RG - Terse response from Golden Gate to latest America's Cup decis, Commentary on coming legal issues for SNG Options

[Peelman]

Terse response from Golden Gate to latest America's Cup decision

by Ricahrd Gladwell
11:44 PM Wed 4 Nov 2009 GMT

The Golden Gate Yacht Club has issued a tersely worded response to the latest decision from the New York Supreme Court in response to a motion from the Defender, Societe Nautique de Geneve.

Unhappy with the Decision from the Supreme Court, last Friday, declaring that the chosen venue of Ras al-Khaimah was not in compliance with the Deed of Gift, or a subsequent order of the Supreme Court, prescribing that the venue for the 33rd Match, to be sailed in February, could be Valencia or anywhere else chosen by the Defender.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court rules that a venue other than Valencia still had to comply with the provisions of the Deed of Gift, meaning that for a Match in February, the venue had to be held in Valencia or a Southern Hemisphere venue.

The original Court Order issued by Justice Herman Cahn also decreed that six months notice of the venue must be given - meaning that a venue had to be named by 8 August 2009.

SNG has not yet named a venue which has either been upheld by the New York Supreme Court as being valid, or one with which the Challenger, Golden Gate Yacht Club agrees to sail under the Mutual Consent provisions of the 19th century Deed of Gift for the America's Cup.

GGYC are on record as having said they are open to sail in either Valencia (Spain) on 8 February 2010, or Auckland (New Zealand) on the same date. Spokemen for SNG/Alinghi are on record as opposing Valencia on safety grounds in the Spanish winter and saying that 'Auckland would be the last place they would choose as venue in the Southern Hemisphere.'

Golden Gate Yacht Club believe they have to agree to the match being sailed in any venue other than Valencia, as the venue announcement is within the six month period of the Court Order, and therefore cannot be made arbitrarily by the Defender - which is their right, as it is for the match to be sailed under the rules of the defending yacht club.

cont'd

[BalticBandit]

Terse response from Golden Gate to latest America's Cup decision

by Ricahrd Gladwell
11:44 PM Wed 4 Nov 2009 GMT

o o o'

Golden Gate Yacht Club believe they have to agree to the match being sailed in any venue other than Valencia, as the venue announcement is within the six month period of the Court Order, and therefore cannot be made arbitrarily by the Defender - which is their right, as it is for the match to be sailed under the rules of the defending yacht club.

cont'd

Told ya...

[Pt Blunt Eddy]

Does anyone have a copy of the appellate court order denying the stay?

[BalticBandit]

Does anyone have a copy of the appellate court order denying the stay?

Hearing is on Friday hasn't happened yet.

[Captain Morgan]

Does anyone have a copy of the appellate court order denying the stay?

Hearing is on Friday hasn't happened yet.

Valencia Sailing has been reporting the stay was denied for a few hours now with a statement from TE.

[SW Sailor]

Terse response from Golden Gate to latest America's Cup decision

by Ricahrd Gladwell
11:44 PM Wed 4 Nov 2009 GMT

o o o'

Golden Gate Yacht Club believe they have to agree to the match being sailed in any venue other than Valencia, as the venue announcement is within the six month period of the Court Order, and therefore cannot be made arbitrarily by the Defender - which is their right, as it is for the match to be sailed under the rules of the defending yacht club.

cont'd

Told ya...

Maybe I misunderstood your position.

I thought you said since they missed the 6 month venue notification, MC was required for any location, Valencia included.

My belief is that MC is not required for Valencia because it was stated by the court, but MC is required if the venue is in the SH, which GGYC could decline, forcing a match in Valencia which the court stipulated.

[dirtdog]

The Cahn order requires Velencia. There is not another way to look at it (short of mc).
There is no 6 mo. Notice period only a trigger that inside of 6 mo. Velencia is the chosen location per court order.

[SW Sailor]

Here is an interesting part of his article;

"The latest Decision means that while SNG still have a live Appeal in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, the clock is ticking on a Match for 8 February 2010, and the match still has to be sailed on that date. The only option would be for SNG to take an Appeal on the Tolling Order to the final level of Appeal, the Court of Appeals, in Albany, and hope for the decision of the lower Court to be overturned.

In SNG/Alinghi's favour the Appeal to be heard by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court has been expedited, or fast-tracked. Barry Ostrager, a New York lawyer who represents Alinghi's backing yacht club, Societe Nautique de Geneve, said briefs are due by the end of next week and oral arguments will be held before Thanksgiving.

Today's decision is risky for SNG/Alinghi as there are now just three months left to the Match for which a valid venue should have been determined three months ago. While SNG/Alinghi still have the right of Appeal they are losing time and risking other consequences if they cannot stage a match on the required date with adequate notice to the Challenger. "

I'm sure SNG will appeal the tolling order as they have nothing to loose and everything to gain. I also believe they will loose this appeal, along with the venue appeal, keeping their abysmal track record in court very much alive and allowing EB to claim, "they won it in the courts". The only thing missing from the Alinghi battle cry that historians ~will~ recall is, "They won it in the courts and I never attempted to cheat".

Wake up EB - that is the sole reason you are in front of the courts. GGYC did ~not~ put you there, you put yourself there.

[BalticBandit]

Terse response from Golden Gate to latest America's Cup decision

by Ricahrd Gladwell
11:44 PM Wed 4 Nov 2009 GMT

o o o'

Golden Gate Yacht Club believe they have to agree to the match being sailed in any venue other than Valencia, as the venue announcement is within the six month period of the Court Order, and therefore cannot be made arbitrarily by the Defender - which is their right, as it is for the match to be sailed under the rules of the defending yacht club.

cont'd

Told ya...

Maybe I misunderstood your position.

I thought you said since they missed the 6 month venue notification, MC was required for any location, Valencia included.

My belief is that MC is not required for Valencia because it was stated by the court, but MC is required if the venue is in the SH, which GGYC could decline, forcing a match in Valencia which the court stipulated.

You got me correctly the first time. But notice this is a progressive escalation of what Coutt's asserted in his letter. Standard tactic to force a negotiation. Assert ever more harsh initial posistion

[SW Sailor]

Terse response from Golden Gate to latest America's Cup decision

by Ricahrd Gladwell
11:44 PM Wed 4 Nov 2009 GMT

o o o'

Golden Gate Yacht Club believe they have to agree to the match being sailed in any venue other than Valencia, as the venue announcement is within the six month period of the Court Order, and therefore cannot be made arbitrarily by the Defender - which is their right, as it is for the match to be sailed under the rules of the defending yacht club.

cont'd

Told ya...

Maybe I misunderstood your position.

I thought you said since they missed the 6 month venue notification, MC was required for any location, Valencia included.

My belief is that MC is not required for Valencia because it was stated by the court, but MC is required if the venue is in the SH, which GGYC could decline, forcing a match in Valencia which the court stipulated.

You got me correctly the first time. But notice this is a progressive escalation of what Coutt's asserted in his letter. Standard tactic to force a negotiation. Assert ever more harsh initial posistion

So you're saying the court would require GGYC to agree to Valencia, if SNG wanted it, despite the fact that they stipulated Valencia ?

I think the court will say, SNG you picked the wrong venue so it is Valencia on Feb 8th, as stipulated.
Don't trouble us with you incompetencies.

[HHN92]

Terse response from Golden Gate to latest America's Cup decision

by Ricahrd Gladwell
11:44 PM Wed 4 Nov 2009 GMT

o o o'

Golden Gate Yacht Club believe they have to agree to the match being sailed in any venue other than Valencia, as the venue announcement is within the six month period of the Court Order, and therefore cannot be made arbitrarily by the Defender - which is their right, as it is for the match to be sailed under the rules of the defending yacht club.

cont'd

Told ya...

Maybe I misunderstood your position.

I thought you said since they missed the 6 month venue notification, MC was required for any location, Valencia included.

My belief is that MC is not required for Valencia because it was stated by the court, but MC is required if the venue is in the SH, which GGYC could decline, forcing a match in Valencia which the court stipulated.

You got me correctly the first time. But notice this is a progressive escalation of what Coutt's asserted in his letter. Standard tactic to force a negotiation. Assert ever more harsh initial posistion

So you're saying the court would require GGYC to agree to Valencia, if SNG wanted it, despite the fact that they stipulated Valencia ?

I think the court will say, SNG you picked the wrong venue so it is Valencia on Feb 8th, as stipulated.
Don't trouble us with you incompetencies.

I think it is out there that GGYC has no problem with VLC in Feb.

I think SNG is the only one with a problem.....................

[Peelman]

Terse response from Golden Gate to latest America's Cup decision

by Ricahrd Gladwell
11:44 PM Wed 4 Nov 2009 GMT

o o o'

Golden Gate Yacht Club believe they have to agree to the match being sailed in any venue other than Valencia, as the venue announcement is within the six month period of the Court Order, and therefore cannot be made arbitrarily by the Defender - which is their right, as it is for the match to be sailed under the rules of the defending yacht club.

cont'd

Told ya...

Maybe I misunderstood your position.

I thought you said since they missed the 6 month venue notification, MC was required for any location, Valencia included.

My belief is that MC is not required for Valencia because it was stated by the court, but MC is required if the venue is in the SH, which GGYC could decline, forcing a match in Valencia which the court stipulated.

You got me correctly the first time. But notice this is a progressive escalation of what Coutt's asserted in his letter. Standard tactic to force a negotiation. Assert ever more harsh initial posistion

So you're saying the court would require GGYC to agree to Valencia, if SNG wanted it, despite the fact that they stipulated Valencia ?

I think the court will say, SNG you picked the wrong venue so it is Valencia on Feb 8th, as stipulated.
Don't trouble us with you incompetencies.

I think it is out there that GGYC has no problem with VLC in Feb.

I think SNG is the only one with a problem.....................

SNG has 2 choices, 1 is to show at VLC with the other being don't show if they have lost their final appeal. SNG has burnt their own goose.

[SW Sailor]

Terse response from Golden Gate to latest America's Cup decision

by Ricahrd Gladwell
11:44 PM Wed 4 Nov 2009 GMT

o o o'

Golden Gate Yacht Club believe they have to agree to the match being sailed in any venue other than Valencia, as the venue announcement is within the six month period of the Court Order, and therefore cannot be made arbitrarily by the Defender - which is their right, as it is for the match to be sailed under the rules of the defending yacht club.

cont'd

Told ya...

Maybe I misunderstood your position.

I thought you said since they missed the 6 month venue notification, MC was required for any location, Valencia included.

My belief is that MC is not required for Valencia because it was stated by the court, but MC is required if the venue is in the SH, which GGYC could decline, forcing a match in Valencia which the court stipulated.

You got me correctly the first time. But notice this is a progressive escalation of what Coutt's asserted in his letter. Standard tactic to force a negotiation. Assert ever more harsh initial posistion

So you're saying the court would require GGYC to agree to Valencia, if SNG wanted it, despite the fact that they stipulated Valencia ?

I think the court will say, SNG you picked the wrong venue so it is Valencia on Feb 8th, as stipulated.
Don't trouble us with you incompetencies.

I think it is out there that GGYC has no problem with VLC in Feb.

I think SNG is the only one with a problem.....................

SNG has 2 choices, 1 is to show at VLC with the other being don't show if they have lost their final appeal. SNG has burnt their own goose.

SNG has these choices;

1. Hope for a successful appeal of the stay - which is very unlikely

2. Hope for a successful appeal of the venue, which is equally unlikely.

3. Hope that BOR agrees to RAK, which will not happen

4. Hope that GGYC gives them some concessons on the five issues, which I don't think they will because the five issues are "all issues" by definition, and GGYC have no reason to concede.

5. SNG hopes that BOR totally impodes and SNG wins by default.

I think Alinghi needs to review their options carefully at this stage.