Jump to content


Another incredibly bad AUS Challenge


  • Please log in to reply
359 replies to this topic

#201 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,224 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 01:02 PM


Xlot, can you improve on this translation?

For example the para with "we are at the window" said by Max.

https://translate.go...SiA7RNwxbPnVgmA


Max Sirena got to Barcelona for the 12M Worlds (won by PB's Nyala, btw) straight from LA where last Sunday a meeting was held with representatives of challengers and defender for the next Cup. - Were you informed in LA about the Australians' decision to withdraw from the competition? Sirena: Absolutely not. This came out of the blue for all of us". - When will the next CoR be selected?: "Formally, it should be the first one who challenged. For the time being it's just us and Artemis". - Does this mean LR is aiming for that role? "I'm not a candidate, we are sitting on the sidelines. I have already spoken with RC and BA and I proposed we should have a videoconference already next Wednesday"

Expectations - "I'm not a pessimist. Already in LA last week I had noted in the defender a certain willingness to negotiate and I believe that this new situation might be exploited to bring about changes, even significant ones concerning the future". Do you mean that even the Venue choice for the event could be rediscussed? The two left (Bermuda and SD) do not convince Sirena: "I'm not ruling that out". For the second time running Coutts got the CoR selection wrong. The Australians, like Mascalzone Latino in the previous event, dropped out before even starting. "This cannot be denied. But like I said I'm an optimist, from this mistake may come positive consequences for all"

Thank you, X. Good piece.

#202 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,919 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 20 July 2014 - 01:08 PM


^

Left out the end bit, where Max rules out cannibalizing part of the Aussie team

#203 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,843 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 20 July 2014 - 01:24 PM

With fava beans and a nice Chianti?

#204 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,247 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 01:24 PM

Simon, there's a contradiction in what you're saying.

 

The only way they can run the event without LE (or anyone else for that matter) having to 'pick up the organisation tab' is to require the challengers to participate in the total organisation costs.  Yes, more teams equal a less share of costs to pay, and maybe even some revenue, but until we get there, costs will only go up for ALL the teams...

 

RC will be having some interesting phone calls these days: 'You want the event held in SF? Sure, here's what it will cost you...'

I think this is fundamentally incorrect. Previous editions (pre AC34) have managed to get enough revenue to balance the books. There has even been a case of significant profit, with that profit being distributed among the participating teams.

 

While I think there is little chance of making the sort of profit we saw with AC32, I think that the right event with the right management should be able to wash its face. AC34 probably had the biggest cost/ loss of any AC ever. That was ultimately overseen by RC. Now it seems we are heading down that path again.

 

 

Only difference is Larry isn't going to let Russell run through his checkbook again.  It was an interesting idea to front the one once for the greatest show on earth, with Worth(less) and Thompson saying they'd get it all back.  Larry won't be fooled twice.  There's a hard limit, which is why there is the hail mary pass for Bermuda.

 

Russell's idea of "commercially viable/sustainable" only = him keeping his job.



#205 Alinghi4ever

Alinghi4ever

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Location:Augsburg, Germany

Posted 20 July 2014 - 01:29 PM

Iain Murray explains Reasons for withdrawal

 

http://www.sail-worl...thdrawal/124684



#206 Aaargh!

Aaargh!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 01:37 PM

I've heard several senior Oracle Team USA members say in person that another Mascalzone Latino style COR fold would be an unacceptable result for all involved in AC35, and with the Oatley family forming the foundations of the challenge expect the Aussies to go the distance. 

 

Will they win it first time out? Probably not. Will they keep the bastards honest? Here's hoping. 

a few days is a long time in this sport

 

Point: how's your confidence in the Oatleys now?



#207 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,387 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 02:15 PM

From this I gather that one big sticking point was Bermuda, along with the escalating costs.



#208 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 20 July 2014 - 03:24 PM

RC - brilliant sailor, errant entrepreneur.

Think Larry has read the morning paper?

#209 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,224 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 03:50 PM

From this I gather that one big sticking point was Bermuda, along with the escalating costs.

Yes, the IM interview is a good one.

GD's private backers are confident of ETNZ's commercial sponsors coming through after the venue(s) are announced; it sounds like IM could not give the Oatleys the same level of confidence and they were uncomfortable with that level of risk. And yes, perhaps the confidence would have been higher had it been SD and SF as the options.

Ideally the venue would be announced with the Protocol, prior to the Entry Period. But obviously that's difficult for the organizers, since both the organizers and the venue want assurances too.

#210 bluesea

bluesea

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Territory of Hawaii
  • Interests:The Ocean

Posted 20 July 2014 - 05:57 PM

Hahahah, what a friggin joke this failed challenger.



#211 bluesea

bluesea

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Territory of Hawaii
  • Interests:The Ocean

Posted 20 July 2014 - 06:02 PM

 

Another incredibly bad AUS Challenge

 

 

Come on man, the writing was on the wall as soon as Sling and Spit turned them down. They will be non-competitive--its a developmental stepping stone challenge after all. Its also a "I can do this before I die", and a huge  personal and commercial self interest move as well. To see it any other way is sportsfan-ism, just like a lot of nonsense that gets posted here. 

 

 

Need to quote myself here.

 

What a friggin joke this failed challenger. Good stunt while it lasted I'll give them that, hahahah.



#212 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,469 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 06:33 PM

...

 they didn't have the gonads for an actual AC campaign.

 

 

The Oakley's are punks.

They had no business pretending they were in the big leagues.

 

Kiddy City wine merchants.

 

Didn't take these golden boys to get on the West Coast shit list did it


 

....


It's not like GGYC had Challengers knocking on the door to be CoR and it's also unlikely that RC would have had any role in it; he only found out about HIYC later. So while losing AUS is as he says disappointing, he like others may have had concerns about their commitment-level all along. IM too, is my guess.

 

RC always the last to know about things AC eh! (Oatley said it came as a complete surprise to AC Race Manager Murray as well - funny that!)

 

MWT031013NEhamo_fct1226x745x10x9_t460.gi

 

So top secret meeting or does LE have 'MemORywipe' capability already?

 

Yeah - spin it baby......



#213 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,224 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 06:54 PM

Nav - Yet another problem with this IM conspiracy theory, among the many that you have, is that the Oatleys said in the announcement presser that they would have wanted to be the Challenger regardless of if OTUSA or ETNZ had won.

 

Furthermore: Did ETNZ already have a Challenger waiting on a boat for if/when they had won one more race? Undoubtedly. But we don't know who that was and given what the Oatleys said then it's at least possible that the Oatleys had an HIYC rep on that boat too.

 

Your allegations of corruption against IM are old, tiresome - and baseless. IM is not the reason for why ETNZ did not win the Cup, he did nothing to intentionally hurt them or anyone else.



#214 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,469 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 07:04 PM

^ Is TE on holiday or something? You and the boys are in full attack mode but are clearly suffering for the lack of talking points - it's complete chaos

 

You all need to lift your game if you hope to spin your way out of this fiasco, but when TE lets you know the strategy to blame it all ETNZ - you'll be back in your comfort zone.



#215 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 07:17 PM

^ Is TE on holiday or something? You and the boys are in full attack mode but are clearly suffering for the lack of talking points - it's complete chaos
 
You all need to lift your game if you hope to spin your way out of this fiasco, but when TE lets you know the strategy to blame it all ETNZ - you'll be back in your comfort zone.


Nothing has changed, ET still has to try and win the cup.

Good luck with that.

#216 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,469 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 07:45 PM

Russell must be a gullible jackass to have believed the bullshit the Oakley's were selling.

 

But most of all, I feel sorry for Ian Murray.

 

Poor bastard.

I don't feel sorry for IM at all. He negotiated the Proto with RC. Did a pretty fucking poor job too, based on the result. If Team Australia can't live with the problems the proto presents now, how the fuck could they agree to them around the negotiating table?

 

Just how much dialogue did HIYC representatives have with potential challengers, before and during those negotiations? Not much by the looks of things.

 

So IM's hitherto cosy-up relationship the OTUSA bit him on the arse big time, when he couldn't stand up to RC and did not use the support form the other challengers, they were supposed to be representing.

 

I say IM only has himself to blame.

 

This ^...

 

Plus RC seemingly trying to do a Bernie Ecclestone......Bernie%20Ecclestone%20Might%20Face%2010%

 

I.e, "I have a proven Golden Goose and if you fancy a piece of it you'll come on bended knee and bearing gold."

 

 

Even to get a simple AC up and running needs dialogue between all serious parties, to turn it into a 'Commercial Property' (slim to none) would take even more cooperation not less.


 



#217 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:03 PM

In case you haven't noticed old grumpy has had a feel good (fuck me in the ass, please sir) lobotomy.

 

So, no problems there.



#218 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,045 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:06 PM

I.e, "I have a proven Golden Goose and if you fancy a piece of it you'll come on bended knee and bearing gold."

 

Well, if he thinks he does, he's deluded. 



#219 angles

angles

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Location:Straya

Posted 20 July 2014 - 10:38 PM

No update on the Team Australia website, last news item 6 March.

Team Australia FB - just a link to a story on SW.com

They did want us to 'follow their journey'?



#220 kadyca

kadyca

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 10:52 PM

Yes RC's bargaining ability just took a huge blow. If he really is forced back to negotiating with SF it was be a case of "adopt the position". I know there are many here still banging the drum for SF but I can't see it. Bridges are burned.

 

That's sum pretty utter bullshit right there. The bridges are never burned. SF would be perfectly happy to host the event. They just have to accept that the city is not going to fund the event. So long as the AC is willing to pay its own way, like every one else, then they are welcome to have their party here again. No more special breaks for Billionaires.



#221 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 20 July 2014 - 11:03 PM

No update on the Team Australia website, last news item 6 March.
Team Australia FB - just a link to a story on SW.com
They did want us to 'follow their journey'?

that journey went down clockwise.

#222 Flatbag

Flatbag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,128 posts
  • Location:High above the river...
  • Interests:Shattering illusions

Posted 20 July 2014 - 11:03 PM

^

Left out the end bit, where Max rules out cannibalizing part of the Aussie team

 Really not a hell of a lot to cannibalize when you look at it. Some great individual sailors for sure but fuck all with AC cred. Maybe that harsh realization contributed to the Oatleys decision or maybe old Bob just decided he wants to spend a bit more on WOXI to keep her in the game?

How much of this was Sandy loosening the catch on Daddy's wallet until Daddy heard the click and said no more?



#223 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,334 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 11:46 PM

Very interesting and not strange. It was said that HIYC was not RC choice, so Oakleys probably informed the person who chose them first.

 

The question is to know if HIYC was chosen directly by Larry or not.

 

If not this person will probably face RC and Larry anger. I am not sure how long he will be able to stay in the organisation before getting the boot.

 

....


It's not like GGYC had Challengers knocking on the door to be CoR and it's also unlikely that RC would have had any role in it; he only found out about HIYC later. So while losing AUS is as he says disappointing, he like others may have had concerns about their commitment-level all along. IM too, is my guess.

 

RC always the last to know about things AC eh!



#224 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,224 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 11:59 PM

^ My guess is that Norbert B and TE as comm and Vice Comm of GGYC were tasked with that CoR part of things. Rightfully so. It was left to them, RC and LE only cared about it later.

The fact that Protocol negotiations went on for so long may have been an issue for RC but I doubt that GGYC or LE cared too much about it and I also would not be surprised if RC's deep-down reaction to AUS pulling out is "so what, there's a frikkin headache gone, big relief.."

#225 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,334 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 12:21 AM

^ My guess is that Norbert B and TE as comm and Vice Comm of GGYC were tasked with that CoR part of things. Rightfully so. It was left to them, RC and LE only cared about it later.

The fact that Protocol negotiations went on for so long may have been an issue for RC but I doubt that GGYC or LE cared too much about it and I also would not be surprised if RC's deep-down reaction to AUS pulling out is "so what, there's a frikkin headache gone, big relief.."

^^ What I had not written, for not being accused of speculation :) : was RC a bit stiffer in his negotiation in order to get rid of a choice he did not make ?

 

Anyway, if NB found the Oakleys there is not much Larry can do directly against him, unless asking TE to organize a general assembly to get rid of him, but it would be too risky.

 

If TE made the choice, well, I am not sure that BDA will be enough to make him get closer to the sun.



#226 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,224 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 12:44 AM

KL probably had the situation down well: at the time they were just trying to find someone, anyone, with more promise than RVYC.
--

I have every reason to believe that Oracle Racing was in a lather to find a Challenger of Record in that last, desperate week of September, 2013 as Spithill and the boys began to eat away at their points deficit, and winning began to look less and less impossible.

http://www.blueplane...mericas-cup-35/

#227 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,056 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:12 AM

KL probably had the situation down well: at the time they were just trying to find someone, anyone, with more promise than RVYC.
--

I have every reason to believe that Oracle Racing was in a lather to find a Challenger of Record in that last, desperate week of September, 2013 as Spithill and the boys began to eat away at their points deficit, and winning began to look less and less impossible.

http://www.blueplane...mericas-cup-35/

I find that highly unlikely. Before racing began, OR was reasonably confident that they were on the pace. In fact, they started to mode their boat towards downhill as they felt they probably had an edge upwind (they got that wrong, didn't they!). I cannot believe that going into the match they weren't already well under way in sorting out a CoR. Not to do so would have been totally defeatist. And we saw from their attitude throughout the event they were anything but defeatist.

 

To me, it made total sense having the Oatley's as CoR. There wasn't any existing challenger who either wanted it or that OR could have worked with. Look at the teams - ETNZ would have been a no go, Artemis had already said they didn't want it, you wouldn't go with LR because Bertelli is a loose cannon while BAR wasn't funded at all, had no serious experience or staff able to get involved. So they needed to look for an outsider and at the time, as now, there aren't exactly a lot of outsiders lining up to enter. IM had the relationship with the Oatley's and OR knew they could deal with IM. It was a perfect match, or at least a lot better than any of the alternatives. I suspect that IM made the approach fairly early on, because I don't think the Oatley's can be rushed into anything. I also suspect there was a hard sell on the Oatleys by both IM and the defender, because there is no way that they would have signed up for any commitment north of about $50m. It is well known in Oz that for AC34, the Oatleys said no because they said it was far too expensive. It is also hard to believe that they would have gone ahead without being convinced that the budget was something they could manage and it is also hard to believe that IM could have done that on his own. It would have needed some assurances from the defender on this score.

 

They withdrew because they are smart. They were sold because they had assurances that the costs would stay below a certain level. They negotiuated a protocol that they believed would keep the costs below that level, no doubt because of assurances given by both IM and the defender. As soon as they found that the budgets needed to be higher than they were told, they pulled the pin.



#228 ProaSailor

ProaSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Location:Sacramento, California

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:20 AM

^ My guess is that Norbert B and TE as comm and Vice Comm of GGYC were tasked with that CoR part of things. Rightfully so. It was left to them, RC and LE only cared about it later.

The fact that Protocol negotiations went on for so long may have been an issue for RC but I doubt that GGYC or LE cared too much about it and I also would not be surprised if RC's deep-down reaction to AUS pulling out is "so what, there's a frikkin headache gone, big relief.."

 
 

KL probably had the situation down well: at the time they were just trying to find someone, anyone, with more promise than RVYC.
--

I have every reason to believe that Oracle Racing was in a lather to find a Challenger of Record in that last, desperate week of September, 2013 as Spithill and the boys began to eat away at their points deficit, and winning began to look less and less impossible.

http://www.blueplane...mericas-cup-35/

 
Amazing how pure speculation and guesswork becomes, ipso facto, "reality" in a heartbeat!  The obscure references make it very difficult for the casual reader to follow the "logic" (or lack thereof).  For example, I thought it was you writing "I have every reason to believe that Oracle Racing was in a lather..." until I followed that link and realized it was Kimball Livingston ("KL"), not you, who made that particular statement.
 
Oh well.  Inside baseball.  ZZZZ...  Knock yourself out, brah!



#229 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,284 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:26 AM

Apologies if this was already posted but I found it to be very interesting . If four teams won't step up to challenge they will cancel the entire event ?

The New Zealand Herald notes how a provision in the Protocol says a challenge will not be accepted by the Defender until there are at least four challengers. With Team Australia’s withdrawal and a French challenge unlikely to get off the ground, it leaves only four teams – Team New Zealand, Artemis, Luna Rossa and Ben Ainslie’s British syndicate – capable of putting together a campaign. Should they lose another challenger, there will be no event.

#230 Donjoman

Donjoman

    Anarchist

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

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:28 AM

They might be worth billions but that doesn't mean 100s of millions are liquid. They obviously don't want to pump cash into something that to their brand, returns very little.

There weren't many signs of global corporates behind Team Aus. Costs to join the match in Bermuda would be horrific; besides logistical challenges from Australia.

#231 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

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

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:43 AM

They withdrew because they are smart. They were sold because they had assurances that the costs would stay below a certain level. They negotiuated a protocol that they believed would keep the costs below that level, no doubt because of assurances given by both IM and the defender. As soon as they found that the budgets needed to be higher than they were told, they pulled the pin.

 

If Oakley's were smart they would not of signed a protocol that no one liked .. the time to withdraw was when they found that Oracle were not going to cooperate .. before they signed the protocol and committed the other entrants .



#232 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:59 AM

Yes RC's bargaining ability just took a huge blow. If he really is forced back to negotiating with SF it was be a case of "adopt the position". I know there are many here still banging the drum for SF but I can't see it. Bridges are burned.

 

That's sum pretty utter bullshit right there. The bridges are never burned. SF would be perfectly happy to host the event. They just have to accept that the city is not going to fund the event. So long as the AC is willing to pay its own way, like every one else, then they are welcome to have their party here again. No more special breaks for Billionaires.

+1 That's exactly how I read it too.



#233 Aaargh!

Aaargh!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:05 AM

 Costs to join the match in Bermuda would be horrific; besides logistical challenges from Australia.

 

The costs to set up a base in Bermuda and the logistics in getting there would be similar to SF.

 

The problem is that the Oatleys thought that they would get some additional sponsorship money if the event was in SF, but that is unlikely to eventuate if the event is in Bermuda. In other words, they don't have the coin to do it themselves. They might be multi-millionaires, but they aren't billionaires.

 

The Oatleys are used to being big fish in a small (Sydney-Hobart) pond, it must have come as a shock to them when they realized that in the AC world they were a just guppy swimming with sharks.

 

As they say, if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it.



#234 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:13 AM

 

I hope all potential syndicates do not enter.

While watching Sailing on the tele is great, the AC has always been BS.

 

The winner gets to re-write the rules and stack the rules in their favor.

 

This will not fly in the New World of International Sports and Commercialism.  All Eras come to an end.

 

Potential Team Syndicates/Owners should just forget that the Cup even exists until it is replaced by an International Governing Body that wants Commercial Success instead of being owned by Narcissistic Rich fucks.

 

Would'nt that be funny if Larry threw a party and no one showed up?

 

The AC isn't about international sports and commercialism. It's about ego, always was. Egos of individual magnates or nationalistic collective egos (and I really mean nationalism not patriotism).

 

At least "in the old days" it was understood as such and nobody pretended it could be financially viable. (AC32 was an outlier the relative financial balance of which would be difficult to duplicate today.)

I know this and so does everyone else.


That is why the AC is the Biggest Joke in the Sporting World.

It cheapens our sport and those involved.

 

Even though there are egos in other sports, they are not about  the egos, it is about perpetuating the sport and making money, not wasting it and stacking the deck.

 

Until the start gun sounds, it is a circle jerk of one.

 

So everyone foamed at the mouth when Bertarelli was stacking the deck, well Larry is the exact equal.

Indeed what a farking joke. The AC is in an unknown location at an unknown point in the future.

Serious two farking teams last cycle, it'll be two teams this cycle.



#235 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,540 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:14 AM

I think they were expecting some exposure to the Chinese wine market too with a Chinese challenger that didn't materialize. More cost, less potential revenue, more risk is how I see the math..and no AC Oz talent returning



#236 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,334 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:18 AM

 Costs to join the match in Bermuda would be horrific; besides logistical challenges from Australia.

 

The costs to set up a base in Bermuda and the logistics in getting there would be similar to SF.

 

The problem is that the Oatleys thought that they would get some additional sponsorship money if the event was in SF, but that is unlikely to eventuate if the event is in Bermuda. In other words, they don't have the coin to do it themselves. They might be multi-millionaires, but they aren't billionaires.

 

The Oatleys are used to being big fish in a small (Sydney-Hobart) pond, it must have come as a shock to them when they realized that in the AC world they were a just guppy swimming with sharks.

 

As they say, if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it.

Best explanation yet, pretty logic.



#237 Flippin Out

Flippin Out

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:29 AM

So yet again, OR/LE/RC say one thing and do another. Both last time and now, they insist that they are doing everything to reduce costs, yet teams are talking big numbers, like $80m by BAR. And now the first team has pulled out because the numbers don't add up and we will see more.

 

Last time around SKM was ripped apart on this forum for saying, among other things, exactly the same as TA are now saying, namely its going to cost too much. Last time and in response, RC and his merry men tried to convince us you could do a campaign for $10m. I wonder what they will say this time.

 

I really don't care what the defender wants to do in terms of affordability and event sustainability. If they want to make it so only a very, very few can afford to compete, fine. If all they care about is running one edition and not worry about the future, like we have always seen in the past, that's also fine by me. However, to publicly say, time and again, that what they care about is making the event affordable, a commercial success and be sustainable yet actually do the opposite is simply bullshit.

 

The Oatley's are pretty smart people. It's been reported that they originally were expecting a protocol that would allow you to be competitive for $50m, based, I suspect, on their discussions with RC, IM and whoever else they needed to speak to. Word is that figure is now closer to $80m and that venue choice might drive that up while making sponsorship less attractive. It's easy to see how they could come to the conclusion that it was time to quit.

 

And is it a coincidence that this has come so soon after the competitor meeting? I doubt it. There must have been more said than we know about so far.

 

So how do you suggest they reduce costs ?

 

Mills criticized the event saying it was not winnable - and proven wrong. .

 

Never knew the back story on the Oatley's challenge, but but I don't think it was RC's top choice as their was some discord over the development at the time. How it was staged is still a question. TE knows and was at odds with RC as a result. Also his finances and net worth of ~ $1B were questioned at the time. If he owns a winery as a money making business that in itself should raise questions. Few wineries are consistently profitable and many are status symbols and tax write-offs for the wealthy.

 

He should stick with his Wild Oats campaign and be happy.

Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?



#238 Flatbag

Flatbag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,128 posts
  • Location:High above the river...
  • Interests:Shattering illusions

Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:34 AM

 Costs to join the match in Bermuda would be horrific; besides logistical challenges from Australia.

 

The costs to set up a base in Bermuda and the logistics in getting there would be similar to SF.

 

The problem is that the Oatleys thought that they would get some additional sponsorship money if the event was in SF, but that is unlikely to eventuate if the event is in Bermuda. In other words, they don't have the coin to do it themselves. They might be multi-millionaires, but they aren't billionaires.

 

The Oatleys are used to being big fish in a small (Sydney-Hobart) pond, it must have come as a shock to them when they realized that in the AC world they were a just guppy swimming with sharks.

 

As they say, if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it.

 Bob is actually a member of the "B" Club but having looked at the likely spend to play in this league, he has obviously made the choice to stay that way. He doesn't have a lot of time left on this marble and he can have a whole lot of fun doing other things such as playing with his numerous boats, holidaying on his island etc while remaining  rudely wealthy for whatever time he may have left.



#239 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,130 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:18 AM

 

So yet again, OR/LE/RC say one thing and do another. Both last time and now, they insist that they are doing everything to reduce costs, yet teams are talking big numbers, like $80m by BAR. And now the first team has pulled out because the numbers don't add up and we will see more.

 

Last time around SKM was ripped apart on this forum for saying, among other things, exactly the same as TA are now saying, namely its going to cost too much. Last time and in response, RC and his merry men tried to convince us you could do a campaign for $10m. I wonder what they will say this time.

 

I really don't care what the defender wants to do in terms of affordability and event sustainability. If they want to make it so only a very, very few can afford to compete, fine. If all they care about is running one edition and not worry about the future, like we have always seen in the past, that's also fine by me. However, to publicly say, time and again, that what they care about is making the event affordable, a commercial success and be sustainable yet actually do the opposite is simply bullshit.

 

The Oatley's are pretty smart people. It's been reported that they originally were expecting a protocol that would allow you to be competitive for $50m, based, I suspect, on their discussions with RC, IM and whoever else they needed to speak to. Word is that figure is now closer to $80m and that venue choice might drive that up while making sponsorship less attractive. It's easy to see how they could come to the conclusion that it was time to quit.

 

And is it a coincidence that this has come so soon after the competitor meeting? I doubt it. There must have been more said than we know about so far.

 

So how do you suggest they reduce costs ?

 

Mills criticized the event saying it was not winnable - and proven wrong. .

 

Never knew the back story on the Oatley's challenge, but but I don't think it was RC's top choice as their was some discord over the development at the time. How it was staged is still a question. TE knows and was at odds with RC as a result. Also his finances and net worth of ~ $1B were questioned at the time. If he owns a winery as a money making business that in itself should raise questions. Few wineries are consistently profitable and many are status symbols and tax write-offs for the wealthy.

 

He should stick with his Wild Oats campaign and be happy.

Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?

 

Not necessarily -  and certainly not without looking at the balance sheet at the time of the sale vs what was invested over time and how the books are managed. Their are lots of reasons wineries are sold, and large conglomerates frequently acquire wineries for the brand name, acquisition to grapes, production capacity, distribution networks to enter stronger markets, capital requirements to support new plantings, etc, and not all are consistently profitable. 

 

Constellation is a classic example, and another out of France comes to mind but I can't recall at the moment. 



#240 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,056 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:31 AM

The one thing that is beyond doubt is that the Oatleys could afford to drop $100m on an AC challenge if they wanted to. It represents just less than 10% of their net worth. The issue is whether they really wanted to and the answer is no. If it came cheaply enough and had a business logic, then they were happy to be involved, but as soon as costs started to blow out and the business logic changed, it was no longer an interesting proposition. I believe that they were working on a budget of about $50m, based on what they were "promised" when they were briught into the game, and that they expected to raise about $25m through sponsors. With costs looking more like $80m and vastly reduced interest from sponsors, they were looking at something like $55m more. Yes, they could afford it but did they want to pay that? Clearly no.

 

Most very wealthy people I have met don't waste their money, unless it is on something that they are extremely passionate about. Most who waste it on the AC have huge egos and a need to have them stroked. LE is a classic example of that, as was EB, Alan Bond and many more. IMO, the Oatleys don't have any ego. 

 

As to why they would sign the protocol, again, smart people tend to leave matters that they have no real experience of to their advisers. LE has left almost all of the AC stuff of recent years to RC and the team and compared with when he did get involved, they have got the results. I am sure that IM told the Oatleys that the protocol was fine, the OR boys would have said so as well. Sure seems likely that somebody told them that it was possible to stay within their budget.



#241 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,056 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:41 AM

 

 

So yet again, OR/LE/RC say one thing and do another. Both last time and now, they insist that they are doing everything to reduce costs, yet teams are talking big numbers, like $80m by BAR. And now the first team has pulled out because the numbers don't add up and we will see more.

 

Last time around SKM was ripped apart on this forum for saying, among other things, exactly the same as TA are now saying, namely its going to cost too much. Last time and in response, RC and his merry men tried to convince us you could do a campaign for $10m. I wonder what they will say this time.

 

I really don't care what the defender wants to do in terms of affordability and event sustainability. If they want to make it so only a very, very few can afford to compete, fine. If all they care about is running one edition and not worry about the future, like we have always seen in the past, that's also fine by me. However, to publicly say, time and again, that what they care about is making the event affordable, a commercial success and be sustainable yet actually do the opposite is simply bullshit.

 

The Oatley's are pretty smart people. It's been reported that they originally were expecting a protocol that would allow you to be competitive for $50m, based, I suspect, on their discussions with RC, IM and whoever else they needed to speak to. Word is that figure is now closer to $80m and that venue choice might drive that up while making sponsorship less attractive. It's easy to see how they could come to the conclusion that it was time to quit.

 

And is it a coincidence that this has come so soon after the competitor meeting? I doubt it. There must have been more said than we know about so far.

 

So how do you suggest they reduce costs ?

 

Mills criticized the event saying it was not winnable - and proven wrong. .

 

Never knew the back story on the Oatley's challenge, but but I don't think it was RC's top choice as their was some discord over the development at the time. How it was staged is still a question. TE knows and was at odds with RC as a result. Also his finances and net worth of ~ $1B were questioned at the time. If he owns a winery as a money making business that in itself should raise questions. Few wineries are consistently profitable and many are status symbols and tax write-offs for the wealthy.

 

He should stick with his Wild Oats campaign and be happy.

Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?

 

Not necessarily -  and certainly not without looking at the balance sheet at the time of the sale vs what was invested over time and how the books are managed. Their are lots of reasons wineries are sold, and large conglomerates frequently acquire wineries for the brand name, acquisition to grapes, production capacity, distribution networks to enter stronger markets, capital requirements to support new plantings, etc, and not all are consistently profitable. 

 

I think you should avoid talking about things that you clearly don't understand. What does it matter what state Rosemount's balance sheet was in? The Oatley's received a net $584m for the sale. And Rosemount was only part of the portfolio. Forbes rates Bob Oatley's fortune as $860m. I think I would trust them more than your attempts to value his worth.

 

Funny thing just happened. My daughter just got home from school with a friend (I didn't know the friend was coming) - it is the daughter of the guy who runs the Oatley's private investment/holding company. I guess at 15 years old she might not be the person to ask how much the Oatley's are worth..........



#242 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,843 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:07 AM


Yes RC's bargaining ability just took a huge blow. If he really is forced back to negotiating with SF it was be a case of "adopt the position". I know there are many here still banging the drum for SF but I can't see it. Bridges are burned.

 
That's sum pretty utter bullshit right there. The bridges are never burned. SF would be perfectly happy to host the event. They just have to accept that the city is not going to fund the event. So long as the AC is willing to pay its own way, like every one else, then they are welcome to have their party here again. No more special breaks for Billionaires.


What you are describing is precisely "adopt the position". SF laying down terms, take or leave. If you break off a negotiation and then come back with your tail between your legs because you have no alternative, your negotiating power is zero. Do you think LE can be seen to allow his agent to adopt the position?

#243 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:15 AM

 

 

So yet again, OR/LE/RC say one thing and do another. Both last time and now, they insist that they are doing everything to reduce costs, yet teams are talking big numbers, like $80m by BAR. And now the first team has pulled out because the numbers don't add up and we will see more.

 

Last time around SKM was ripped apart on this forum for saying, among other things, exactly the same as TA are now saying, namely its going to cost too much. Last time and in response, RC and his merry men tried to convince us you could do a campaign for $10m. I wonder what they will say this time.

 

I really don't care what the defender wants to do in terms of affordability and event sustainability. If they want to make it so only a very, very few can afford to compete, fine. If all they care about is running one edition and not worry about the future, like we have always seen in the past, that's also fine by me. However, to publicly say, time and again, that what they care about is making the event affordable, a commercial success and be sustainable yet actually do the opposite is simply bullshit.

 

The Oatley's are pretty smart people. It's been reported that they originally were expecting a protocol that would allow you to be competitive for $50m, based, I suspect, on their discussions with RC, IM and whoever else they needed to speak to. Word is that figure is now closer to $80m and that venue choice might drive that up while making sponsorship less attractive. It's easy to see how they could come to the conclusion that it was time to quit.

 

And is it a coincidence that this has come so soon after the competitor meeting? I doubt it. There must have been more said than we know about so far.

 

So how do you suggest they reduce costs ?

 

Mills criticized the event saying it was not winnable - and proven wrong. .

 

Never knew the back story on the Oatley's challenge, but but I don't think it was RC's top choice as their was some discord over the development at the time. How it was staged is still a question. TE knows and was at odds with RC as a result. Also his finances and net worth of ~ $1B were questioned at the time. If he owns a winery as a money making business that in itself should raise questions. Few wineries are consistently profitable and many are status symbols and tax write-offs for the wealthy.

 

He should stick with his Wild Oats campaign and be happy.

Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?

 

Not necessarily -  and certainly not without looking at the balance sheet at the time of the sale vs what was invested over time and how the books are managed. Their are lots of reasons wineries are sold, and large conglomerates frequently acquire wineries for the brand name, acquisition to grapes, production capacity, distribution networks to enter stronger markets, capital requirements to support new plantings, etc, and not all are consistently profitable. 

 

Constellation is a classic example, and another out of France comes to mind but I can't recall at the moment. 

 

What you say may be true in many cases, but the sale of the Oatley companies was very well covered in the financial press at the time of the initial sale to a public company (Southcorp) and later at the time of the sale of the merged companies to the brewing company Fosters. It was widely said that in the financial press that Southcorp paid well over the odds and that the Oatleys garnered huge profits from the deal. 

 

No one in the financial press seems to have doubted that the profits made by the Oatleys were real. As the Melbourne Age said "In early 2001, the Oatley family sold its Rosemount Estate business to Southcorp in a $1.49 billion deal. The purchase is widely considered to have been a financial disaster for Southcorp, and groups including the Australian Shareholders Association have criticised Southcorp for paying too much." The investment was soon written down by 240 million.

 

Southcorp later sold out to Fosters in a deal apparently organised by Bob (IIRC) who was by then on the Southcorp board. The Oatley family still had a considerable shareholding in Rosemount at the time, so they benefited again.

 

There seems to be no reason to doubt the Oatley wealth as you do. The people I know who have sailed with Bob for years have a lot of respect for him and his younger son was a good and unpretentious guy when we sailed against each other, so they don't seem to be the sort of people to exaggerate their wealth.



#244 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,130 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:28 AM

 

 

 

So yet again, OR/LE/RC say one thing and do another. Both last time and now, they insist that they are doing everything to reduce costs, yet teams are talking big numbers, like $80m by BAR. And now the first team has pulled out because the numbers don't add up and we will see more.

 

Last time around SKM was ripped apart on this forum for saying, among other things, exactly the same as TA are now saying, namely its going to cost too much. Last time and in response, RC and his merry men tried to convince us you could do a campaign for $10m. I wonder what they will say this time.

 

I really don't care what the defender wants to do in terms of affordability and event sustainability. If they want to make it so only a very, very few can afford to compete, fine. If all they care about is running one edition and not worry about the future, like we have always seen in the past, that's also fine by me. However, to publicly say, time and again, that what they care about is making the event affordable, a commercial success and be sustainable yet actually do the opposite is simply bullshit.

 

The Oatley's are pretty smart people. It's been reported that they originally were expecting a protocol that would allow you to be competitive for $50m, based, I suspect, on their discussions with RC, IM and whoever else they needed to speak to. Word is that figure is now closer to $80m and that venue choice might drive that up while making sponsorship less attractive. It's easy to see how they could come to the conclusion that it was time to quit.

 

And is it a coincidence that this has come so soon after the competitor meeting? I doubt it. There must have been more said than we know about so far.

 

So how do you suggest they reduce costs ?

 

Mills criticized the event saying it was not winnable - and proven wrong. .

 

Never knew the back story on the Oatley's challenge, but but I don't think it was RC's top choice as their was some discord over the development at the time. How it was staged is still a question. TE knows and was at odds with RC as a result. Also his finances and net worth of ~ $1B were questioned at the time. If he owns a winery as a money making business that in itself should raise questions. Few wineries are consistently profitable and many are status symbols and tax write-offs for the wealthy.

 

He should stick with his Wild Oats campaign and be happy.

Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?

 

Not necessarily -  and certainly not without looking at the balance sheet at the time of the sale vs what was invested over time and how the books are managed. Their are lots of reasons wineries are sold, and large conglomerates frequently acquire wineries for the brand name, acquisition to grapes, production capacity, distribution networks to enter stronger markets, capital requirements to support new plantings, etc, and not all are consistently profitable. 

 

I think you should avoid talking about things that you clearly don't understand. What does it matter what state Rosemount's balance sheet was in? The Oatley's received a net $584m for the sale. And Rosemount was only part of the portfolio. Forbes rates Bob Oatley's fortune as $860m. I think I would trust them more than your attempts to value his worth.

 

Funny thing just happened. My daughter just got home from school with a friend (I didn't know the friend was coming) - it is the daughter of the guy who runs the Oatley's private investment/holding company. I guess at 15 years old she might not be the person to ask how much the Oatley's are worth..........

 

 

Read again Simon, This was no attempt to rate his net worth, which has been reported via several sources and likely involves factors other than his sale of Rosemount.

 

The comment was that the winery was sold for $584M, not that that was what he netted from the sale, but maybe he got the winery for free and didn't invest anything for 30 years, so in your terms the sale price represents 100% profit. Highly unlikely, but maybe you can confirm your contention with a 15 year old or her parents. You missed the mark by a mile with your criticism.

 

Let me put it in simple terms. If you bought a boat for $50K, invested $25K in it, and sold it for $45K, what would your net return from the investment/expenditure be ? You're claiming it would be $45K, and I'm stating it would be $20K.

 

Stick to foils, you sound like TC. 



#245 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 06:39 AM

And as already noted, SWS, the sale of the Oatley companies was VERY widely reported and analysed in the Australian financial press, and no one ever said anything close to what you are saying.

 

The Oatleys were at one stage the richest family in the country. The way they got their money has been well reported, whether it's from in-depth articles to their entries in the Forbes and Business Review Weekly rich lists. 

 

There is no evidence for your insinuations and an enormous amount of evidence against it.

 

Try this thing called Google.....



#246 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 21 July 2014 - 06:42 AM

I think they were expecting some exposure to the Chinese wine market too with a Chinese challenger that didn't materialize. More cost, less potential revenue, more risk is how I see the math..and no AC Oz talent returning

+1



#247 CheekyMonkey

CheekyMonkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:40 AM

Yes RC's bargaining ability just took a huge blow. If he really is forced back to negotiating with SF it was be a case of "adopt the position". I know there are many here still banging the drum for SF but I can't see it. Bridges are burned.

 

That's sum pretty utter bullshit right there. The bridges are never burned. SF would be perfectly happy to host the event. They just have to accept that the city is not going to fund the event. So long as the AC is willing to pay its own way, like every one else, then they are welcome to have their party here again. No more special breaks for Billionaires.

 

It would probably be much easier this time as well, with more realistic expectations on both sides as to what the event requires.

 

And the understanding that the AC needs SF more than the other way around.  But I still doubt that RC or LE realize or accept that.

 

Very few sporting events get to dictate the terms when dealing with 1st-tier host cities.  The AC isn't in that class.



#248 Dead air

Dead air

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 09:01 AM

Apologies if this was already posted but I found it to be very interesting . If four teams won't step up to challenge they will cancel the entire event ?

The New Zealand Herald notes how a provision in the Protocol says a challenge will not be accepted by the Defender until there are at least four challengers. With Team Australia’s withdrawal and a French challenge unlikely to get off the ground, it leaves only four teams – Team New Zealand, Artemis, Luna Rossa and Ben Ainslie’s British syndicate – capable of putting together a campaign. Should they lose another challenger, there will be no event.

 

Quality reporting by the herald again. The relevant bit of the protocol says:

15.3. Restrictions: GGYC will:

(a) not accept any additional challenges for AC35 unless and until at

least three (3) additional challenges complying with Articles 16.1

and 16.2 have been received by GGYC;

 

So there will be an event with the next in line challenge, but unless there are 3 more challengers(total 4), there will be no selection series



#249 angles

angles

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Location:Straya

Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:46 AM

Chinese money is the key he reckons.

Link...



#250 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,162 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 12:08 PM

Chinese money is the key he reckons.

Link...

In other words, all the regulars have been fleeced, now we need to move on to the next (unsuspecting) group



#251 Wildwave

Wildwave

    Newbie

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

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:25 PM

Forget the GGYC Protocol, it is not part of the Deed of Gift, simply issue a Challenge and have a smart Legal team deal with GGYC ~ before worrying about a Sailing team.

#252 FMcCool

FMcCool

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Chesapeake Bay Area

Posted 21 July 2014 - 02:40 PM

Getting to the point where I really dont give a shit about this - too much posturing going on to waste my time following the twists and turns.  The event is not until 2017 - I've got other things to do.  And people wonder why the public does not get all warm and fuzzy about sailing.  They are squandering a lot of good will and momentum with the public generated in SF.  It will be ancient history by the time of the first GP event.



#253 knuckles

knuckles

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:43 PM

Bring back the 12M's :ph34r:



#254 rovanparran

rovanparran

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Location:san francisco
  • Interests:AC

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:57 PM

 

Yes RC's bargaining ability just took a huge blow. If he really is forced back to negotiating with SF it was be a case of "adopt the position". I know there are many here still banging the drum for SF but I can't see it. Bridges are burned.

 
That's sum pretty utter bullshit right there. The bridges are never burned. SF would be perfectly happy to host the event. They just have to accept that the city is not going to fund the event. So long as the AC is willing to pay its own way, like every one else, then they are welcome to have their party here again. No more special breaks for Billionaires.

 

What you are describing is precisely "adopt the position". SF laying down terms, take or leave. If you break off a negotiation and then come back with your tail between your legs because you have no alternative, your negotiating power is zero. Do you think LE can be seen to allow his agent to adopt the position?

yeah, but SF has laid down the gauntlet and no matter what, they are not going to grant concessions demanded. so its just a matter of RC accepting the terms as laid out and making it up on the backend through the improved economics of a bigger market... i'd bet it be a wash in the end and they know that.



#255 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,334 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 06:00 PM

Read again Simon, This was no attempt to rate his net worth, which has been reported via several sources and likely involves factors other than his sale of Rosemount.

 

The comment was that the winery was sold for $584M, not that that was what he netted from the sale, but maybe he got the winery for free and didn't invest anything for 30 years, so in your terms the sale price represents 100% profit. Highly unlikely, but maybe you can confirm your contention with a 15 year old or her parents. You missed the mark by a mile with your criticism.

 

Let me put it in simple terms. If you bought a boat for $50K, invested $25K in it, and sold it for $45K, what would your net return from the investment/expenditure be ? You're claiming it would be $45K, and I'm stating it would be $20K.

 

Stick to foils, you sound like TC. 

^^ I think you know more about foils than Oatley's fortune which is evaluated at 830 M $ by Forbes.

http://www.forbes.co.../robert-oatley/



#256 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,130 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:04 PM

And as already noted, SWS, the sale of the Oatley companies was VERY widely reported and analysed in the Australian financial press, and no one ever said anything close to what you are saying.

 

The Oatleys were at one stage the richest family in the country. The way they got their money has been well reported, whether it's from in-depth articles to their entries in the Forbes and Business Review Weekly rich lists. 

 

There is no evidence for your insinuations and an enormous amount of evidence against it.

 

Try this thing called Google.....

 

It was reported above that it sold for $584M, not that it was what he netted from the sale. Maybe it was reported wrong above, and as far as I'm concerned I don't care what he did or didn't make from the sale, and I don't recall questioning his wealth - that was the first thing brought up when he challenged. More power to him either way if he did well with a winery, it's still a rough business which was my point.

 

Ever heard the expression "want to make a small fortune ? start with a large one and buy a winery".



#257 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 21 July 2014 - 09:31 PM

Chinese money is the key he reckons.

Link...

Interesting comments. Thanks for the link. With regards the supporter-type marketing, I'm not so sure.

 

Supporters Clubs and Red Socks-type campaigns will only work when the AC competition is WELL ADVANCED and your team is winning; showing EVERY sign of success. 

 

I was involved with TNZ's Supporters Club way back and, while it did produce revenue for the Kiwi challenge/defence, it was never in the order of big bucks. There are lots of admin. costs involved here. These funding lines can only really be regarded as a minor top-up to corporate sponsorship.

 

Interestingly, during the Red Socks campaign, NZL had some people bitching when manufacturing of said socks were sent to China - so the manufacturing costs could be reduced, increasing net contribution. Talk about losing the plot!

 

All good ideas, but really only 'feel-good' stuff.



#258 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 21 July 2014 - 10:53 PM

Sailby date... or should that be Used by date!

 

give us some evidence of  what you did in Wellington to support TNZ and Raise money.

 

if your theory is correct then the WINNING and WELL ADVANCED Black Socks team should get mega funding/support/sponsorship and not be Ameatuer!

 

but your theory is bullshit and your story is full of crap!

 

Kiwis give to good causes and good events no matter how well advanced or winning they are.

 

the latest supporter club for ETNZ if a complete flop! why? because the public can see thru the Spin and see a bunch of rich chokers on the gravy train. they see that the support they give is wasted.

 

TNZ did go to Wellington to show national support. mY reliable SOURCES SAID THE REGATTA WAS POOR, THE MONEY RAISED (V THE MONEY SPENT) was poor and was a interference to their program.

 

As for the red sock bullshit. you are wrong there too! NZ companies could make the socks and provide the same margin! many came forward. Blake and co got that wrong. plus making them locally kept employment in that market up and added to the countries bottom line! (justification for locals to sponsor/give) Importing was only ever going to benefit slave labour promotion in China!

 

Soiled your date! your post just says... we tried - we failed - here are the excuses.

 

little fish in a little pond!... MATE!



#259 Calico Jack

Calico Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Location:At Sea

Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:08 PM

So where is that trash talking piece of Shitall, about time he puffed his little chest out and did his little bully boy act on Iain Murray and the Oatleys.....Russ too not doing his normal spray of petulance when things don't go his way.

It a shame they didn't take some of Dalts issues seriously and seek to address them at the time he raised them instead of the little tantrum that you wouldn't accept from a three year old

As for IM, abject failure last time and another epic fail this time....I see he states that he was happy with the protocol except for issues re multi venue, costs, media rights and ISAF....wtf was he happy with...the brand of coffee in the office and the number of PA's the various CEO's could shag?

#260 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,056 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 22 July 2014 - 12:37 AM

And as already noted, SWS, the sale of the Oatley companies was VERY widely reported and analysed in the Australian financial press, and no one ever said anything close to what you are saying.

 

The Oatleys were at one stage the richest family in the country. The way they got their money has been well reported, whether it's from in-depth articles to their entries in the Forbes and Business Review Weekly rich lists. 

 

There is no evidence for your insinuations and an enormous amount of evidence against it.

 

Try this thing called Google.....

 

It was reported above that it sold for $584M, not that it was what he netted from the sale. Maybe it was reported wrong above, and as far as I'm concerned I don't care what he did or didn't make from the sale, and I don't recall questioning his wealth - that was the first thing brought up when he challenged. More power to him either way if he did well with a winery, it's still a rough business which was my point.

 

Ever heard the expression "want to make a small fortune ? start with a large one and buy a winery".

And I used to think you were a reasonable person!

 

First off, if you read above, the $584m is what Oatley netted from the deal which was actually worth a lot more. Secondly, Oatley built Rosemount from scratch and that $584m represents the profit he made from Rosemount. He certainly didn't have any fortune when he started Rosemount, never mind a large one. Since Rosemount, he has started again in wineries and his net worth grew as a result. Now, in california, wineries might be a way that the rich throw away money, but don't judge others by the failures of your countrymen. ;)  

 

And the bottom line is that despite your efforts to suggest otherwise, Oatley could afford to fund an AC team but decided not to. Instead of attacking people for deciding that AC35 isn't as good as RC and his cronies want to make out, maybe considering why others think there are problems would be more constructive. On the other hand, you could simply continue the well worn tradition on here of attacking anybody who dares to withdraw from a circus that they don't need to be part of in the first place.



#261 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 12:53 AM

 

And as already noted, SWS, the sale of the Oatley companies was VERY widely reported and analysed in the Australian financial press, and no one ever said anything close to what you are saying.

 

The Oatleys were at one stage the richest family in the country. The way they got their money has been well reported, whether it's from in-depth articles to their entries in the Forbes and Business Review Weekly rich lists. 

 

There is no evidence for your insinuations and an enormous amount of evidence against it.

 

Try this thing called Google.....

 

It was reported above that it sold for $584M, not that it was what he netted from the sale. Maybe it was reported wrong above, and as far as I'm concerned I don't care what he did or didn't make from the sale, and I don't recall questioning his wealth - that was the first thing brought up when he challenged. More power to him either way if he did well with a winery, it's still a rough business which was my point.

 

Ever heard the expression "want to make a small fortune ? start with a large one and buy a winery".

And I used to think you were a reasonable person!

 

First off, if you read above, the $584m is what Oatley netted from the deal which was actually worth a lot more. Secondly, Oatley built Rosemount from scratch and that $584m represents the profit he made from Rosemount. He certainly didn't have any fortune when he started Rosemount, never mind a large one. Since Rosemount, he has started again in wineries and his net worth grew as a result. Now, in california, wineries might be a way that the rich throw away money, but don't judge others by the failures of your countrymen. ;)  

 

And the bottom line is that despite your efforts to suggest otherwise, Oatley could afford to fund an AC team but decided not to. Instead of attacking people for deciding that AC35 isn't as good as RC and his cronies want to make out, maybe considering why others think there are problems would be more constructive. On the other hand, you could simply continue the well worn tradition on here of attacking anybody who dares to withdraw from a circus that they don't need to be part of in the first place.

 

So let me get this straight. Challengers are expected to go to sponsors asking for XXX millions of dollars for an event with unknown date that will be held in an unknown location.

 

Interesting how the AC has come full circle, EB killed it and now Larry has done the same.The commonality between these two situations  - Coutts. Remove Coutts and the AC just might live again.

At this point it's fast losing relevance not just in yachting but competitive sport.



#262 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,224 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 01:02 AM

^^ Agreed the Oatley family ~could~ fund it if they were passionate enough but the gap is just too big for their appetite.

If anyone's goal is to be able to take the Cup off of anyone for next to nothing, well history suggests a dream like that is just fantasy. It's a pretty Big game, you get your name down in History books for winning the damn thing. And finances are only one of the parts you have to nail better than the Defender.

#263 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,056 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 22 July 2014 - 01:29 AM

^^ Agreed the Oatley family ~could~ fund it if they were passionate enough but the gap is just too big for their appetite.

If anyone's goal is to be able to take the Cup off of anyone for next to nothing, well history suggests a dream like that is just fantasy. It's a pretty Big game, your get your name down in History books for winning the damn thing. And finances are only one of the parts you have to nail better than the Defender.

I don't think anybody is saying what you are suggesting. However, even the defender, with RC in particular, is saying it has been too expensive and costs need to be cut. They also agree that the event has to be attractive enough that teams can get sponsorship and that teams shouldn't need to rely on a B to fund it. In recent times, the reality is that only one team has managed to raise enough sponsorship to be competitive and they would have failed without Government support - and if a Government isn't the equivalent of a B, I don't know what is!

 

My issue is never about how much it costs, because this is the AC. My issue is about saying one thing and doing another. And it seems to me that is why the Oatleys pulled out. The reality didn't match what they had been told.



#264 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,224 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 01:45 AM

Seems to me that LE wants a premier event and is not willing to lower costs to unrealistically cheap levels.

44' Optimists would be a tragedy, the America's Cup line does need to be drawn somewhere. It needs to be a Challenge worthy of History.

If you want to play only at RC44 levels, or SH levels, well then there you go. The choice is free.

#265 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 22 July 2014 - 02:48 AM

Sailby date... or should that be Used by date!

 

give us some evidence of  what you did in Wellington to support TNZ and Raise money. 

 

if your theory is correct then the WINNING and WELL ADVANCED Black Socks team should get mega funding/support/sponsorship and not be Ameatuer!

 

but your theory is bullshit and your story is full of crap!

 

Kiwis give to good causes and good events no matter how well advanced or winning they are.

 

the latest supporter club for ETNZ if a complete flop! why? because the public can see thru the Spin and see a bunch of rich chokers on the gravy train. they see that the support they give is wasted.

 

TNZ did go to Wellington to show national support. mY reliable SOURCES SAID THE REGATTA WAS POOR, THE MONEY RAISED (V THE MONEY SPENT) was poor and was a interference to their program.

 

As for the red sock bullshit. you are wrong there too! NZ companies could make the socks and provide the same margin! many came forward. Blake and co got that wrong. plus making them locally kept employment in that market up and added to the countries bottom line! (justification for locals to sponsor/give) Importing was only ever going to benefit slave labour promotion in China!

 

Soiled your date! your post just says... we tried - we failed - here are the excuses.

 

little fish in a little pond!... MATE!

You really are a despicable little cunt. And as usual, you're full of shit.

 

Actually, I was involved in developing the TNZ Supporters Club together with Sir Peter and his Business Manager, Ross Blackman (through Direct Marketing Agency, AIM Direct). I lived and worked in Auckland in those years. I've since lived and worked in Christchurch and North and South Canterbury, but am now retired in Wellington.

 

So what 'actual experience' do you have, you useless piece of shit?

 

It's clear to me you wouldn't know shit from clay - or whether you're punched, bored, screwed or gnawed out by rats. What is clear also, is you're a pathetic, hollow man. I won't bother waiting for your apology.



#266 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,130 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:21 AM

 

And as already noted, SWS, the sale of the Oatley companies was VERY widely reported and analysed in the Australian financial press, and no one ever said anything close to what you are saying.

 

The Oatleys were at one stage the richest family in the country. The way they got their money has been well reported, whether it's from in-depth articles to their entries in the Forbes and Business Review Weekly rich lists. 

 

There is no evidence for your insinuations and an enormous amount of evidence against it.

 

Try this thing called Google.....

 

It was reported above that it sold for $584M, not that it was what he netted from the sale. Maybe it was reported wrong above, and as far as I'm concerned I don't care what he did or didn't make from the sale, and I don't recall questioning his wealth - that was the first thing brought up when he challenged. More power to him either way if he did well with a winery, it's still a rough business which was my point.

 

Ever heard the expression "want to make a small fortune ? start with a large one and buy a winery".

And I used to think you were a reasonable person!

 

First off, if you read above, the $584m is what Oatley netted from the deal which was actually worth a lot more. Secondly, Oatley built Rosemount from scratch and that $584m represents the profit he made from Rosemount. He certainly didn't have any fortune when he started Rosemount, never mind a large one. Since Rosemount, he has started again in wineries and his net worth grew as a result. Now, in california, wineries might be a way that the rich throw away money, but don't judge others by the failures of your countrymen. ;)  

 

And the bottom line is that despite your efforts to suggest otherwise, Oatley could afford to fund an AC team but decided not to. Instead of attacking people for deciding that AC35 isn't as good as RC and his cronies want to make out, maybe considering why others think there are problems would be more constructive. On the other hand, you could simply continue the well worn tradition on here of attacking anybody who dares to withdraw from a circus that they don't need to be part of in the first place.

 

And I used to think you could read too. As reported above, to which I responded;

 

Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?

 

And while you're at it, instead of making shit up like TC, why don't you highlight where I've declared how great AC35 is ? Personally their is a lot I don't like about the "commercialization" of the event, and have stated so for over four years. Their is also a fair amount I don't like with the protocol, but I believe that rests with IM as a full-out effort to reduce costs. I already asked you how you would reduce costs, but you failed to respond, so I'll ask again. Easy to bitch about by claiming they state this yet do something else, but where is your solution ?

 

And where in the hell am I questioning Oatley's wealth ? Pretty much public information and I honestly don't care. He's well off, I'm happy for him. I really don't care if he chooses or declines to challenge, and I don't fault him either way, so quit fabricating issues. You used to be better than that - with this post you sound just like TC. 

 

The handling of the venue is just another aspect of the commercialization of the event that I don't like. I can't even believe Chicago was even seriously considered. Talk to anyone who's done the Chicago Mac even just a few times about wind conditions and the answer is obvious.



#267 Aaargh!

Aaargh!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:29 AM

I don't think anybody is saying what you are suggesting. However, even the defender, with RC in particular, is saying it has been too expensive and costs need to be cut. They also agree that the event has to be attractive enough that teams can get sponsorship and that teams shouldn't need to rely on a B to fund it. In recent times, the reality is that only one team has managed to raise enough sponsorship to be competitive and they would have failed without Government support - and if a Government isn't the equivalent of a B, I don't know what is!

 

My issue is never about how much it costs, because this is the AC. My issue is about saying one thing and doing another. And it seems to me that is why the Oatleys pulled out. The reality didn't match what they had been told.

 

The Oatleys entered thinking that they could turn the AC into a one-design competition, and in that regard they were clearly delusional.

 

They actually achieved a remarkable set of compromises and cost cutting measures- smaller boat, one boat per team, virtually one-design wing, fairly tightly restricted platform, with a resulting reduction in the size of the sailing, design and shore teams. The Oatleys could have competed by getting another team such as Oracle or ETNZ to design and build their wing and platform, much like Luna Rossa did with ETNZ last time, focusing on the foil design to try to get a competitive advantage.

 

This would have reduced their costs to quite low levels, particularly when coupled to a low-cost talent acquisition program such as the one they had pursued with aspiring young sailors.

 

But what they were never going to be able to control was what the other teams spend. Regardless of whether HIYC could have competed for $30 mill or $50 mill, other teams such as Oracle, Artemis and LR are obviously quite happy to spend two or three times that amount. Jesus, if the America's Cup was held in Etchells Larry would probably still spend $100 million.

 

This is what they didn't understand - when Larry and Russell talk about reducing costs, they meant reducing costs so that more teams could enter, not capping costs so that it was a true level playing field. Larry (and the other billionaires) will always outspend the other teams if it will help him win, and that is what prevents true cost reduction occurring.



#268 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,130 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:42 AM

I don't think anybody is saying what you are suggesting. However, even the defender, with RC in particular, is saying it has been too expensive and costs need to be cut. They also agree that the event has to be attractive enough that teams can get sponsorship and that teams shouldn't need to rely on a B to fund it. In recent times, the reality is that only one team has managed to raise enough sponsorship to be competitive and they would have failed without Government support - and if a Government isn't the equivalent of a B, I don't know what is!

 

My issue is never about how much it costs, because this is the AC. My issue is about saying one thing and doing another. And it seems to me that is why the Oatleys pulled out. The reality didn't match what they had been told.

 

The Oatleys entered thinking that they could turn the AC into a one-design competition, and in that regard they were clearly delusional.

 

They actually achieved a remarkable set of compromises and cost cutting measures- smaller boat, one boat per team, virtually one-design wing, fairly tightly restricted platform, with a resulting reduction in the size of the sailing, design and shore teams. The Oatleys could have competed by getting another team such as Oracle or ETNZ to design and build their wing and platform, much like Luna Rossa did with ETNZ last time, focusing on the foil design to try to get a competitive advantage.

 

This would have reduced their costs to quite low levels, particularly when coupled to a low-cost talent acquisition program such as the one they had pursued with aspiring young sailors.

 

But what they were never going to be able to control was what the other teams spend. Regardless of whether HIYC could have competed for $30 mill or $50 mill, other teams such as Oracle, Artemis and LR are obviously quite happy to spend two or three times that amount. Jesus, if the America's Cup was held in Etchells Larry would probably still spend $100 million.

 

This is what they didn't understand - when Larry and Russell talk about reducing costs, they meant reducing costs so that more teams could enter, not capping costs so that it was a true level playing field. Larry (and the other billionaires) will always outspend the other teams if it will help him win, and that is what prevents true cost reduction occurring.

 

Spot on assessment of the situation.



#269 Flippin Out

Flippin Out

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:43 AM

 

 

And as already noted, SWS, the sale of the Oatley companies was VERY widely reported and analysed in the Australian financial press, and no one ever said anything close to what you are saying.

 

The Oatleys were at one stage the richest family in the country. The way they got their money has been well reported, whether it's from in-depth articles to their entries in the Forbes and Business Review Weekly rich lists. 

 

There is no evidence for your insinuations and an enormous amount of evidence against it.

 

Try this thing called Google.....

 

It was reported above that it sold for $584M, not that it was what he netted from the sale. Maybe it was reported wrong above, and as far as I'm concerned I don't care what he did or didn't make from the sale, and I don't recall questioning his wealth - that was the first thing brought up when he challenged. More power to him either way if he did well with a winery, it's still a rough business which was my point.

 

Ever heard the expression "want to make a small fortune ? start with a large one and buy a winery".

And I used to think you were a reasonable person!

 

First off, if you read above, the $584m is what Oatley netted from the deal which was actually worth a lot more. Secondly, Oatley built Rosemount from scratch and that $584m represents the profit he made from Rosemount. He certainly didn't have any fortune when he started Rosemount, never mind a large one. Since Rosemount, he has started again in wineries and his net worth grew as a result. Now, in california, wineries might be a way that the rich throw away money, but don't judge others by the failures of your countrymen. ;)  

 

And the bottom line is that despite your efforts to suggest otherwise, Oatley could afford to fund an AC team but decided not to. Instead of attacking people for deciding that AC35 isn't as good as RC and his cronies want to make out, maybe considering why others think there are problems would be more constructive. On the other hand, you could simply continue the well worn tradition on here of attacking anybody who dares to withdraw from a circus that they don't need to be part of in the first place.

 

And I used to think you could read too. As reported above, to which I responded;

 

Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?

 

And while you're at it, instead of making shit up like TC, why don't you highlight where I've declared how great AC35 is ? Personally their is a lot I don't like about the "commercialization" of the event, and have stated so for over four years. Their is also a fair amount I don't like with the protocol, but I believe that rests with IM as a full-out effort to reduce costs. I already asked you how you would reduce costs, but you failed to respond, so I'll ask again.

 

And where in the hell am I questioning Oatley's wealth ? Pretty much public information and I honestly don't care. He's well off, I'm happy for him. I really don't care if he chooses or declines to challenge, and I don't fault him either way, so quit fabricating issues. You used to be better than that. 

 

The handling of the venue is just another aspect of the commercialization of the event that I don't like. I can't even believe Chicago was even seriously considered. Talk to anyone who's done the Chicago Mac even just a few times about wind conditions and the answer is obvious.

Just for the record, my comment "Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?" was in response to yours "Also his finances and net worth of ~ $1B were questioned at the time. If he owns a winery as a money making business that in itself should raise questions. Few wineries are consistently profitable and many are status symbols and tax write-offs for the wealthy."

 

My interpretation of your comment was that you were questioning his wealth as you stated few wineries were profitable and many used as a tax write off. I was pointing out the fact that his wineries obviously were profitable and not just a tax write off given the sale price of one of them.



#270 sunseeker

sunseeker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,575 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:53 AM

The challenge was fine they just fucked up and trusted cooter for too long.

#271 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,130 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:58 AM

 

 

 

And as already noted, SWS, the sale of the Oatley companies was VERY widely reported and analysed in the Australian financial press, and no one ever said anything close to what you are saying.

 

The Oatleys were at one stage the richest family in the country. The way they got their money has been well reported, whether it's from in-depth articles to their entries in the Forbes and Business Review Weekly rich lists. 

 

There is no evidence for your insinuations and an enormous amount of evidence against it.

 

Try this thing called Google.....

 

It was reported above that it sold for $584M, not that it was what he netted from the sale. Maybe it was reported wrong above, and as far as I'm concerned I don't care what he did or didn't make from the sale, and I don't recall questioning his wealth - that was the first thing brought up when he challenged. More power to him either way if he did well with a winery, it's still a rough business which was my point.

 

Ever heard the expression "want to make a small fortune ? start with a large one and buy a winery".

And I used to think you were a reasonable person!

 

First off, if you read above, the $584m is what Oatley netted from the deal which was actually worth a lot more. Secondly, Oatley built Rosemount from scratch and that $584m represents the profit he made from Rosemount. He certainly didn't have any fortune when he started Rosemount, never mind a large one. Since Rosemount, he has started again in wineries and his net worth grew as a result. Now, in california, wineries might be a way that the rich throw away money, but don't judge others by the failures of your countrymen. ;)  

 

And the bottom line is that despite your efforts to suggest otherwise, Oatley could afford to fund an AC team but decided not to. Instead of attacking people for deciding that AC35 isn't as good as RC and his cronies want to make out, maybe considering why others think there are problems would be more constructive. On the other hand, you could simply continue the well worn tradition on here of attacking anybody who dares to withdraw from a circus that they don't need to be part of in the first place.

 

And I used to think you could read too. As reported above, to which I responded;

 

Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?

 

And while you're at it, instead of making shit up like TC, why don't you highlight where I've declared how great AC35 is ? Personally their is a lot I don't like about the "commercialization" of the event, and have stated so for over four years. Their is also a fair amount I don't like with the protocol, but I believe that rests with IM as a full-out effort to reduce costs. I already asked you how you would reduce costs, but you failed to respond, so I'll ask again.

 

And where in the hell am I questioning Oatley's wealth ? Pretty much public information and I honestly don't care. He's well off, I'm happy for him. I really don't care if he chooses or declines to challenge, and I don't fault him either way, so quit fabricating issues. You used to be better than that. 

 

The handling of the venue is just another aspect of the commercialization of the event that I don't like. I can't even believe Chicago was even seriously considered. Talk to anyone who's done the Chicago Mac even just a few times about wind conditions and the answer is obvious.

Just for the record, my comment "Would the fact that he sold his winery Rosemount to Fosters (Southcorp Wines) for $584m in 2005 make you want to change that line of thought ?" was in response to yours "Also his finances and net worth of ~ $1B were questioned at the time. If he owns a winery as a money making business that in itself should raise questions. Few wineries are consistently profitable and many are status symbols and tax write-offs for the wealthy."

 

My interpretation of your comment was that you were questioning his wealth as you stated few wineries were profitable and many used as a tax write off. I was pointing out the fact that his wineries obviously were profitable and not just a tax write off given the sale price of one of them.

 

Yes, and questioned when he initially challenged in the context of would he really want to fund an AC challenge given his net worth,which was openly published ?

 

It's not that hard to keep things in proper context.

 

Given he sold the winery ~nine~ years ago should answer your question about wineries profitability.



#272 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 22 July 2014 - 04:26 AM

SAIL BY DATE. -

WITH LANGAUGE LIKE THAT IT IS EASY TO SEE WHY YIOU FAILED.

 

AND IT ALSO REFLECTETS BADLY ON YOUR TEMPER!... hardly the post of a business man with class / skill and morality.

 

Thanks for the back ground info!. Anybody who associated with that lot (Blackman) surely is worthy of the criticism they so rightly deserve.

 

I may not know shit from clay but I  can smell a bullshitter/skite a mile of. and you sir are "mission accomplished!"

 

as for all your jobs! well that may mean you were "moved on" quite a lot.



#273 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

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

Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:31 AM

I don't think anybody is saying what you are suggesting. However, even the defender, with RC in particular, is saying it has been too expensive and costs need to be cut. They also agree that the event has to be attractive enough that teams can get sponsorship and that teams shouldn't need to rely on a B to fund it. In recent times, the reality is that only one team has managed to raise enough sponsorship to be competitive and they would have failed without Government support - and if a Government isn't the equivalent of a B, I don't know what is!

 

My issue is never about how much it costs, because this is the AC. My issue is about saying one thing and doing another. And it seems to me that is why the Oatleys pulled out. The reality didn't match what they had been told.

 

If you think "a Government isn't the equivalent of a B, I don't know what is!" you are dreaming .. A billionaire will spent whatever his team wants and his team only has to please his ego ..

 

A sponsored team has to provide value to their sponsors plus extra value to the government who is also sponsoring them .. in the case of ETNZ the government sponsorship was conditional on the team raising $2 for every $1 provided by the government with an upper limit on the governments contribution ...

 

In addition all the teams spending in NZ was taxed so the government contribution was close to nothing .

 

Sweet dreams .



#274 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:40 AM

SAIL BY DATE. -

WITH LANGAUGE LIKE THAT IT IS EASY TO SEE WHY YIOU FAILED.

 

AND IT ALSO REFLECTETS BADLY ON YOUR TEMPER!... hardly the post of a business man with class / skill and morality.

 

Thanks for the back ground info!. Anybody who associated with that lot (Blackman) surely is worthy of the criticism they so rightly deserve.

 

I may not know shit from clay but I  can smell a bullshitter/skite a mile of. and you sir are "mission accomplished!"

 

as for all your jobs! well that may mean you were "moved on" quite a lot.

Being self-employed, I had the ability to move myself on, as and when planned. So you struck out again. Too bad.

 

And, as for the record Ross Blackman, I found an honourable guy, with lots of talent. Not at all like you, apparently. 



#275 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,654 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 22 July 2014 - 12:40 PM

The challenge was fine they just fucked up and trusted cooter for too long.

 


it is fucking fascinating that anyone is surprised by Coutts' total inability to accomplish any business or marketing goal at all.  He has never proved he has any such ability whatsoever - quite the opposite, in fact.  And this despite the fact that he has more access to more billionaires/potential AC challengers than anyone in the sport.  



#276 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,919 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 22 July 2014 - 04:01 PM


http://www.sail-worl...icas-Cup/124769

#277 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 22 July 2014 - 05:19 PM


The challenge was fine they just fucked up and trusted cooter for too long.

 

it is fucking fascinating that anyone is surprised by Coutts' total inability to accomplish any business or marketing goal at all.  He has never proved he has any such ability whatsoever - quite the opposite, in fact.  And this despite the fact that he has more access to more billionaires/potential AC challengers than anyone in the sport.  
RC44

#278 edouard

edouard

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts
  • Interests:Leisure sailing for 35 years with anything windpowered from Hobies to Classic Keelboats

Posted 22 July 2014 - 05:33 PM

 


The challenge was fine they just fucked up and trusted cooter for too long.

 

it is fucking fascinating that anyone is surprised by Coutts' total inability to accomplish any business or marketing goal at all.  He has never proved he has any such ability whatsoever - quite the opposite, in fact.  And this despite the fact that he has more access to more billionaires/potential AC challengers than anyone in the sport.  
RC44

By marketing goals I think Mr Clean meant "other than his personal interest". You know, something approaching the role of Chief Executive Officer of an organization comprising other individuals.

 

P.S: have you ever noticed that the RC44 and the AC45 have a common denominator? They both have to have removable sterns to fit into a 40ft container, requiring additional molds and high precision and expensive manufacturing. Only a minor thing for craft intended from the outset to be moved around by cargo from one race venue to the other.



#279 JMOD

JMOD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • Interests:the usual stuff

Posted 22 July 2014 - 06:06 PM

is it time to launch a challenger from the Dead man's flat yacht club?



#280 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 06:07 PM

Bad mouth Coutts all you want but there is no one who has an honest opinion that wouldn't want him heading up, organizing, picking the components, and running their team.

There is no one better.

 

As far as marketing goes, I would rather have the self-proclaimed marketing genius... Clean.



#281 bwwooster

bwwooster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • Interests:Sailing, restoring funky old cars and my dear old California Golden Bears.

Posted 22 July 2014 - 06:22 PM

Y'know, we keep seeing good suggestions here and in the Griffin and Gladwell posts, but I'm not holding my breath for a happy conclusion. Every AC team principal/backer, especially guys like Larry Ellison,  got there by standing on opponents' toes and never blinking. They'd rather die than back down, that's who they are and how they got there.

 

Until they can rationalize to themselves that concessions and compromise aren't 'giving in' or 'being a loser,' but rather to see what they're giving up as an investment in the future of the series, things just aren't going to improve.



#282 edouard

edouard

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts
  • Interests:Leisure sailing for 35 years with anything windpowered from Hobies to Classic Keelboats

Posted 22 July 2014 - 06:26 PM

Bad mouth Coutts all you want but there is no one who has an honest opinion that wouldn't want him heading up, organizing, picking the components, and running their team.

There is no one better.

 

As far as marketing goes, I would rather have the self-proclaimed marketing genius... Clean.

 

How sad you can't afford his genius at heading the best funded teams (he wasn't "heading the organization" in 1995,2000 and 2003). You would have the Cup and plenty of spoog on your face.



#283 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 06:35 PM

Bad mouth Coutts all you want but there is no one who has an honest opinion that wouldn't want him heading up, organizing, picking the components, and running their team.
There is no one better.
 
As far as marketing goes, I would rather have the self-proclaimed marketing genius... Clean.

 
How sad you can't afford his genius at heading the best funded teams (he wasn't "heading the organization" in 1995,2000 and 2003). You would have the Cup and plenty of spoog on your face.

not sure what your point is but always interested in make-up quality spooge. I suspect you don't equipment required to make any.

#284 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:18 PM

Clean, what are you smoking man!

 

Coutts is very successful at winning and marketing AC campaigns. The NZ defence was excellent at you must be fucking mad if you think the last event was not anything but "gob smacking" brilliant.

 

its not Russ's job to organise pissant countries with eyes bigger than their wallets! the AC is never cheap!

 

the challengers need to stop moaning, get fiscal. and get organised.

 

their excuses around funding do not wash! they just need to pay the deposit and then work the thing out! ETNZ nearly did last time.

 

Also it is not SIR RUSS's decision alone. I think you will find Larry and a few other executives have some input.

 

Russ could have been tougher and said...

 

all sponsors must be National companies ( no overseas funding)

 

Boats must be built in USA

 

no teams trialling together...

 

Easy for people on a forum to bag Russ from behind a keyboard!.... but he has the cup, has had it more than anyone in the modern era, and has evolved it through many excellent changes that have seen the best of marine technology on show.

 

 

more than can be said of the previous 100 years of muppetness!!!

 

for a guy that is supposed to be "well informed" that post is suprising!



#285 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:22 PM

SAIL BY FATE...

 

move yourself on before the shite hit the fan.... is what I heard.

 

Ask Ross next time you see him how much he and Sefton "liberated"from TNZ before trying to hand over to Russ and brad!



#286 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 23 July 2014 - 12:35 AM

Bad mouth Coutts all you want but there is no one who has an honest opinion that wouldn't want him heading up, organizing, picking the components, and running their team.

There is no one better.

 

As far as marketing goes, I would rather have the self-proclaimed marketing genius... Clean.

 

Bullshit. Coutts is a winner because he has never had resource or monetary constrains, and has always tilted the field in his favour. 



#287 Trafficker

Trafficker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:15 AM

Dana re-hashing the past and asking lots of questions:

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11297503



#288 webfish

webfish

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Bay of Islands

Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:29 AM

Dana re-hashing the past and asking lots of questions:

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11297503

 

I also thought that was a terrible piece of journalism.



#289 sunseeker

sunseeker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,575 posts

Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:39 AM


Dana re-hashing the past and asking lots of questions:
http://www.nzherald....jectid=11297503

 
I also thought that was a terrible piece of journalism.

I thought it was pretty accurate.

#290 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,224 posts

Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:48 AM

It's a bunch of godawful nonsense but apparently drama-queen Herbie J was tasked to try come up with something, anything. Being the NZ Herald's new 'AC Expert' she asked a bunch of inane questions instead of even trying to answer anything correctly.

There's an equally vacuous piece by Pierre at Vsail, there is no real point made anywhere in it.

#291 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,130 posts

Posted 23 July 2014 - 03:52 AM

Bad mouth Coutts all you want but there is no one who has an honest opinion that wouldn't want him heading up, organizing, picking the components, and running their team.

There is no one better.

 

As far as marketing goes, I would rather have the self-proclaimed marketing genius... Clean.

 

Bullshit. Coutts is a winner because he has never had resource or monetary constrains, and has always tilted the field in his favour. 

 

Yup, and his sailing skills obviously suck too. Only every won it by bending the rules.



#292 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 23 July 2014 - 04:36 AM

What utter crap.

 

 

 

tell me one AC skipper or GM or CEO that has not been funded well.
 

Coutts won the cup for NZ with the least funding of that regatta.

 

jc you are just a troll that post with inaccurate information and obvious bias against winners.

 

go to...

 

imaloser@jerkoff.com

 

you can be king pin there!



#293 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 23 July 2014 - 04:47 AM

Getting to the point where I really dont give a shit about this - too much posturing going on to waste my time following the twists and turns.  The event is not until 2017 - I've got other things to do.  And people wonder why the public does not get all warm and fuzzy about sailing.  They are squandering a lot of good will and momentum with the public generated in SF.  It will be ancient history by the time of the first GP event.

^ this

 

at least we have real race, the Volvo to fill the void.



#294 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 23 July 2014 - 04:51 AM

What utter crap.

 

 

 

tell me one AC skipper or GM or CEO that has not been funded well.
 

Coutts won the cup for NZ with the least funding of that regatta.

 

jc you are just a troll that post with inaccurate information and obvious bias against winners.

 

go to...

 

imaloser@jerkoff.com

 

you can be king pin there!

 

giphy.gif



#295 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,130 posts

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:15 AM

Getting to the point where I really dont give a shit about this - too much posturing going on to waste my time following the twists and turns.  The event is not until 2017 - I've got other things to do.  And people wonder why the public does not get all warm and fuzzy about sailing.  They are squandering a lot of good will and momentum with the public generated in SF.  It will be ancient history by the time of the first GP event.

^ this

 

at least we have real race, the Volvo to fill the void.

 out

 

Last I checked you're free to leave. Don't let the door hit you on the face on the way out.



#296 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:17 AM

 


Dana re-hashing the past and asking lots of questions:
http://www.nzherald....jectid=11297503

 
I also thought that was a terrible piece of journalism.

I thought it was pretty accurate.

 

I think it's pretty accurate as well.

 

The Aussie challenge had wealthy backers in the Oatley's, but they're not rich enough to fund the campaign themselves and finding sponsors is difficult while RC stuffs around with the venue.

 

Plus they lost a lot of sailing talent to the other teams and they probably realized it would be big struggle to be competitive.

 

The Oatley's are smart businessmen though - no need to throw good money after bad - just pull the pin and save the rest of their fortune.

 

I doubt this will be the only team that doesn't make it to the starting line in 2017.



#297 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,843 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:06 AM

Y'know, we keep seeing good suggestions here and in the Griffin and Gladwell posts, but I'm not holding my breath for a happy conclusion. Every AC team principal/backer, especially guys like Larry Ellison,  got there by standing on opponents' toes and never blinking. They'd rather die than back down, that's who they are and how they got there.

Which is precisely why I think those who think the demise of Team AUS brings SF back into play are in for disappointment a second time.

#298 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,843 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:08 AM

It's a bunch of godawful nonsense but apparently drama-queen Herbie J was tasked to try come up with something, anything. Being the NZ Herald's new 'AC Expert' she asked a bunch of inane questions instead of even trying to answer anything correctly.

I'm not a Dana fan but basically Dana is saying the same as everybody on SA and elsewhere, which is, fuck knows what happens now.

#299 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:38 AM

Y'know, we keep seeing good suggestions here and in the Griffin and Gladwell posts, but I'm not holding my breath for a happy conclusion. Every AC team principal/backer, especially guys like Larry Ellison,  got there by standing on opponents' toes and never blinking. They'd rather die than back down, that's who they are and how they got there.

Which is precisely why I think those who think the demise of Team AUS brings SF back into play are in for disappointment a second time.

+1



#300 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,056 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:55 AM

I am curious. Has any of the defender apologists attempted to defend the unreasonable length of time it is taking to select a venue. Has any defender ever taken this long? Does RC really believe that taking this amount of time is good for the event and helps the challengers in any way, never mind in the important matter of getting sponsors. It's a simple fact that there is too much of a gap between when the protocol was announced and the venue being chosen. It is also true that the majority, if not all of the challengers don't want to go where RC wants to sail.

 

Now, it is the defenders right to choose the venue and if RC did it in a timely manner, it doesn't matter whether the challengers like it or not. But to spend forever choosing the venue and then choosing one that nobody wants, that's a joke. Moreover, to demand entry money and bonds when there isn't even a venue selected is unreasonable.

 

Again, we hear one thing from RC and LE, but their actions suggest something else. They consistently tell us that they are trying to develop a format that is commercially viable for the event organisers and the teams alike, but the teams aren't happy and say that what RC is doing is hurting. RC makes throw away comments about wanting quality over quantity, yet he has yet to produce either. Last time around, there was only 1 challenger even close to the game. RC's view on numbers is, I believe, deeply flawed. 10 challengers from 10 different countries, even if some are weak, gets more interest from media and sponsors than 3 or 4 competitors. That is so basic that it's hard to believe he doesn't understand it.

 

Simply put, while RC is probably the best person around to run an AC team, maybe the best ever, he has failed really badly with his attempts to set up professional sailing on a commercial basis, something he has stated is his aim. He has bored us to tears about how the AC needs to be commercially viable for all, particularly the challengers. Yet he has zero idea in how to achieve it and when he goes to outsiders for help, he bets on the wrong guys. The funny thing is that most observers with any sense said from the start he had employed the wrong people.

 

RC should stick to what he knows, running teams to win the AC. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users