The last Trustee? Options

[HHN92]

The biggest stumbling block is trying to keep the multiple challenger format whilst giving the defender a chance to keep the Cup. (I'm sure I'll get abuse for that comment).

You won't get any abuse from me, what you say is absolutely the truth. When the NYYC allowed a Challenger selection series, they sealed their fate. They were guaranteed to lose the cup sooner or later (it was four regattas later).

A potential modification (not that it will happen) that could be a compromise between pre 1970 practice and current practice would be to allow the challenging yacht club to hold a challenger selection series with yachts from the challenger's country, concurrent with the defender selection series. This gives each yacht club the chance to pick the best yacht. An event with a wide open challenger selection series pitted against a yacht club from one country (especially if it is a small country like NZ or Switzerland) guarantees the defender will lose, especially if the same class of boat is used event to event.

Of course, another way of looking at it, is what is wrong with the defender losing after one or two events? Why should anyone have the Cup as long as the NYYC had it?

One solution to balancing the Def/multi-Chall equation (assuming that really is a good goal) is to allow the Defender competition against the fleet of Challs as EB would have had it. RH has suggested this too, but tries to draw a distinction that it's okay only so long as it is in an independent format, much like the just-another-regatta LV championship series. And to then move over into an AC arrangement where the Defender takes on the highest-ranked non-Defender winner of that series. But the LV/AC distinction means little in practicality unless it means the Defender can't influence who the ultimate Challenger is, and presumably that means the Challs racing alone for a time in the lead up, and so once again the Defender is on their own for a time, exactly what EB objected so hard to.

Because Defending is so hard against multiple challengers, AC 32 seemed about the best solution. Allow the cat among the pigeons for a time, but then excuse it to go two-boat, or x boat, testing themselves after that. It is primarily because of EB seeing such big advantages in being among the pigeons to the end that negotiations broke down. He could not, or would not, put up the kind of Defense effort that it would take. He was in the wrong game, it's a very tough format, he found that out last time.

Here is where I break ranks a little:

1 - When a club/team decides to issue a challenge, they must know full well what the implications are if they win the Cup and have to then prepare a defense. Making that decision locks them in to agreement with the terms of the DoG, and the transfer agreement that must be signed before accepting the Cup. If the prospect of defending against a group of multiple challengers is not acceptable, then you've gotten into the wrong game. The option is to hope to agree, via mutual consent, to a challenge with only one club/team to defend against. May be hard to do, but then again not, with the current AC and economic situations.

2- A trustee/defender that wants to change the format for the Cup must get mutual consent on the terms that are available to be agreed upon, but to not change the terms required by the DoG. Once again, a club/team that agrees to challenge/defend must be cognizant of this obligation.


For a defending trustee to all of a sudden realize what a burden defending the Cup is, ignoring the history since at least the 1970 multiple challenger era, is no excuse for trying to rig the game and control all aspects of the Cup, beyond what is given them by the DoG.

You enter to win the Cup by the terms of the DoG, and then you gain the obligation to defend the Cup by the terms of the DoG, no matter how fair or un-fair the game may seem to be.

You do not enter the to win the Cup with an eye to long term control and profit from defending the Cup.
With the glory of winning the prize goes the risk of losing it the next time.


So, what the best answer is to the future of the Cup I do not know. Some Cup Commision is not something I have been able to cozy-up to yet. Having a defender that will honestly and resolutely follow the agreement made when entering and accepting the Cup will go a long ways towards ending the crap that has been going on since this trustee entered the scene.

RPYS did an excellent job after the NYYC, but lost the idea of needing to select the best defender, not just who could win in a final score of a series, and this is what perhas cost them the Cup in '87.

SDYC may have gotten to fancy with changes it wanted to make, looking goo-goo eyed at all the attention that Fremantle got.

New Zealand seemed to handle the Cup fairly well, although some items have come out in this forum that paint a picture that all was not as well as it seemed. They lost more because the heart of their team was bought away, ending not only their on the water talent, but their team and design talent. But, they brought this on themselves by accepting a non-deed compliant challenger. Fractures on the inside I do not have enough to opine one way or the other, but again this has been mentioned in the forum.

In the end, most all defenders of the America's Cup got it, and defended in the best way they knew and could, until we got to SNG. History tells the tale better than my meager attempt........

[pjh]

Here is where I break ranks a little:

1 - When a club/team decides to issue a challenge, they must know full well what the implications are if they win the Cup and have to then prepare a defense. Making that decision locks them in to agreement with the terms of the DoG, and the transfer agreement that must be signed before accepting the Cup. If the prospect of defending against a group of multiple challengers is not acceptable, then you've gotten into the wrong game. The option is to hope to agree, via mutual consent, to a challenge with only one club/team to defend against. May be hard to do, but then again not, with the current AC and economic situations.

Please explain how "agreement with the terms of the DoG" is equivalent to "prospect of defending against a group of multiple challengers"? As SNG has shown this time, and MBBC/SDYC showed in 1988, it is very easy to limit a challenge to DoG one-on-one terms.

[dontrocktheboard]

I happen to be a supporter of the AC Trust, at this point in time the AC Trust is the only party that is seeking to establish legal grounds to support the Cup.

And who are the sponsors of the ACT? We know that JTR claims to be acting independently but we do not know the facts as he has kept these secret. However, his publicist, one Peter Huston has connections with Tom Ehman? Is the ACT as independent as JTR claims?

Very good points. I have had private conversations with several people. Since part of the game here is attacking credibility of post content by attacking the poster, I chose not to reveal every private contact I have or the content of private conversations. At one time Marian attacked me and claimed that my posts contained a hidden agenda that I was being fed ... she apologized.

I agree that Peter Huston and MSP/JTR have not done the ACT cause any good with their attacks on Ernesto. It is a valid POV that the ACT may be more about flicking Ernesto and SNG than it is about preserving the Cup for all of us. A more moderate approach might have been better, however there is no denying the passion behind effort.

PH's first reaction was to work within the system and file a complaint with the NYoAG. His passion for sailing and the Cup drove him to more action than posting on an Internet Forum while hiding behind a screen name. With Peter, what you see is what you get. He gets some respect for that in my book.

ACT ... a Tom Ehman extension? That might just be the funniest thing ever posted on this forum.

I have "connections" with Tom Ehman too ... do you think my posts are a reflection of TE input?

Have you ever heard anyone from the GGYC/BMWO side (TE) question the validity of the Deed?
How about the SNG/Alinghi side?

Is history is any indication, GGYC/BMWO want to control the Cup, they are not likely to welcome an outside party controlling the Cup.

Is it not more likely that MSP and the ACT are a front for SNG? That when the dust settles that we find SNG in control of ACT?

What makes that idea absurd? Would Peter Huston be involved if it were a SNG front?

If you look at what the ACT is trying to accomplish, I don't think you can reasonably think that either GGYC or SNG is involved. I satisfied myself on that account before I committed to the trust. Each of us must make our own choices.

Thank you for your reply. It would be nice to hear from the men themselves. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

What is stopping you? There is no reason for every battle to be fought in public.

I already asked and unsurprisingly they declined to answer.

[RHough]

The biggest stumbling block is trying to keep the multiple challenger format whilst giving the defender a chance to keep the Cup. (I'm sure I'll get abuse for that comment).

You won't get any abuse from me, what you say is absolutely the truth. When the NYYC allowed a Challenger selection series, they sealed their fate. They were guaranteed to lose the cup sooner or later (it was four regattas later).

A potential modification (not that it will happen) that could be a compromise between pre 1970 practice and current practice would be to allow the challenging yacht club to hold a challenger selection series with yachts from the challenger's country, concurrent with the defender selection series. This gives each yacht club the chance to pick the best yacht. An event with a wide open challenger selection series pitted against a yacht club from one country (especially if it is a small country like NZ or Switzerland) guarantees the defender will lose, especially if the same class of boat is used event to event.

Of course, another way of looking at it, is what is wrong with the defender losing after one or two events? Why should anyone have the Cup as long as the NYYC had it?

One solution to balancing the Def/multi-Chall equation (assuming that really is a good goal) is to allow the Defender competition against the fleet of Challs as EB would have had it. RH has suggested this too, but tries to draw a distinction that it's okay only so long as it is in an independent format, much like the just-another-regatta LV championship series. And to then move over into an AC arrangement where the Defender takes on the highest-ranked non-Defender winner of that series. But the LV/AC distinction means little in practicality unless it means the Defender can't influence who the ultimate Challenger is, and presumably that means the Challs racing alone for a time in the lead up, and so once again the Defender is on their own for a time, exactly what EB objected so hard to.

Because Defending is so hard against multiple challengers, AC 32 seemed about the best solution. Allow the cat among the pigeons for a time, but then excuse it to go two-boat, or x boat, testing themselves after that. It is primarily because of EB seeing such big advantages in being among the pigeons to the end that negotiations broke down. He could not, or would not, put up the kind of Defense effort that it would take. He was in the wrong game, it's a very tough format, he found that out last time.

Here is where I break ranks a little:

1 - When a club/team decides to issue a challenge, they must know full well what the implications are if they win the Cup and have to then prepare a defense. Making that decision locks them in to agreement with the terms of the DoG, and the transfer agreement that must be signed before accepting the Cup. If the prospect of defending against a group of multiple challengers is not acceptable, then you've gotten into the wrong game. The option is to hope to agree, via mutual consent, to a challenge with only one club/team to defend against. May be hard to do, but then again not, with the current AC and economic situations.

2- A trustee/defender that wants to change the format for the Cup must get mutual consent on the terms that are available to be agreed upon, but to not change the terms required by the DoG. Once again, a club/team that agrees to challenge/defend must be cognizant of this obligation.


For a defending trustee to all of a sudden realize what a burden defending the Cup is, ignoring the history since at least the 1970 multiple challenger era, is no excuse for trying to rig the game and control all aspects of the Cup, beyond what is given them by the DoG.

You enter to win the Cup by the terms of the DoG, and then you gain the obligation to defend the Cup by the terms of the DoG, no matter how fair or un-fair the game may seem to be.

You do not enter the to win the Cup with an eye to long term control and profit from defending the Cup.
With the glory of winning the prize goes the risk of losing it the next time.


So, what the best answer is to the future of the Cup I do not know. Some Cup Commision is not something I have been able to cozy-up to yet. Having a defender that will honestly and resolutely follow the agreement made when entering and accepting the Cup will go a long ways towards ending the crap that has been going on since this trustee entered the scene.

RPYS did an excellent job after the NYYC, but lost the idea of needing to select the best defender, not just who could win in a final score of a series, and this is what perhas cost them the Cup in '87.

SDYC may have gotten to fancy with changes it wanted to make, looking goo-goo eyed at all the attention that Fremantle got.

New Zealand seemed to handle the Cup fairly well, although some items have come out in this forum that paint a picture that all was not as well as it seemed. They lost more because the heart of their team was bought away, ending not only their on the water talent, but their team and design talent. But, they brought this on themselves by accepting a non-deed compliant challenger. Fractures on the inside I do not have enough to opine one way or the other, but again this has been mentioned in the forum.

In the end, most all defenders of the America's Cup got it, and defended in the best way they knew and could, until we got to SNG. History tells the tale better than my meager attempt........

I agree, as you know I feel that the requirements for a Club to Challenge speak more to their ability to defend than to challenge. IOW, the Deed seeks to limit Challenges to Clubs that are large and strong enough to defend what they seek to win.

IMO their is a chicken/egg relationship between Club Control, Boat Owner Control, and Commercial Interest.

Hard to say what factor started the runaway train. In 1956 a Cup Campaign was not such a big deal. The level of competition has required a larger and larger commitment of time and money to the point that very few individuals can afford to consider a Cup effort. This almost forces the Cup to cater to the merchant mentality to provide funding for the event and for the sailing teams.

Big companies make long term plans, for anyone to expect them to commit big $$$ to the AC or to a sailing team, they need a sound business plan and presentation. The Cup under the Deed is a very hard sell, it should be no surprise that funding is hard to come by ...

That brings me to look at how the Cup can be scaled back.

1. Professional Sports do not qualify as charitable purposes, make the Cup an amateur event.
2. Ban advertising, this is not NASCAR
3. Limit vessels to manual powered sail handling
4. Shorten the legs of the default courses by at least half, but keep the total distances.

Use the same criteria as the Olympics to define amateur for Cup purposes. ISAF Brand marking is the only advertising allowed.

3 & 4 Combine to limit vessel size and costs. Shorter course legs require a greater bias towards designs that handle well and the ability to go from upwind to downwind and back again quickly and efficiently. No 115ft foot manual powered drag racers ... we would see the vessels limited in size by what a human crew can handle quickly. Four times around a 5 mile W/L favours a completely different boat than 20 miles up and back. IMO it would produce boats that have uses outside the AC and we could see National and perhaps Local fleets. There might be Club level support for AC boats ... as there was when 85 footers were part of NYYC's normal racing fleet.

Oh, and I almost forgot ... limit the ability of boat owners to sit on Exec Boards of YC's while they are competitors. Owners and vessels race for the Club but do not control the Club.

[RHough]

I already asked and unsurprisingly they declined to answer.

Then what is the point of your post?

[dontrocktheboard]

I already asked and unsurprisingly they declined to answer.

Then what is the point of your post?

MSP and friends dislike secrecy. This is an open question and a satisfactory answer can be given with two letters. If they have financial or operational connections with the challenger they should declare it.

[RHough]

I already asked and unsurprisingly they declined to answer.

Then what is the point of your post?

MSP and friends dislike secrecy. This is an open question and a satisfactory answer can be given with two letters. If they have financial or operational connections with the challenger they should declare it.

Any financial connections will be a matter of public record ... as required of a legal, registered trust. If you do not support the ACT and it's intent, you can get that information under the FOIA.

[HHN92]

Here is where I break ranks a little:

1 - When a club/team decides to issue a challenge, they must know full well what the implications are if they win the Cup and have to then prepare a defense. Making that decision locks them in to agreement with the terms of the DoG, and the transfer agreement that must be signed before accepting the Cup. If the prospect of defending against a group of multiple challengers is not acceptable, then you've gotten into the wrong game. The option is to hope to agree, via mutual consent, to a challenge with only one club/team to defend against. May be hard to do, but then again not, with the current AC and economic situations.

Please explain how "agreement with the terms of the DoG" is equivalent to "prospect of defending against a group of multiple challengers"? As SNG has shown this time, and MBBC/SDYC showed in 1988, it is very easy to limit a challenge to DoG one-on-one terms.

The two are seperate, but since 1970 being the defender means defending against a challenger that has been battle-tested against at least one other mutual consent accessory challenger. Defenders since that time have had to consider the fact, and have accepted, defending against this scenario.

If a defender does not want to agree to multiple challengers, which is totally DoG compliant, then so be it. The defender only has to accept 'a/the' challenge for a 'match' for the Cup. Id the defender is so inclined, they can agree to a multiple challenge series for the choice of a final team for the Cup match.

[mabian]

Estrangement or engagement? Which is typically the way toward a more tolerant coexistence?

A great line.

The difference I see between The williams sister's situation and the ac is that there was one party in the ac (like the williams sisters) that had an economic incentive to bring the match to rak, while the other had to put out a large (undefined) expense. So, what is the incentive to engage? And what method of engagement? Seems like the bor refusal to participate in rak has promoted dialouge, and made a point on principal, in a similar, yet different way than the williams sister, who participated in an event she had ideological differences with, and made a rather polite protest of.
Would bor have looked at rak differently if there was an incentive to cooperate? We'll never know, but the naivete of eb, and rak has put a spotlight on rak, and uae, that is by and large a good thing.
The ruling of NYSC has also spread some light on exactly who, or what rak, and uae is. An appeal will only serve to highlight this. We are the beneficiaries. Thanks to eb.

You have got to be kidding ...... after starting a multi-media smear campaign against a country that has a great track record for providing world class sporting events, you tell us that "the spotlight is a good thing"?

Reminds one of Dick Cheney saying: lets bomb the shit out of Irak, and when we rebuild the infrastructure we will be making some bucks in the process .... Destroy first, and then profit from the rebuild?

Although I am no fan of Dick Cheney, and am aware of many stupid things he's said, I do not believe this is one of them. Can you provide a citation for this apocryphal quotation?

[PeterHuston]

I already asked and unsurprisingly they declined to answer.

Then what is the point of your post?

MSP and friends dislike secrecy. This is an open question and a satisfactory answer can be given with two letters. If they have financial or operational connections with the challenger they should declare it.

If the America's Cup Trust did have any sort of financial or operational connections with the current challenger, what would be wrong with that?

GGYC has every right to participate in the process of making the Trust and the Deed which govern the America's Cup compliant in all respects.

Simple fact is that we have not yet asked for their support.

But that isn't to say we won't.

[Peelman]

I already asked and unsurprisingly they declined to answer.

Then what is the point of your post?

MSP and friends dislike secrecy. This is an open question and a satisfactory answer can be given with two letters. If they have financial or operational connections with the challenger they should declare it.

If the America's Cup Trust did have any sort of financial or operational connections with the current challenger, what would be wrong with that?

GGYC has every right to participate in the process of making the Trust and the Deed which govern the America's Cup compliant in all respects.

Simple fact is that we have not yet asked for their support.

But that isn't to say we won't.

4 past Trustees that could fit in nicely too..... RNZYS, SDYC, RPYC, NYYC & maybe RYS.

[AC_TRUST_JTR]

I already asked and unsurprisingly they declined to answer.

Then what is the point of your post?

MSP and friends dislike secrecy. This is an open question and a satisfactory answer can be given with two letters. If they have financial or operational connections with the challenger they should declare it.

if your worried get a subpoena -- see you dont want to go there and DOT /IRS is already investigating your club -sng-and pool boy bertarelli-

if you got some support for AC TRUST then register-

if you want to see who is funding or your worried about that--why dont you offer some funds for the AC TRUST -

if your just scared and are worried about what the AC TRUST and me will do against sng and bertarelli-

then your to late--

[dontrocktheboard]

I already asked and unsurprisingly they declined to answer.

Then what is the point of your post?

MSP and friends dislike secrecy. This is an open question and a satisfactory answer can be given with two letters. If they have financial or operational connections with the challenger they should declare it.

if your worried get a subpoena -- see you dont want to go there and DOT /IRS is already investigating your club -sng-and pool boy bertarelli-

if you got some support for AC TRUST then register-

if you want to see who is funding or your worried about that--why dont you offer some funds for the AC TRUST -

if your just scared and are worried about what the AC TRUST and me will do against sng and bertarelli-

then your to late--

No need to worry as your BOR90 is u/s, eh? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)