20 AM

Is HI a Yacht Club or a resort? How many members do they have?

HI is an island, leased by the Oatley family. On that island are resorts, and a premiere yacht club.. I think its more a question of WHAT members, not how many :)
 

http://en.wikipedia....and_(Queensland)
http://www.hamiltoni....au/yacht-club/



#9 KingMonkey

KingMonkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,682 posts
  • Location:Ex-London, Now Brasilia

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:29 AM

I could not give a fuck. Let's have a boat race not a court case .

#10 Bill E Goat

Bill E Goat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,569 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:13 AM

I am sure Ernesto could advise him on what is the minimum requirements for a CorR



#11 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:35 AM

Why do you want to see a bit of paper that says:

"HIYC challenges GGYC to a match for the America's Cup. Terms of the match will be arranged by mutual consent.

On behalf of HIYC
etc. etc. "

#12 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:37 AM

Interesting how many here think they should have access to all kinds of different information.

 

Why do you think they have any obligation to make it public ?

Because the AC is governed by a public trust subject to the law in NY. AC trustees are therefore accountable to the public.

 

The requirements of a valid challenge are contained within the four corners of the Deed. I have no doubt that the challenge is not valid, but I don't really care that it is not.

 

R



Why do you want to see a bit of paper that says:

"HIYC challenges GGYC to a match for the America's Cup. Terms of the match will be arranged by mutual consent.

On behalf of HIYC
etc. etc. "

Not legal.



#13 southseasbill

southseasbill

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:41 AM

Maybe its a DoG challenge. 90 x 90' yatchs in 10 months.



#14 sumpin

sumpin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,941 posts
  • Location:San Miguel
  • Interests:scallop mining and rudder fairing
    stair falling book cover mending

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:45 AM

get a life



#15 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,037 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:48 AM

Interesting how many here think they should have access to all kinds of different information.

 

Why do you think they have any obligation to make it public ?

Because the AC is governed by a public trust subject to the law in NY. AC trustees are therefore accountable to the public.

 

The requirements of a valid challenge are contained within the four corners of the Deed. I have no doubt that the challenge is not valid, but I don't really care that it is not.

 

R



>Why do you want to see a bit of paper that says:

"HIYC challenges GGYC to a match for the America's Cup. Terms of the match will be arranged by mutual consent.

On behalf of HIYC
etc. etc. "

Not legal.

 

And why do you think it isn't a valid challenge? Is this your theory that a hip pocket challenger cannot be deed compliant, or is it something about HIYC, because I can see no reason why the club isn't deed compliant.



#16 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,052 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:51 AM

Interesting how many here think they should have access to all kinds of different information.

 

Why do you think they have any obligation to make it public ?

Because the AC is governed by a public trust subject to the law in NY. AC trustees are therefore accountable to the public.

 

The requirements of a valid challenge are contained within the four corners of the Deed. I have no doubt that the challenge is not valid, but I don't really care that it is not.

 

R

 

Then as a poster they should challenge it - pretty simple.

 

If you think the public has a right to know file a FOIA or get Clean to do it, he seems to like those things.



#17 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:51 AM

Why do you want to see a bit of paper that says:

"HIYC challenges GGYC to a match for the America's Cup. Terms of the match will be arranged by mutual consent.

On behalf of HIYC
etc. etc. "

Not legal.

 

Why? (IANAL) 

 

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be waived.



#18 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:55 AM

If you think the public has a right to know file a FOIA or get Clean to do it, he seems to like those things.

 

Why would the FOIC apply to a private club like GGYC?



#19 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:01 AM

Because the AC is governed by a public trust subject to the law in NY. AC trustees are therefore accountable to the public.

 

The requirements of a valid challenge are contained within the four corners of the Deed. I have no doubt that the challenge is not valid, but I don't really care that it is not.

 

While it is nice to hear that you are free from doubt, you have not made a case that argues against the validity of the challenge.  You've mentioned a couple of times that you are sure this is invalid, but I have to say that you have not actually stated which deed provision or legal precedent would pose a problem for the HIYC challenge.  

 

On what basis? 



#20 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 05:01 AM

Because the AC is governed by a public trust subject to the law in NY. AC trustees are therefore accountable to the public.

 

The requirements of a valid challenge are contained within the four corners of the Deed. I have no doubt that the challenge is not valid, but I don't really care that it is not.

 

While it is nice to hear that you are free from doubt, you have not made a case that argues against the validity of the challenge.  You've mentioned a couple of times that you are sure this is invalid, but I have to say that you have not actually stated which deed provision or legal precedent would pose a problem for the HIYC challenge.  

 

On what basis? 

 

Let me modify my statement about the validity of the HIYC challenge. It is not legal on its face because it was an invitation to sail rather than a challenge for the Cup. I have made that point very clearly in another thread.

 

Until the actual challenge is published I have no idea about the legality of the challenge itself (if it meets the requirements of the Deed). Since no boat was named and no dates were named, I suspect that it might be lacking. However TE is a pretty smart guy and I'll bet there is a legal form challenge that we will see soon enough.

 

The Deed defines a few things.

1. Only Yacht Clubs that meet certain requirements are eligible to challenge for the Cup.

Any organized yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match for this Cup with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup. The competing yachts or vessels, if of one mast, shall be not less than sixty-five forty-four feet nor more than ninety feet on the load water line; if of more than one mast, they shall be not less than eighty feet nor more than one hundred and fifteen feet on the load water line.

I have no idea if HIYC is qualified. I assume they are. (TE and LE are not likely to make the same mistake SNG and EB did)

 

 

2. The Deed is quite specific as to the legal requirements of a challenge.

The challenging Club shall give ten months’ notice in writing naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November first and May first if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May first and November first if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. Accompanying the ten months’ notice of challenge, there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and the following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water line; beam at load water line, and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded; and a custom-house registry of the vessel must also be sent as soon as possible.

Unless the HIYC contains these items the challenge is not valid.

 

If terms have not been agreed to before the challenge is accepted then the terms of the match are subject to mutual consent. The YC qualifications are not subject to MC, the limits on boat sizes are not subject to MC, the form and requirements of the challenge itself are not subject to MC.

 

Mutual Consent covers only changes to the default terms of the match:

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be waived.

They can agree to dates other than those stated in the challenge.

They can agree to courses,

They can agree to the number of races.

They can agree to rules and sailing regulations and any other match conditions.

 

There is no match until a valid challenge from an eligible club is accepted. Thus those eligibility requirements and challenger requirements cannot be modified by mutual consent.

 

As I said, I don't really care. I'm quite happy that HIYC has challenged. It is my opinion that the process is not legal and would fail a challenge in court. But the catch 22 is that unless a beneficiary of the trust takes issue with the trustee this stuff will not get litigated. When EB was abusing the trusteeship the NYSAG was made aware of the situation and a case was presented to get that office to step in for the public good. AFAIK it never got attention past acknowledgement of receipt of the documents.

 

The San Diego Protocol recognized some of these problems and attempted to set up ongoing independent management of the AC (somewhat like F1 has). The people that signed that document and agreed to the terms did not follow through.

 

This is all academic until and unless there is a court challenge. As soon as there is potential profit in the AC you will see people hiring lawyers faster than designers. 

 

I got into this after AC32 and learned more about the Deed and its history and the way trust law is supposed to work than I ever wanted to know. It is amazing what people think the deed says and what they think is allowed.

 

Consider this; Had TNZ won is it likely that HIYC was going to challenge? If your answer is no, then you need to figure out how the Defender gets to chose who the challenger will be. Now find words in the Deed to twist to make it all okay.

 

For the trustees of the Cup to turn a perpetual challenge Cup into an invitational event is like like me taking the $10k my mother left to Best Friends and using it to take Hooters Girls to Vegas. I would be failing to honor my duty as executor of her estate.

 

I'm not even saying that the way they do it is bad. I can make the case to support the changes in the San Diego Protocol and have outlined changes to the wording of the Deed to allow for multiple challengers in an orderly fashion. *If* the Cup is to become a viable sports event it needs to be reliable, like the Olympics. Since 1987 there have been 8 or 9 matches. Two were tied up in court for years. Until the NY Supreme court hires Judge Judy to sit on the bench and the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders for bailiffs no sponsor will want to touch a sports event where the action is nearly as likely to be in court as on the water.

 

Cheers,

 

Randy



#21 Swanno (Ohf Shore)

Swanno (Ohf Shore)

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 02 October 2013 - 05:08 AM

Because the AC is governed by a public trust subject to the law in NY. AC trustees are therefore accountable to the public.

 

The requirements of a valid challenge are contained within the four corners of the Deed. I have no doubt that the challenge is not valid, but I don't really care that it is not.

 

While it is nice to hear that you are free from doubt, you have not made a case that argues against the validity of the challenge.  You've mentioned a couple of times that you are sure this is invalid, but I have to say that you have not actually stated which deed provision or legal precedent would pose a problem for the HIYC challenge.  

 

On what basis? 

 

Really, this is Anarchy, does there need to be a basis for any arguement?



#22 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 05:23 AM

RHough will probably be along soon to tell us about the definition of a yacht club, and what that means per the Deed.

 

And even is HIYC has a relationship with Ernesto, so what?  He'll be good for some new drama.

Not me Peter. I'm just the anal retentive guy that likes to see at least some respect shown to the Cup.

 

I agree that AC35 should have some well funded competitors and that EB would add to the drama. What AC35 does not need is a dumbed down boat and event just so forlorn hope sailing teams can play. However if they can create an AC "minor league" to be part of the show so the FH teams can get exposure. experience, and sponsors it would be great. We just don't need poor quality teams in the LVC.

 

Cheers,

 

Randy



#23 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:19 AM

Let me modify my statement about the validity of the HIYC challenge. It is not legal on its face because it was an invitation to sail rather than a challenge for the Cup. I have made that point very clearly in another thread.

 

Until the actual challenge is published I have no idea about the legality of the challenge itself (if it meets the requirements of the Deed). Since no boat was named and no dates were named, I suspect that it might be lacking. However TE is a pretty smart guy and I'll bet there is a legal form challenge that we will see soon enough.

 

The Deed defines a few things.

1. Only Yacht Clubs that meet certain requirements are eligible to challenge for the Cup.

Any organized yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match for this Cup with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup. The competing yachts or vessels, if of one mast, shall be not less than sixty-five forty-four feet nor more than ninety feet on the load water line; if of more than one mast, they shall be not less than eighty feet nor more than one hundred and fifteen feet on the load water line.

I have no idea if HIYC is qualified. I assume they are. (TE and LE are not likely to make the same mistake SNG and EB did)

 

 

2. The Deed is quite specific as to the legal requirements of a challenge.

>

The challenging Club shall give ten months’ notice in writing naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November first and May first if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May first and November first if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. Accompanying the ten months’ notice of challenge, there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and the following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water line; beam at load water line, and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded; and a custom-house registry of the vessel must also be sent as soon as possible.

Unless the HIYC contains these items the challenge is not valid.

 

If terms have not been agreed to before the challenge is accepted then the terms of the match are subject to mutual consent. The YC qualifications are not subject to MC, the limits on boat sizes are not subject to MC, the form and requirements of the challenge itself are not subject to MC.

 

Mutual Consent covers only changes to the default terms of the match:

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be waived.

They can agree to dates other than those stated in the challenge.

They can agree to courses,

They can agree to the number of races.

They can agree to rules and sailing regulations and any other match conditions.

 

There is no match until a valid challenge from an eligible club is accepted. Thus those eligibility requirements and challenger requirements cannot be modified by mutual consent.

 

As I said, I don't really care. I'm quite happy that HIYC has challenged. It is my opinion that the process is not legal and would fail a challenge in court. But the catch 22 is that unless a beneficiary of the trust takes issue with the trustee this stuff will not get litigated. When EB was abusing the trusteeship the NYSAG was made aware of the situation and a case was presented to get that office to step in for the public good. AFAIK it never got attention past acknowledgement of receipt of the documents.

 

The San Diego Protocol recognized some of these problems and attempted to set up ongoing independent management of the AC (somewhat like F1 has). The people that signed that document and agreed to the terms did not follow through.

 

This is all academic until and unless there is a court challenge. As soon as there is potential profit in the AC you will see people hiring lawyers faster than designers. 

 

I got into this after AC32 and learned more about the Deed and its history and the way trust law is supposed to work than I ever wanted to know. It is amazing what people think the deed says and what they think is allowed.

 

Consider this; Had TNZ won is it likely that HIYC was going to challenge? If your answer is no, then you need to figure out how the Defender gets to chose who the challenger will be. Now find words in the Deed to twist to make it all okay.

 

For the trustees of the Cup to turn a perpetual challenge Cup into an invitational event is like like me taking the $10k my mother left to Best Friends and using it to take Hooters Girls to Vegas. I would be failing to honor my duty as executor of her estate.

 

I'm not even saying that the way they do it is bad. I can make the case to support the changes in the San Diego Protocol and have outlined changes to the wording of the Deed to allow for multiple challengers in an orderly fashion. *If* the Cup is to become a viable sports event it needs to be reliable, like the Olympics. Since 1987 there have been 8 or 9 matches. Two were tied up in court for years. Until the NY Supreme court hires Judge Judy to sit on the bench and the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders for bailiffs no sponsor will want to touch a sports event where the action is nearly as likely to be in court as on the water.

 

Cheers,

 

Randy

 

 

 

I am still not following.  The bit about eligibility and what is required to be included in a challenge is all well known. I would be a bit shocked if the challenge from HIYC did not contain the required elements given the extensive litigation on this topic.  Surely Mr Oatley would engage a lawyer when drafting a legal document.

 

However, you have a bait and switch here.  You outline what is required in a valid challenge, presenting no evidence that the HIYC did not include those elements.  You then declare that accepting the HIYC challenge was somehow not allowed for completely separate reasons. Technically you implied a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the trustee.  Your logic here won't hold up in court -- you stated that the HIYC->GGYC challenge procedure is invalid unless it is explicitly provided for within the deed.  That is not the appropriate legal standard.  The legal question is whether the procedure is prohibited under the deed.  The trustee has a free hand to conduct their affairs so long as it is not prohibited under the deed.  Because the deed does not specify any procedure for dealing with several potential valid challengers at once, the trustee can create that procedure. Remember, the deed requires that the defender accept any valid challenge but does not allow them to accept every valid challenge (they can accept only one).  The defender is permitted to come up with a procedure for that situation because the deed does not specify a procedure.  

 

I contend that there is nothing in the deed which prohibits the hip-pocket, so long as the challenger is a true challenger for the cup -- i.e., the challenging club is legitimately trying to wrest the cup from the defending country to win it for another country.  This is not a breach and it is within both the letter and the intent of the deed.  This is still a challenge because it still requires the trustee accept that challenge once offered, and binds them to defend under either the default specifications of the contest or other specifications determined through MC.  

 

Essentially, demonstrating that HIYC had preferred access to facilitate their challenge is no evidence of a breach. It could be brought up as part of evidence of a breach if it turned out that HIYC manages the challenge in a way that was designed to leave the cup in GGYC's hands (e.g., they agreed by MC to not sail the next AC for 100 years, or made some other agreement that insured GGYC would keep the cup).   However you actually need to bring to the court evidence that they were not really a valid challenger, the fact that the defender preferred them over others is not evidence they are invalid.



#24 Wildwave

Wildwave

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:30 AM

What happens if the COR in its negotiation with other Challengers (see page 2 of 2 GGYC confirmation of Challenge ~ 30 09 2013)goes back to the Defender with dates, type of boat, format and rules that the Defender opposes ?<br />My tack would be go back with dates, type of boat, format and rules that are permissible within the Deed of Gift that<br />would most disadvantage the Defender. The Deed can dispose of negotiation.<br />Is HIYC (COR) intent to fulfil a Defender complicit role as revealed with last two COR in AC 34, in exchange for Defender<br />structured confirmation as COR ? can't see EB in this position.<br />

#25 Reflex Sailor

Reflex Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:D'oh

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:13 AM

I would have thought (pure hypothesis) that HIYC's challenge would specify the exact name and dimensions of the challenging boat, and the name of the owner - its not inconceivable that the 'current' challenger could be an existing AC45 bought by Oatley from Oracle - and will also specify a date for a match in San Francisco (or elsewhere)  UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED.  In the event that there is no agreement on class rules or dates over the next few months, that race that will happen. 



#26 Shute Man

Shute Man

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 142 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:18 AM

Is HI a Yacht Club or a resort? How many members do they have?

Both, and you couldn't afford it!



#27 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,527 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:25 AM

 file a FOIA or get Clean to do it, he seems to like those things.

As anyone over the age of 9 would know, FOIA doesn't apply.  If anyone cares, file a suit in the NY courts.  I bet if the NYYC sued GGYC claiming an illegal challenge, they could get an answer soon enough.



#28 Windward Mark

Windward Mark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:26 AM

Wonder why he didnt choose to represent the club he has been a member of for god knows how many years and won the Admirals Cup for? Royal Prince Alfred Yacht Club. I guess they could be a bit put out by it possibly.



#29 Shute Man

Shute Man

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 142 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:31 AM

Wonder why he didnt choose to represent the club he has been a member of for god knows how many years and won the Admirals Cup for? Royal Prince Alfred Yacht Club. I guess they could be a bit put out by it possibly.

Really? And miis out on all the advertising for Hamo

IF HIYC won the next cup I'm preety sure it wouldn't be based at Hamo.  While it has the accommodation it doesnt have the infurstucture.  It would end up in Sydney. 



#30 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

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

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:49 AM

There is no match until a valid challenge from an eligible club is accepted received

Fixed.

 

The Defender has no right to deny a valid Challenge.

...except if they already have a valid Challenge.

 

I see no reason that the HIYC Challenge would be invalid but for forms sake they should make the Challenge letter public.



#31 gimmee

gimmee

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:20 AM

Is the Hamilton Island (hip pocket) document outlining their challenge available / accessible to
the sailing community ?

I would think that such a document (proof copy) should be made available ( to any interested party)given the specific requirements outlined in the Deed of Gift ~ notably when the Defender has
published the acceptance of Challenge.

 

Why do you care?  Feeling left out? You have a better club/place from where to challenge?

Even the Todd river in Alice Springs would attract more AC fans than Hamilton Island. WTF how much accommodation can they offer ? Hold the show on Sydney Harbour FFS where anyone and everyone can get a good skwizz (view) and invite the world to compare Sydney to San Fran plus the world's best multi hull sailors wouldn't have to travel so far ! 



#32 auscat

auscat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts
  • Location:Airlie Beach

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:20 AM

All sounds pretty straight up here.

 

http://www.abc.net.a...allenge/4991326



#33 aucklander

aucklander

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:27 AM

All sounds pretty straight up here.

 

http://www.abc.net.a...allenge/4991326

Nice that they prefer a level of nationality rule.

 

And yes, they sound pretty straight up



#34 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 11:12 AM

The Aussie challenge is always going to have plenty of Australian crew onboard, so nationality rules don't affect them one way or the other.

The Americans, on the other hand, don't want strict nationality rules and won't push for them.

#35 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 11:15 AM

2. The Deed is quite specific as to the legal requirements of a challenge.

Quote

The challenging Club shall give ten months’ notice in writing naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November first and May first if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May first and November first if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. Accompanying the ten months’ notice of challenge, there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and the following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water line; beam at load water line, and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded; and a custom-house registry of the vessel must also be sent as soon as possible.

Unless the HIYC contains these items the challenge is not valid.

 

If terms have not been agreed to before the challenge is accepted then the terms of the match are subject to mutual consent. The YC qualifications are not subject to MC, the limits on boat sizes are not subject to MC, the form and requirements of the challenge itself are not subject to MC.

 

Mutual Consent covers only changes to the default terms of the match:

Quote

>

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be waived.

They can agree to dates other than those stated in the challenge.

They can agree to courses,

They can agree to the number of races.

They can agree to rules and sailing regulations and any other match conditions.

 

There is no match until a valid challenge from an eligible club is accepted. Thus those eligibility requirements and challenger requirements cannot be modified by mutual consent

 

Randy, normally you are on the mark but here you are off.

 

 

1) if the challenge is more than 10 mos out, none of the requirements you suggest are required.  Only a challenge is required.  then they have until 10mos out from the match to sort out a mutual consent OR its  DOG match based on the requirements you listed.  This was litigated to death the last time around

 

2) "Any and all conditions" means that.  Nothing more, nothing less.



#36 ColinG

ColinG

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Location:Sydney, AUS

Posted 02 October 2013 - 11:52 AM

All sounds pretty straight up here.

 

http://www.abc.net.a...allenge/4991326

Nice that they prefer a level of nationality rule.

 

And yes, they sound pretty straight up

 

If you want to know how passionate BO is about his sailing, check out his walking stick which was on the table during the presser.

The top looks very much like a model of the WOXI hull...



#37 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 12:27 PM

Because the AC is governed by a public trust subject to the law in NY. AC trustees are therefore accountable to the public.

That and $5 will get you a sandwich. The AC trust has no obligation to disclose voluntarily that which you insist they must. Look at me, I'm Dr. Seuss.

 

Now, if someone were to challenge the validity of the challenge under the Deed, then those documents would likely be made public in court proceedings.  But unless and until that happens, GGYC has no obligation to release information to the public about the challenge.



#38 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:29 PM

Because the AC is governed by a public trust subject to the law in NY. AC trustees are therefore accountable to the public.

That and $5 will get you a sandwich. The AC trust has no obligation to disclose voluntarily that which you insist they must. Look at me, I'm Dr. Seuss.

 

Now, if someone were to challenge the validity of the challenge under the Deed, then those documents would likely be made public in court proceedings.  But unless and until that happens, GGYC has no obligation to release information to the public about the challenge.

Also no reason to keep it secret. I'm not questioning it at all. Just saying that no purpose is served keep the challenge secret after it has been accepted. It should be a non-issue.



#39 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:35 PM

2. The Deed is quite specific as to the legal requirements of a challenge.

Quote

The challenging Club shall give ten months’ notice in writing naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November first and May first if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May first and November first if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. Accompanying the ten months’ notice of challenge, there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and the following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water line; beam at load water line, and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded; and a custom-house registry of the vessel must also be sent as soon as possible.

Unless the HIYC contains these items the challenge is not valid.

 

If terms have not been agreed to before the challenge is accepted then the terms of the match are subject to mutual consent. The YC qualifications are not subject to MC, the limits on boat sizes are not subject to MC, the form and requirements of the challenge itself are not subject to MC.

 

Mutual Consent covers only changes to the default terms of the match:

Quote

>

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be w

aived.

They can agree to dates other than those stated in the challenge.

They can agree to courses,

They can agree to the number of races.

They can agree to rules and sailing regulations and any other match conditions.

 

There is no match until a valid challenge from an eligible club is accepted. Thus those eligibility requirements and challenger requirements cannot be modified by mutual consent

Randy, normally you are on the mark but here you are off.

 

 

1) if the challenge is more than 10 mos out, none of the requirements you suggest are required.  Only a challenge is required.  then they have until 10mos out from the match to sort out a mutual consent OR its  DOG match based on the requirements you listed.  This was litigated to death the last time around

 

2) "Any and all conditions" means that.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

No, there are any number of things in the Deed that MC cannot change. You cannot change the Club requirements, you cannot change the limits on boat size, you cannot change the challenge requirements, you cannot change the transfer to the new holder requirement, and you cannot refuse to be bound by the Deed after you win the Cup match.

 

You can change the things I listed by agreement, there are years of transcripts that show the fights over a trustee trying to change other things. Remember the 90x90 must be a barge? Remember the months over "As soon as possible"?

 

The mistake you are making is you read "any and all conditions of the Match" to mean "any and all requirements of the Deed". That is not correct.



#40 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:37 PM

 

 file a FOIA or get Clean to do it, he seems to like those things.

As anyone over the age of 9 would know, FOIA doesn't apply.  If anyone cares, file a suit in the NY courts.  I bet if the NYYC sued GGYC claiming an illegal challenge, they could get an answer soon enough.

Not my quote. :-)



#41 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,443 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:40 PM

Do you really think that after all the shit that took place leading up to AC 34, that GGYC wouldn't have dotted every i and crossed every t?



#42 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:07 PM

 

I am still not following.  The bit about eligibility and what is required to be included in a challenge is all well known. I would be a bit shocked if the challenge from HIYC did not contain the required elements given the extensive litigation on this topic.  Surely Mr Oatley would engage a lawyer when drafting a legal document.

I modified my position. Until we see the document we won't know. As I said, the mistakes of the past are not likely to be repeated. I jumped the gun based on the vagueness of the press release. When no one has said much if anything about the boats to be sailed in the next AC, what the Challenger states for Name and Boat dimensions is the first clue.

 

 

However, you have a bait and switch here.  You outline what is required in a valid challenge, presenting no evidence that the HIYC did not include those elements.  You then declare that accepting the HIYC challenge was somehow not allowed for completely separate reasons. Technically you implied a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the trustee.  Your logic here won't hold up in court -- you stated that the HIYC->GGYC challenge procedure is invalid unless it is explicitly provided for within the deed.  That is not the appropriate legal standard.  The legal question is whether the procedure is prohibited under the deed.  The trustee has a free hand to conduct their affairs so long as it is not prohibited under the deed.  Because the deed does not specify any procedure for dealing with several potential valid challengers at once, the trustee can create that procedure. Remember, the deed requires that the defender accept any valid challenge but does not allow them to accept every valid challenge (they can accept only one).  The defender is permitted to come up with a procedure for that situation because the deed does not specify a procedure.  

How many times do you need to read this: "And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided."

The trustee/defender cannot consider a challenge in good faith until the existing match is decided. Until the the match is decided a challenger does not know who to serve the challenge on. You could have someone ready to serve either winner, but the hip pocket process was created specifically to prevent just any club challenging. Since 1988 it has become an Invitational Cup rather than the Challenge Cup described in the Deed.

 

 

 

I contend that there is nothing in the deed which prohibits the hip-pocket, so long as the challenger is a true challenger for the cup -- i.e., the challenging club is legitimately trying to wrest the cup from the defending country to win it for another country.  This is not a breach and it is within both the letter and the intent of the deed.  This is still a challenge because it still requires the trustee accept that challenge once offered, and binds them to defend under either the default specifications of the contest or other specifications determined through MC.  

 

Essentially, demonstrating that HIYC had preferred access to facilitate their challenge is no evidence of a breach. It could be brought up as part of evidence of a breach if it turned out that HIYC manages the challenge in a way that was designed to leave the cup in GGYC's hands (e.g., they agreed by MC to not sail the next AC for 100 years, or made some other agreement that insured GGYC would keep the cup).   However you actually need to bring to the court evidence that they were not really a valid challenger, the fact that the defender preferred them over others is not evidence they are invalid.

I do not agree. The Deed requires that the defender consider any valid challenge, The Deed does not require that it be accepted. The only mechanism to force acceptance is to challenge under the default terms. That same clause applies: "And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided."

After verifying the challenge is valid, the trustee can decide to refuse the challenge if the terms are not acceptable. The two clubs can then negotiate agreeable terms and a new challenge made under those terms. The trustee can accept the challenge and decide it with a match of the Cup.

 

There is nothing in the Deed that requires the defender to accept a challenge under terms it does not agree to. The only exception is a default terms "DoG" challenge.

 

I was wrong to categorize the HIYC challenge as invalid without seeing the challenge. I jumped the gun based on a press release. I should know better. My mistake.

 

I'm looking forward to the HIYC vs GGYC version of David and Goliath.

 

The *only* reason I bring up these procedural details and questions is because they are at the core of the court battles in 1988 and 2008. IMO these issues must be addressed with amendments to the Deed if the AC is to become attractive to long term sponsorship of either the event or individual teams. It is not about this particular challenge, it is about the challenge procedure and multiple challenges under the Deed. The Deed prohibits multiple challenges. I believe there are solutions that the court would accept and changes made to the deed to codify a process fit with the intent of the Deed and provides fairer access to benefits for the beneficiaries. None of the trustees has tried to do this to my knowledge.

 

Cheers,

 

Randy



#43 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:20 PM

Do you really think that after all the shit that took place leading up to AC 34, that GGYC wouldn't have dotted every i and crossed every t?

The point has been missed. This is not about the HIYC challenge it is about the legal process of challenging for the Cup. By choosing the next challenger before the match has ended the trustee is preventing equal access to benefits under a trust that specifically requires equal access to qualified beneficiaries.

 

Any organized yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match for this Cup ...

 

It does not say "An organized yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, may be invited to sail a match for this Cup ..."

 

TE has legal solutions to this ready to go. When GGYC won the Cup in AC33 my hopes were very high that Tom would be in a position make the changes that would provide structure to a multiple challenger format under the Deed. That still might happen. It is certain that it would not have happened if TNZ had won the Cup. If the AC is to avoid the trips to court over the challenge procedure the Deed has to be changed.



#44 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:18 PM

 

2. The Deed is quite specific as to the legal requirements of a challenge.

Quote

The challenging Club shall give ten months’ notice in writing naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November first and May first if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May first and November first if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. Accompanying the ten months’ notice of challenge, there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and the following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water line; beam at load water line, and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded; and a custom-house registry of the vessel must also be sent as soon as possible.

Unless the HIYC contains these items the challenge is not valid.

 

If terms have not been agreed to before the challenge is accepted then the terms of the match are subject to mutual consent. The YC qualifications are not subject to MC, the limits on boat sizes are not subject to MC, the form and requirements of the challenge itself are not subject to MC.

 

Mutual Consent covers only changes to the default terms of the match:

Quote

They can agree to dates other than those stated in the challenge.>

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be w

aived.

They can agree to courses,

They can agree to the number of races.

They can agree to rules and sailing regulations and any other match conditions.

 

There is no match until a valid challenge from an eligible club is accepted. Thus those eligibility requirements and challenger requirements cannot be modified by mutual consent

Randy, normally you are on the mark but here you are off.

 

 

1) if the challenge is more than 10 mos out, none of the requirements you suggest are required.  Only a challenge is required.  then they have until 10mos out from the match to sort out a mutual consent OR its  DOG match based on the requirements you listed.  This was litigated to death the last time around

 

2) "Any and all conditions" means that.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

No, there are any number of things in the Deed that MC cannot change. You cannot change the Club requirements, you cannot change the limits on boat size, you cannot change the challenge requirements, you cannot change the transfer to the new holder requirement, and you cannot refuse to be bound by the Deed after you win the Cup match.

 

You can change the things I listed by agreement, there are years of transcripts that show the fights over a trustee trying to change other things. Remember the 90x90 must be a barge? Remember the months over "As soon as possible"?

 

The mistake you are making is you read "any and all conditions of the Match" to mean "any and all requirements of the Deed". That is not correct.

You CAN change limits on boat size.   Its true some things cannot be changed  The Club requirements and the venue are about the only two that are relevant to this discussion.



#45 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:43 PM

 

 

2. The Deed is quite specific as to the legal requirements of a challenge.

Quote

The challenging Club shall give ten months’ notice in writing naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November first and May first if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May first and November first if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. Accompanying the ten months’ notice of challenge, there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and the following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water line; beam at load water line, and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded; and a custom-house registry of the vessel must also be sent as soon as possible.

Unless the HIYC contains these items the challenge is not valid.

 

If terms have not been agreed to before the challenge is accepted then the terms of the match are subject to mutual consent. The YC qualifications are not subject to MC, the limits on boat sizes are not subject to MC, the form and requirements of the challenge itself are not subject to MC.

 

Mutual Consent covers only changes to the default terms of the match:

Quote

They can agree to dates other than those stated in the challenge.>

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be w

aived.

They can agree to courses,

They can agree to the number of races.

They can agree to rules and sailing regulations and any other match conditions.

 

There is no match until a valid challenge from an eligible club is accepted. Thus those eligibility requirements and challenger requirements cannot be modified by mutual consent

Randy, normally you are on the mark but here you are off.

 

 

1) if the challenge is more than 10 mos out, none of the requirements you suggest are required.  Only a challenge is required.  then they have until 10mos out from the match to sort out a mutual consent OR its  DOG match based on the requirements you listed.  This was litigated to death the last time around

 

2) "Any and all conditions" means that.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

No, there are any number of things in the Deed that MC cannot change. You cannot change the Club requirements, you cannot change the limits on boat size, you cannot change the challenge requirements, you cannot change the transfer to the new holder requirement, and you cannot refuse to be bound by the Deed after you win the Cup match.

 

You can change the things I listed by agreement, there are years of transcripts that show the fights over a trustee trying to change other things. Remember the 90x90 must be a barge? Remember the months over "As soon as possible"?

 

The mistake you are making is you read "any and all conditions of the Match" to mean "any and all requirements of the Deed". That is not correct.

You CAN change limits on boat size.   Its true some things cannot be changed  The Club requirements and the venue are about the only two that are relevant to this discussion.

No, changing the boat size limits required amendment by the court. It is very well documented. If they could have agreed to 12's by MC they would have done so. They could not, so they petitioned the court to amend the Deed.

 

Again, I am not questioning this HIYC challenge. I am questioning the legality of the defender selected challenger under the words of the Deed. I'm not the only one that has tried to address this. The issue is very real and has been the root cause of boat recent trips to court.

 

TE is in a position to continue what he started in San Diego. I hope that he does.



#46 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 05:23 PM

No, there are any number of things in the Deed that MC cannot change. You cannot change the Club requirements, you cannot change the limits on boat size, you cannot change the challenge requirements, you cannot change the transfer to the new holder requirement, and you cannot refuse to be bound by the Deed after you win the Cup match.

 

This is correct.

 

However I still think you are incorrect about the hip pocket challenge.  The trustee can certainly favor one potential challenger over another, so long as this process does not result in some specific breach of fiduciary duty.  

 

I think the parallel to investment trusts is useful.  The trustee can usually select an investment adviser or broker of their choice, which is often a person who is a personal friend of the trustee or someone with whom they have a prior business relationship.  This is certainly not a breach even if that broker charges substantially higher fees than average.  It is only a breach if the selected broker is double-dealing... e.g., they provide benefit to the trustee that should have gone to the trust. 

 

The hip pocket challenge is legal unless and until the challenger is revealed to be working to advance the interests of the defender rather than working in a good-faith effort to remove the cup from the defender.  Frankly, I find it absurd to claim that Oatley challenged in order to help Ellison retain the cup in America, but I guess it is possible.  Until evidence of a breach is presented (e.g., the MC agreement is tilted toward the defender significantly more than the default competition specified under the deed, the MC does not include a challenger selection series, etc), the fact that GGYC gave HIYC preferred access is irrelevant. 



#47 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 05:53 PM

How many times do you need to read this: "And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided."

 

I think you misunderstand what is legally prohibited by the phrase "no other challenge can be considered." This does not prohibit the trustee from thinking about the future of the AC, discussing the future of the AC with others, or trying to find good clubs to challenge for the cup in the next cycle.  This is the legal definition of "consideration," not the lay definition.  It does two things: first, it renders as legally invalid any agreements made by the trustee before the start of the next cycle.  If Oatley and Ellison agreed last month to use AC 72's in next cup, neither party can be bound by that agreement; while any agreement next month would be binding. Second, it prevents the trustee from losing the cup in a competition before the competition with the first accepted challenger.

 

As far as the NY courts are concerned, there is only one legal challenger and one defender at a time. This does not prevent either the existing challenger and defender from making plans for the future, but those discussions are not legally binding.  This is a bigamy clause  -- only one legal trustee and one legal challenger at a time, but it does not requires monogamy.  The trustee can engage in sailing races/sex with other parties and can make regatta/marriage plans with his favored challenger/girlfriend so long as the legal union does not occur until after the divorce from his current challenger/wife is final.  



#48 Peelman

Peelman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,120 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC
  • Interests:Too many to list and to save post space.........

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:27 PM

Profile of a DOG Challenge

 

The GGYC 11 July 2007 Challenge Letter, Notice of Challenge and Challenger Vessel Certificate is a great example of a DOG challenge package (see attached below) - 

 

1. Challenge Letter

 

2. Challenger Notice covers what is set out in the DOG's requirements for a legal challenge. It also leaves open the door to the Defender to agree to a MC

 

3. Challenger Vessel Certificate follows the DOG requirements for the Challenger's Vessel.

 

 

 

DOG Challenge Process

 

I agree with Randy "RHough" that there can only be one DOG Challenge. IMO it should be the first challenge notice received, vetted as legal and then accepted. Until that process is done any other YC that sends Challenger Notice that is received by the Defender should be sent a letter stating that their notice is x on the received list and can not be processed until the 1st notice is vetted and not accepted. The Defender doesn't have the right to pick and choose.

 

Again the GGYC package is a great example of a DOG challenge package. Only issue GGYC had to prove was that CNEV was a ghost club that only existed on paper and not a legally vetted challenge even though SNG had accepted it. Hence the NYSC was used to decide that CNEC was not a vetted legal challenge and could not be accepted by SNG. Further that NYSC stated GGYC was the next on the DOG Challenge Notice list as it was a YC with a legal challenge notice per the DOG.

 

Hip Pocket Challenges like SNG and CNEV can fall apart and waste a lot of time and money if a Defender tries to game the DOG which is a Deed of Trust (DOT) administrated by the NYSC. Having a YC in the Defenders pocket when the AC is a trust takes away from the purpose of GLS gift and maybe the first received, first vetted legal and first accepted. Also the question of their Challenge package maybe not being in a format as GGYC's Challenge package is very real. Having a GGYC Challenge package keeps the Defender honest as it's either a DOG challenge or if the Defender and Challenger get along they can go the MC route which is per the DOG -

 

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived"

 

All other requirements of the DOG are still required and hopefully don't need someone with a deep bank account to prove as such like in the case GGYC had to when SNG tried to game the DOG.

 

I trust GGYC will release the HIYC Challenge package once it has been vetted as legal or not.

Attached Files



#49 Rhino 15

Rhino 15

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 943 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:50 PM

...

 

I think the parallel to investment trusts is useful.  The trustee can usually select an investment adviser or broker of their choice, which is often a person who is a personal friend of the trustee or someone with whom they have a prior business relationship.  This is certainly not a breach even if that broker charges substantially higher fees than average.  It is only a breach if the selected broker is double-dealing... e.g., they provide benefit to the trustee that should have gone to the trust. 


...

Not a great parallel.  In the AC, the challenger is a beneficiary of the trust.  In your example, the broker is not a beneficiary



#50 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:21 PM

How many times do you need to read this: "And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided."

 

I think you misunderstand what is legally prohibited by the phrase "no other challenge can be considered." This does not prohibit the trustee from thinking about the future of the AC, discussing the future of the AC with others, or trying to find good clubs to challenge for the cup in the next cycle.  This is the legal definition of "consideration," not the lay definition.  It does two things: first, it renders as legally invalid any agreements made by the trustee before the start of the next cycle.  If Oatley and Ellison agreed last month to use AC 72's in next cup, neither party can be bound by that agreement; while any agreement next month would be binding. Second, it prevents the trustee from losing the cup in a competition before the competition with the first accepted challenger.

 

As far as the NY courts are concerned, there is only one legal challenger and one defender at a time. This does not prevent either the existing challenger and defender from making plans for the future, but those discussions are not legally binding.  This is a bigamy clause  -- only one legal trustee and one legal challenger at a time, but it does not requires monogamy.  The trustee can engage in sailing races/sex with other parties and can make regatta/marriage plans with his favored challenger/girlfriend so long as the legal union does not occur until after the divorce from his current challenger/wife is final.  

Thank you.

 

Before a default terms "DoG" challenge got labeled as a "rogue challenge" the terms of the match were negotiated (protocol agreed to) before a challenge was issued. It was during this open period (for lack of a better term) that the  Fay challenge was issued. The "hip pocket" challenge was invented to prevent such a challenge in the future. The idea was to lock out a strong challenge and prevent such a challenge from upsetting the apple cart.

 

There are a number of things that can be addressed if a trustee was to place fairness to the beneficiaries as a high priority.

 

1. The competition between foreign countries that was once served by the CiC requirement of the Deed has been rendered moot by advances in the science of yacht design. This would be the basis of adding a crew nationality clause to preserve the intent of the competition between nations.

 

2. The success of the Cup and the evolution of the global economy is such that some of the Deed provisions that worked very well for higher latitude northern hemisphere clubs have been shown to require modification as evidenced by the southern hemisphere amendment. This increase in the number of clubs (beneficiaries) that wish to compete for the cup has resulted in more than one club wishing to compete at any given point in time. The single challenger format required in the Deed has the effect of limiting, denying, or delaying clubs from the right to compete set forth in the Deed. Providing more equal access to benefit would be the basis for codifying multiple challengers into the Deed. Neither should a single club be able to lock out the other clubs (beneficiaries of the trust) from their right to compete with a default terms challenge.

 

3. The hemisphere clause needs to be revised to accommodate lower latitude clubs. The dates required in the Deed place AC matches into hurricane season for lower latitude clubs.

 

Some of these goals have been served by non-binding agreement in the past. We have two examples where the future of friendly competition has been in the NY court rather than on the water because these "gentlemen's agreements" were in fact not binding. SDYC tried to prevent the Fay challenge from locking out the other clubs in 1987. SDYC failed and had to sail the DoG match. SNG tried to use the hip pocket challenge to avoid having to negotiate with stronger clubs. The result was the second "DoG" match.

 

It is my opinion that these uncertainties can and should be resolved if the Cup is to become a commercially viable event in the future.

 

NYYC did it right with the change of size limits and removing the "own bottom" clause.

Royal Perth did it right when they asked for a ruling on the "arm of the sea" clause before allowing a great lakes challenge (Heart of America?).

SNG did it right when they stuck all the non binding IR's from the Deed.

 

GGYC has the opportunity to petition the court to amend the Deed to preserve intent and provide equal opportunity to qualified clubs in the future. If anyone can do this I think TE and LE can. LE has obviously placed a higher value on promoting his vision of the AC that he did on just keeping the Cup. Now that we have had a taste, I hope there is some support for creating longer term stability for the event through considered amendments to the Deed.

 

Cheers,

 

Randy 



#51 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:07 PM

There are a number of things that can be addressed if a trustee was to place fairness to the beneficiaries as a high priority.

<snip>

 

I generally agree that these represent potential problems for the AC, but they are substantially mitigated by the fact that a DoG challenge is so damn expensive and risky.  Ultimately, there is a strong incentive to MC on acceptable dates and locations precisely because no one really wants to go whole-DoG (hurricane season or not). 


Edited by tls, 02 October 2013 - 10:08 PM.


#52 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:29 PM

There are a number of things that can be addressed if a trustee was to place fairness to the beneficiaries as a high priority.

<snip>

 

I generally agree that these represent potential problems for the AC, but they are substantially mitigated by the fact that a DoG challenge is so damn expensive and risky.  Ultimately, there is a strong incentive to MC on acceptable dates and locations precisely because no one really wants to go whole-DoG (hurricane season or not). 

As long as the AC is at the bickering and chump change level compared to things like the often compared F1 there is little incentive to take the risk to gain control of the Cup and the next event. The more successful and commercially viable the Cup becomes the greater the incentive to win. As late as the AC33 cycle (2007 - 2010) it was actually cheaper to litigate the Cup than fund a team and build boats. That is a sobering thought. It would be comparatively easy to reduce the probability of such an attack with good management by the trustee.

 

Sort of funny from a sick point of view, but if they want to reduce costs, they should challenge for the Cup in the courts of NY State.  :-)

 

R



#53 P_Wop

P_Wop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,428 posts
  • Location:Bay Area, CA

Posted 02 October 2013 - 11:07 PM

How many times do you need to read this: "And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided."

 

I think you misunderstand what is legally prohibited by the phrase "no other challenge can be considered." This does not prohibit the trustee from thinking about the future of the AC, discussing the future of the AC with others, or trying to find good clubs to challenge for the cup in the next cycle.  This is the legal definition of "consideration," not the lay definition.  It does two things: first, it renders as legally invalid any agreements made by the trustee before the start of the next cycle.  If Oatley and Ellison agreed last month to use AC 72's in next cup, neither party can be bound by that agreement; while any agreement next month would be binding. Second, it prevents the trustee from losing the cup in a competition before the competition with the first accepted challenger.

 

As far as the NY courts are concerned, there is only one legal challenger and one defender at a time. This does not prevent either the existing challenger and defender from making plans for the future, but those discussions are not legally binding.  This is a bigamy clause  -- only one legal trustee and one legal challenger at a time, but it does not requires monogamy.  The trustee can engage in sailing races/sex with other parties and can make regatta/marriage plans with his favored challenger/girlfriend so long as the legal union does not occur until after the divorce from his current challenger/wife is final.  

 

I believe this was one of the crucial issues in the SNG/CNEV mess.  It was a hip-pocket challenge from a made-up club, OK.  But what rankled in many circles is that a protocol had been discussed, negotiated and agreed, all before the challenge was issued.  If this wasn't "considered" I don't what is.  

 

Always surprised that TE didn't make more hay of this one.



#54 Wildwave

Wildwave

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 02 October 2013 - 11:58 PM

After watching the interview with Mr Oatley and son it is revealed that negotiation is well underway that contradicts the GGYC confirmation of Challenge : clearly the Defender is working in concert with HIYC with a Defender control on potential Challengers (multiple) as outlined in GGYC confirmation of Challenge. Any potential Challenger in talks with HIYC is going to ask to see the Challenge application in full. In AC 35 interests the accepted "hip pocket challenge" should be made transparent ~ made public,

#55 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,037 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:43 AM

IMO, Randy is partly right. For him to be fully right, there needs to be at least one other challenger who wants to challenge under the terms of the GOG and who is being prevented in doing so by the "hip pocket" challenge. If there is no such challenger, there is no case to answer. The other thing is that the other challenger must be prepared to challenge with a DOG challenge, because as he rightly points out, the defender isn't obliged to accept any challenge other than one that meets the strictest terms of the DOG.

 

So, on the basis that there is no other challenge, the HIYC challenge is valid.

 

There is the potential for a long drawn out court case if there was another challenger around prepared to race on DOG terms. However, I suspect that only a very rich fool would take the risk of that route, as a way into the AC. But they do say that a fool and his money are soon parted........



#56 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,126 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 01:58 AM

Perhaps we will see the HIYC Challenge some day, perhaps not. The only two modern-era ones that I recall seeing were from the DoG Matches of '88 and '10, both having been litigated.
 
My guess is that the HIYC Challenge reads almost identically to the GGYC vs SNG '07 Challenge that Peelman reposted above somewhere, but this time without the 'keel' yacht word. That GGYC Challenge language had been based almost verbatim on Mercury Bay's 'big boat' Challenge from '88, and both survived the litigation on most all 'Challenge language' counts.
 
MC allows for plenty of latitude for alternate arrangements, including for the agreement by the Defender to face the strongest of Challengers instead of the original Challenger, when the original Club MC-agrees to allow to be superceded as the Club in the current Challenge.
 
 
There is no Deed amendment Challenge succession-clause necessary when it is agreed by the Defender under MC with the original Challenger.
 
Fun subject for RH and others, but in all practicality it is just mental masturbation to pass the time.

#57 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:05 AM

Fun subject for RH and others, but in all practicality it is just mental masturbation to pass the time.

That would explain the time TE devoted to it when SDYC was the trustee. Thanks for making it clear.   :rolleyes:



#58 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,126 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:08 AM

^ and that is where TE coined 'Challenger of Record' - a very good, perfectly legal under the Deed's MC clause, concept.

#59 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:15 AM

^ and that is where TE coined 'Challenger of Record' - a very good, perfectly legal under the Deed's MC clause, concept.

 

Here you go. The document where SDYC announced their intention to consider amending the Deed.  Link

 

The only reason I've looked into this is due to the mental masterbaions of others. Thanks for trying to elevate to a status I do not deserve.   :ph34r:



#60 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:27 AM


Fun subject for RH and others, but in all practicality it is just mental masturbation to pass the time.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.



#61 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:31 AM

After watching the interview with Mr Oatley and son it is revealed that negotiation is well underway that contradicts the GGYC confirmation of Challenge : clearly the Defender is working in concert with HIYC with a Defender control on potential Challengers (multiple) as outlined in GGYC confirmation of Challenge. Any potential Challenger in talks with HIYC is going to ask to see the Challenge application in full. In AC 35 interests the accepted "hip pocket challenge" should be made transparent ~ made public,

Can you say this some other way.  I don't understand what you are driving at.

 

HIYC/Oatley are free to negotiate both with GGYC and other potential challengers.  



#62 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,705 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:31 AM


 


 file a FOIA or get Clean to do it, he seems to like those things.

As anyone over the age of 9 would know, FOIA doesn't apply.  If anyone cares, file a suit in the NY courts.  I bet if the NYYC sued GGYC claiming an illegal challenge, they could get an answer soon enough.

ADM. CLEAN 

 

since alleged ''challenge '' occurred during a USCG MEP event and with MEP applicant ggyc [while otusa was under race regs-]

 

it might be FOIA accessed as the actual tresspass by challenger vessel on race course -[ us vessel or assigned /designated ]

 

might have violated USCG MEP 

 

So under investigation/ request for  and documents used during USCG MEP event -might qualify it under FOIA 

 

just possible to get uscg to deny or exempt it -we see-

 

so I will add it to my 3rd USCG FOIA list amendment already running 

 

cheers 



#63 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,204 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:37 AM

 


 


 file a FOIA or get Clean to do it, he seems to like those things.

As anyone over the age of 9 would know, FOIA doesn't apply.  If anyone cares, file a suit in the NY courts.  I bet if the NYYC sued GGYC claiming an illegal challenge, they could get an answer soon enough.

ADM. CLEAN 

 

since alleged ''challenge '' occurred during a USCG MEP event and with MEP applicant ggyc [while otusa was under race regs-]

 

it might be FOIA accessed as the actual tresspass by challenger vessel on race course -[ us vessel or assigned /designated ]

 

might have violated USCG MEP 

 

So under investigation/ request for  and documents used during USCG MEP event -might qualify it under FOIA 

 

just possible to get uscg to deny or exempt it -we see-

 

so I will add it to my 3rd USCG FOIA list amendment already running 

 

cheers 

 

 

How are those lawsuits against Spain coming along?  How about the ones that are going to stop AC 34?  



#64 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:39 AM

Here you go. The document where SDYC announced their intention to consider amending the Deed.  Link

 

I have to say that I do not understand why Dennis Connor and SDYC are vilified as damaging the AC.  Both the results of the court cases, and the documents related to their time as trustee, largely vindicate their approach. 



#65 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,052 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:57 AM

 


 


 file a FOIA or get Clean to do it, he seems to like those things.

As anyone over the age of 9 would know, FOIA doesn't apply.  If anyone cares, file a suit in the NY courts.  I bet if the NYYC sued GGYC claiming an illegal challenge, they could get an answer soon enough.

ADM. CLEAN 

 

Hey fuckwit - I though you were off with RO doing peyote for the last month or so.

 

So you didn't stop the 34th AC as you threatened for three years, like every other threat you made that you never dleivered on.

 

Some things never change - still sueing the Feds for $1B and not returning phone calls ?

 

Biggest loser and moron ever to post.



#66 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 03:06 AM


Fun subject for RH and others, but in all practicality it is just mental masturbation to pass the time.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

One thing that was clear from the Oatley's press conference was that they wanted a commonsense approach and viewed legal battles as a waste of money. They wanted the attention to be focused on the sailing.

 

I imagine that agreements to refrain from legal action will be in the AC35 protocol like they were in the AC34 protocol.



#67 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 03 October 2013 - 03:10 AM

Here you go. The document where SDYC announced their intention to consider amending the Deed.  Link

 

I have to say that I do not understand why Dennis Connor and SDYC are vilified as damaging the AC.  Both the results of the court cases, and the documents related to their time as trustee, largely vindicate their approach. 

If you want to masterbate some more, try searching with combinations of America's Cup, San Diego, and Protocol.  If you are still awake try Hamish Ross, SNG and Interpretive Resolutions.

 

The points I've been trying to make from my layman's point of view have cost people $millions$ in legal fees. If it was just mental masturbation as the esteemed Stingray claims, these people could have saved money hiring hookers instead.  :-)



#68 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 03:44 AM

The points I've been trying to make from my layman's point of view have cost people $millions$ in legal fees. If it was just mental masturbation as the esteemed Stingray claims, these people could have saved money hiring hookers instead.  :-)

 

You distinguish between lawyers and hookers?  Obviously you are not working with the right lawyers.



#69 burbanite

burbanite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 03:45 AM

How the hell did a discussion break out on SA?????

 

Except for a few posts just above ^^^,  this actually took on the illusion of people debating each other and learning along the way.

 

FFS, does this mean that I have to move on?



#70 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,237 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 03:49 AM

Randy, I fully agree with all your points, pretty much the same that I defended during the last AC.

 

None of us know if the present challenge is Deed legal.

 

We may presume that on the documents probably registered are the name of the boat and the max dimensions authorized.

However none of us will never know the real info if the challenger is a hip pocket protected by a MC.

 

Things would be different in two conditions:

 

- a real DoG challenge attacks the legality of a hip pocket

 

- the YC is a real challenger, which we don't know yet



#71 ntman

ntman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,483 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 04:28 AM

Randy, I fully agree with all your points, pretty much the same that I defended during the last AC.

 

None of us know if the present challenge is Deed legal.

 

We may presume that on the documents probably registered are the name of the boat and the max dimensions authorized.

However none of us will never know the real info if the challenger is a hip pocket protected by a MC.

 

Things would be different in two conditions:

 

- a real DoG challenge attacks the legality of a hip pocket

 

- the YC is a real challenger, which we don't know yet

 are you asking if HIYC is a real challenger? 

the yacht club certainly exists ( I've stood in the club house) has members, and hosts an annual regatta ( a massive one) on the sea.



#72 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 03 October 2013 - 04:48 AM

Randy, I fully agree with all your points, pretty much the same that I defended during the last AC.

 

None of us know if the present challenge is Deed legal.

 

We may presume that on the documents probably registered are the name of the boat and the max dimensions authorized.

However none of us will never know the real info if the challenger is a hip pocket protected by a MC.

 

Things would be different in two conditions:

 

- a real DoG challenge attacks the legality of a hip pocket

 

- the YC is a real challenger, which we don't know yet

 are you asking if HIYC is a real challenger? 

the yacht club certainly exists ( I've stood in the club house) has members, and hosts an annual regatta ( a massive one) on the sea.

I'm not. I have no doubt that GGYC has a qualified YC as a challenger. After the AC33 court battles that is a mistake not likely to be made again.

 

The focus is on the legality of the hip pocket process that was use to invite the challenge. Unless TNZ had also selected HIYC, there is a challenger that may or may not have intended to challenge before HIYC did. If we assume the Deed says first come first served does that mean if you get in the wrong line to you lose any right to sail for the Cup? Should the defender be able to chose one challenger over another?



#73 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,705 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 03 October 2013 - 05:21 AM

AC 32*/ 33*/34*  are not legal so any claims that they were done legally under true dog are just false -time will tell 

 

true AC DOG below - so theres some evidence and  reality to the discussion 

 

Attached File  AC TRUST DOG 01 ORIG.jpg   170.17K   67 downloads

 

Attached File  AC TRUST DOG 012 ORIG.jpg   159.21K   72 downloads

 

Attached File  AC TRUST DOG 0123 ORIG.jpg   123.96K   51 downloads

 

 

 

 



#74 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,052 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 05:36 AM

Well we all know from experience anything you post must be correct - you've never been wrong yet have you ? :)



#75 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:00 AM

 

Randy, I fully agree with all your points, pretty much the same that I defended during the last AC.

 

None of us know if the present challenge is Deed legal.

 

We may presume that on the documents probably registered are the name of the boat and the max dimensions authorized.

However none of us will never know the real info if the challenger is a hip pocket protected by a MC.

 

Things would be different in two conditions:

 

- a real DoG challenge attacks the legality of a hip pocket

 

- the YC is a real challenger, which we don't know yet

 are you asking if HIYC is a real challenger? 

the yacht club certainly exists ( I've stood in the club house) has members, and hosts an annual regatta ( a massive one) on the sea.

I'm not. I have no doubt that GGYC has a qualified YC as a challenger. After the AC33 court battles that is a mistake not likely to be made again.

 

The focus is on the legality of the hip pocket process that was use to invite the challenge. Unless TNZ had also selected HIYC, there is a challenger that may or may not have intended to challenge before HIYC did. If we assume the Deed says first come first served does that mean if you get in the wrong line to you lose any right to sail for the Cup? Should the defender be able to chose one challenger over another?

 

Do we know if anyone intended to challenge before HIYC?

 

Artemis has announced its intention to challenge, but hasn't complained about not being COR. ETNZ isn't sure about their funding and LR don't seem to have made their minds up one way or the other.

 

So maybe HIYC is the only yacht club that wanted to be the COR.



#76 Monster Mash

Monster Mash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,739 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:27 AM

^

Artemis has announced its intention to challenge,

 

 

Link?



#77 Cavandish

Cavandish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Location:Upstate NY

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:32 AM

^

Artemis has announced its intention to challenge,

 

 

Link?

 

Dean Barker interview, Artemis was a team he said was looking to hire ETNZ guys, not official i don't think.



#78 Spirit of Australia II

Spirit of Australia II

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia
  • Interests:America's Cup, Volvo Ocean Race, Little America's Cup, Olympic sailing

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:06 AM

What happens if the COR in its negotiation with other Challengers (see page 2 of 2 GGYC confirmation of Challenge ~ 30 09 2013)goes back to the Defender with dates, type of boat, format and rules that the Defender opposes ?<br />My tack would be go back with dates, type of boat, format and rules that are permissible within the Deed of Gift that<br />would most disadvantage the Defender. The Deed can dispose of negotiation.<br />Is HIYC (COR) intent to fulfil a Defender complicit role as revealed with last two COR in AC 34, in exchange for Defender<br />structured confirmation as COR ? can't see EB in this position.<br />

 

 

 

Randy, I fully agree with all your points, pretty much the same that I defended during the last AC.

 

None of us know if the present challenge is Deed legal.

 

We may presume that on the documents probably registered are the name of the boat and the max dimensions authorized.

However none of us will never know the real info if the challenger is a hip pocket protected by a MC.

 

Things would be different in two conditions:

 

- a real DoG challenge attacks the legality of a hip pocket

 

- the YC is a real challenger, which we don't know yet

 

The Oatleys would be idiots if they had not at least specified the biggest yacht possible - in particular 90' x 90' boats - in the event agreement cannot be reached with the GGYC and it defaults to a Deed of Gift match (especially as anything goes when it comes to the types of vessels permitted in a DOG match). And I'm sure the notice of challenge will also have specified HIYC's intention that they wish to negotiate an event that will be open to all competitors and which will be affordable. After one of the best America's Cup regattas ever, it is in neither GGYC's or HIYC's interests to get embroiled in another DOG challenge. Commonsense - something that is often few and far between in the America's Cup - must surely prevail.



#79 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

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

Posted 03 October 2013 - 09:16 AM

Perhaps we will see the HIYC Challenge some day, perhaps not. The only two modern-era ones that I recall seeing were from the DoG Matches of '88 and '10, both having been litigated.

Pretty sure the SNR Challenge was made public immediately after AC33.

 

No reason not to show it, though the onus should really be on the Challenger to be making it public 'hey, look we are the AC Challenger'.

 

Again, not actually attempting to suggest that HIYC would be illegitimate.



#80 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:40 AM

^ and that is where TE coined 'Challenger of Record' - a very good, perfectly legal under the Deed's MC clause, concept.

 

Mmmmm! I think not.  I believe the NYYC was first responsible for naming a Challenger of Record for the multiple challenges of 1970. New York didn't want the hassle of negotiating details with multiple entities. Wasn't the Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron the CoR that time? 

 

In '83 Bruno Trouble and Louis Vuitton stepped in help fund and organise the challenger selection series.

 

In Freo in '86-87 the Yacht Club Costa Smerelda was CoR.



#81 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,237 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:29 PM

Randy, I fully agree with all your points, pretty much the same that I defended during the last AC.

 

None of us know if the present challenge is Deed legal.

 

We may presume that on the documents probably registered are the name of the boat and the max dimensions authorized.

However none of us will never know the real info if the challenger is a hip pocket protected by a MC.

 

Things would be different in two conditions:

 

- a real DoG challenge attacks the legality of a hip pocket

 

- the YC is a real challenger, which we don't know yet

 are you asking if HIYC is a real challenger? 

the yacht club certainly exists ( I've stood in the club house) has members, and hosts an annual regatta ( a massive one) on the sea.

Sorry, I should have added: a DoG challenger.

I guess it's a hip pocked with later arranged MC, however we do not know it yet, it could be a DoG challenge with EB behind.



#82 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:44 PM

No reason not to show it, though the onus should really be on the Challenger to be making it public 'hey, look we are the AC Challenger'.

 

There are definitely reasons not to show it. Even if it were legally airtight, it could provide fodder for some lawsuit.  If HIYC failed to cross all their t's then it is sure encourage a lawsuit.  The common advice is don't show anyone a legal document that isn't either a party to the agreement or required by law to see it.  

 

I would love for there to be more transparency in the AC, but showing the actual challenge document will invite more trouble than transparency.  What I would like to be transparent is HIYC's approach to the MC negotiations.  What is it that they want the AC to be?  Will they push for a challenger selection trial?  Do they expect to meet with interested syndicates prior to finalizing the MC agreement? What are their initial opinions about multihulls? foils? wings?  Do they feel strongly one way or anther about the ACWS? Is Ian M currently engaged as part of the challenger and do you expect him to be?

 

Those are the questions that help us to answer if they are an appropriate challenger under the intend of the deed, not what was actually written into the challenge itself. 



#83 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 03 October 2013 - 09:02 PM

No reason not to show it, though the onus should really be on the Challenger to be making it public 'hey, look we are the AC Challenger'.

 

There are definitely reasons not to show it. Even if it were legally airtight, it could provide fodder for some lawsuit.  If HIYC failed to cross all their t's then it is sure encourage a lawsuit.  The common advice is don't show anyone a legal document that isn't either a party to the agreement or required by law to see it.  

 

I would love for there to be more transparency in the AC, but showing the actual challenge document will invite more trouble than transparency.  What I would like to be transparent is HIYC's approach to the MC negotiations.  What is it that they want the AC to be?  Will they push for a challenger selection trial?  Do they expect to meet with interested syndicates prior to finalizing the MC agreement? What are their initial opinions about multihulls? foils? wings?  Do they feel strongly one way or anther about the ACWS? Is Ian M currently engaged as part of the challenger and do you expect him to be?

 

Those are the questions that help us to answer if they are an appropriate challenger under the intend of the deed, not what was actually written into the challenge itself. 

The AC is a Public Trust not a private regatta. The public has some right to access. This is what trips up many people, the AC has to answer to the people of NY State and the beneficiaries of the trust.

 

TE (for GGYC) is an AC scholar and I have no doubt that the document is legally correct. Avoiding litigation is one of his top priorities for certain. There should be no harm in disclosing the terms of the challenge. Knowing the starting point should help other interested parties (other beneficiary Yacht Clubs) decide if they want to participate in the protocol negotiations that have been alluded to in what has been made public so far.

 

Every day that the challenge is not disclosed is fodder for the tinhats that want to see evil from GGYC/Oracle/Larry that most probably does not exist. There is no down side to disclosure that I can imagine ... The response to the AC34 match (maybe not the entire event) has been overwhelmingly positive. A challenge that suggests that HIYC and GGYC want to include others and build on the successes and improve on the failings would be welcomed by everyone in the AC community of Yacht Clubs, sailors, and fans.



#84 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 09:42 PM

There is no down side to disclosure that I can imagine ... The response to the AC34 match (maybe not the entire event) has been overwhelmingly positive. A challenge that suggests that HIYC and GGYC want to include others and build on the successes and improve on the failings would be welcomed by everyone in the AC community of Yacht Clubs, sailors, and fans.

 

To the extent that the challenge contains information about what HIYC hopes to negotiate in the MC document, then I would love to see it.  My assumption, which is quite possibly wrong, is that it contains only the bare minimum information required to lock in the challenge, but does not contain a comprehensive overview of the challenger's vision for the MC document.

 

Including detailed information in the challenge about what they hope will be achieved in the MC may be counter productive as it may disadvantage their negotiating posture with the defender. 



#85 FatimaRules

FatimaRules

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:21 PM

The overriding issue here is does anyone actually want a full DOG challenge. I would be surprised if the Oatley's actually would consider one.

They already own a (number of) DOG compliant yacht. Just name that, stick a date in that is 10 months time and pull your challenge if you don't get the MC result you want.

Now based on the fact I thought of that, I'm going to be gob smacked if they didn't.

#86 ro!

ro!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:35 PM


 

 

 file a FOIA or get Clean to do it, he seems to like those things.

As anyone over the age of 9 would know, FOIA doesn't apply.  If anyone cares, file a suit in the NY courts.  I bet if the NYYC sued GGYC claiming an illegal challenge, they could get an answer soon enough.
ADM. CLEAN 
 
Hey fuckwit - I though you were off with RO doing peyote for the last month or so.
 
So you didn't stop the 34th AC as you threatened for three years, like every other threat you made that you never dleivered on.
 
Some things never change - still sueing the Feds for $1B and not returning phone calls ?
 
Biggest loser and moron ever to post.

Instead of trying to use me in your ubertrolling, how about you remind us of how you and spinbot supported this lunatic when he was sueing eb, bb, sng, UBS and Switzerland ...
As for biggest moron ever...you might have to look in the mirror for that...

#87 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:56 PM

The overriding issue here is does anyone actually want a full DOG challenge. I would be surprised if the Oatley's actually would consider one.

They already own a (number of) DOG compliant yacht. Just name that, stick a date in that is 10 months time and pull your challenge if you don't get the MC result you want.

Now based on the fact I thought of that, I'm going to be gob smacked if they didn't.

 

Doesn't LE also own a few DOG compliant yachts that are considerably faster than Oatley's existing yachts?



#88 FatimaRules

FatimaRules

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:44 AM


The overriding issue here is does anyone actually want a full DOG challenge. I would be surprised if the Oatley's actually would consider one.

They already own a (number of) DOG compliant yacht. Just name that, stick a date in that is 10 months time and pull your challenge if you don't get the MC result you want.

Now based on the fact I thought of that, I'm going to be gob smacked if they didn't.

 
Doesn't LE also own a few DOG compliant yachts that are considerably faster than Oatley's existing yachts?

You're missing the point. I'm suggesting Oatley has no intention of getting as far as a DOG default regatta so why bother making up a fictional DOG compliant boat in the challenge. Just detail the one you already own.

#89 coaster1

coaster1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Location:left coast

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:04 AM

 

ADM. CLEAN 
 
Hey fuckwit - I though you were off with RO doing peyote for the last month or so.
 
So you didn't stop the 34th AC as you threatened for three years, like every other threat you made that you never dleivered on.
 
Some things never change - still sueing the Feds for $1B and not returning phone calls ?
 
Biggest loser and moron ever to post.

Instead of trying to use me in your ubertrolling, how about you remind us of how you and spinbot supported this lunatic when he was sueing eb, bb, sng, UBS and Switzerland ...
As for biggest moron ever...you might have to look in the mirror for that...

Your posts are so stale - do make an effort to find something current to bitch about.



#90 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:47 AM

You're missing the point. I'm suggesting Oatley has no intention of getting as far as a DOG default regatta so why bother making up a fictional DOG compliant boat in the challenge. Just detail the one you already own.

 

I see.  It is certainly possible that the COR decides to withdraw. It has happened before, like for AC34. If he has no intention of sailing a DOG match in the absence of a MC agreement there is no reason to write a real yacht into the challenge, you can just make it up.  



#91 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

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

Posted 04 October 2013 - 07:59 AM

Stipulating a DoG class boat would be important incase negotiations with Defender break down.

 

You can negotiate something other than what you Challenged with but if the relationship goes sour you don't want to be in the situation that you Challenged with a 60' monohull & have the Defender rock up for a DoG match with a 90' monster multi because then you'd be stuck having to use a 60' monohull.



#92 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:11 AM

That assumes that they're interested in a DoG match. Given that they haven't' challenged before, it looks unlikely - it doesn't come across as a long-standing burning desire of the Oatleys to win the AC. So if MC negotiations break down, easier and cheaper to just walk away - GGYC can't force them to sail.



#93 atefooterz

atefooterz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • Location:Aus 2154
  • Interests:many

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:30 AM

Imagine a DoG Match with Wild OatsXI and Dogzilla, I know who will be pushing for min wind speeds of 10knots and bumpy wind against tide sea conditions :P



#94 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:59 AM

ITYM min wind speeds of 25kts. WOXI has a trysail. DoGzilla....doesn't. 



#95 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 10:10 AM

That assumes that they're interested in a DoG match. Given that they haven't' challenged before, it looks unlikely - it doesn't come across as a long-standing burning desire of the Oatleys to win the AC. So if MC negotiations break down, easier and cheaper to just walk away - GGYC can't force them to sail.

 

The Oatleys said in their press conference that they viewed keeping costs down as very important because it would attract more participants. They wanted a commonsense approach that built on the racing in AC34 which they found very exciting. They also said that they viewed legal maneuvering as a waste of money.

 

So no DoG match.



#96 atefooterz

atefooterz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • Location:Aus 2154
  • Interests:many

Posted 04 October 2013 - 10:41 AM

That assumes that they're interested in a DoG match. Given that they haven't' challenged before, it looks unlikely - it doesn't come across as a long-standing burning desire of the Oatleys to win the AC. So if MC negotiations break down, easier and cheaper to just walk away - GGYC can't force them to sail.

 

The Oatleys said in their press conference that they viewed keeping costs down as very important because it would attract more participants. They wanted a commonsense approach that built on the racing in AC34 which they found very exciting. They also said that they viewed legal maneuvering as a waste of money.

 

So no DoG match.

Their cheapest option is to send over an already paid for boat!!



#97 Spirit of Australia II

Spirit of Australia II

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia
  • Interests:America's Cup, Volvo Ocean Race, Little America's Cup, Olympic sailing

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:16 PM

Consider this; Had TNZ won is it likely that HIYC was going to challenge? If your answer is no, then you need to figure out how the Defender gets to chose who the challenger will be. Now find words in the Deed to twist to make it all okay.

 

The Oatleys confirmed at a press conference announcing their campaign that they would have also challenged Team New Zealand if they had prevailed in AC34. It is doubtful HIYC would have been Challenger of Record, though - all the scuttlebutt was Team New Zealand had Luna Rossa lined up to lodge the first hip pocket challenge if they had been able to achieve the one win they needed.



#98 burbanite

burbanite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 05 October 2013 - 04:41 AM

- all the scuttlebutt was Team New Zealand had Luna Rossa lined up to lodge the first hip pocket challenge if they had been able to achieve the one win they needed.

 

I love scuttlebutt because it is always so accurate.



#99 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 05 October 2013 - 05:10 AM

Someone with a bit more insight might chip in, but the DoG is slightly unclear here.  The challenge is required to have a boat detailed in the challenge document, and requires that a "customs house registration" be forwarded as soon as possible.  The dimensions of the challenger are easy, and need simply be DoG compliant.  However the registration clearly needs an extant boat, and at that point nails down the actual boat that must be used for the challenge.  "As soon as possible" could be read to mean "once it has been built" but I would guess that isn't the intent.  Since you have ten months to be ready to race, not having an existing boat now would be a bad idea.  Now, we assume that the real intent is to go for a mutually agreed series.  But that comes in after the requirements of the DoG challenge. So I would assume that there is an extant boat referenced in the challenge, even though there is no intent that this boat ever actually race.  WOXI is100ft LOA, but given its box rule design, I doubt that it is under 90ft LWL.  So it probably isn't the challenge boat.  Not that there is any shortage of boats that meet the letter of the DoG.  Given that anyone putting a monohull up against OTUSA in a real DoG challenge will probably find themselves racing USA-17 in SF bay, over a DoG defined course, they might as well concede now.  It would be Fay versus Conner all over again, and even more stupid.



#100 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,037 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 05 October 2013 - 05:36 AM

Randy

 

I think there is an important area your argument falls down on, even though I do think there is a question mark over the whole hip pocket challenge issue. I believe that you are completely wrong that GGYC invited HIYC to challenge. The whole thing was initiated by the Oatleys. They will have approached GGYC, saying that they intended to enter the next round of the AC and that they were willing or even wanted to be the COR. I am certain that nobody approached them about entering and I would be very surprised if they had been invited to be the COR. For the Oatleys, being COR is a big publicity coupe for Hamilton Island, and this is all about marketing. It's a far bigger thing being COR than just having a team entered and being COR will give them some clout to get an event at HI in the run up

 

Therefore, the real issue is that the way the challenge is done is such as to exclude all others, and that is what I believe is an issue. I wonder what would have happened if another challenger had been at the registered office of GGYC (I assume the clubhouse), at the very moment that OR crossed the line, and had handed a legal challenge to a member of staff. Of course, it would not only have to be compliant, but the challenger would need to accept that they were going to have to participate in a DOG challenge.

 

In that situation, surely timing would be the issue. I wonder if GGYC had a synchronised clock and were filming the exact moment. I know that if I wanted to upset the apple cart, I would have some way of showing the exact time I handed over a challenge to GGYC. Now, if GGYC made sure that nobody could hand over a challenge at the appropriate time (all staff to hide or clubhouse closed or similar), then again I see a potential breach. However, if they had not, then every potential challenger could have made a challenge and it was simply who got the timing right.

 

However, I see all of this as mute, because there was no other challenger prepared to step forward. As such, the hip pocket challenge didn't deprive anybody of their rights under the trust and all is good.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users