Jump to content

SFBayLaser

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

113 F'n Saint

About SFBayLaser

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
  • Interests
    Laser sailing. More Laser sailing. Even more Laser sailing.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just to keep up with the Slalom videos, here is a video made by St Francis member Chris Ray from the Slalom run in 2018 The first part is a montage of photos taken during the event then starting about 1:56 is drone video of the final race between Chris Barnard and Malcolm Lamphere. A short video was made that was shown at the World Sailing meeting in 2018 when it was thought they were looking for a format for the "mixed single handed event" which then became the mixed two person keelboat. I will try to find and post here, it was a nice fast action video...
  2. Just to point out there is a difference between what is posted to LP's Facebook page and what World Sailing issued... This is paragraph 7.1(a) of the commercial undertakings that LP posted to its FB page: While this is what has been issued by World Sailing: But also note that paragraph 9 is what requires a builder entering into the commercial undertakings to adhere to the Olympic Equipment Policy. Anyway, it would not be the first time that we have been told that "everything is agreed to and signed" only to find changes that haven't been approved by other parties.
  3. The original ILCA straw proposal, which was meant to set a starting point for negotiations, set an 8% royalty fee. Depending on the product, or the trademark owner's point of view I guess, this is either quite generous or highway robbery. Ok, somebody had to throw out a number... it was an amount, start there and figure out what is right... But you ask "what is a FR license fee ... ?" I don't know how you answer "fair and reasonable" until someone challenges it. Probably it is like pornography - I know it when I see it. So a 100% royalty fee is pretty clearly not "fair and reasonable"... equal
  4. As a builder becomes approved they would need to enter into the "commercial undertakings" with World Sailing. So this document is not part of the August 1 deadline that I know, particularly as one doesn't know who or how many builders there will be in, say, 6 months. With respect to LP, let's all be serious - if they cannot be re-approved as a builder then nobody could be approved. Yes, what was posted on the internet by LP (breaking confidentiality clauses I might add) is the defect notice issued to PSA when it was confirmed that they were not in compliance with the constructio
  5. I’m not sure how one responds to that… you need to have an agreement to allow new builders to access the market… you want to keep the name Laser… but you don’t need to actually license the new builders… so how do you actually allow new builders to access the market? This argument is exactly what was put to me months ago by one of the big European dealers: “you can write down the procedure for new builders that satisfies World Sailing’s Policy but then you don’t actually need to do anything.” From my point of view, trying to say a licensing procedure is not a required element is simply trying t
  6. The entire quote of Heini's first point is: I think Andy's point in regard to this one of Heini's points is that the vote is not to drop the Laser name in favor of something else - this is not a constitution change. Rather it is intended to, as said before, "unbrand" the class rules. If at the eleventh hour the Laser trademark owners agree on a licensing scheme then the "unbranded" rules still work exactly as they do now. If the trademark owners fail (as I am typing this I see essentially no progress on this front) then we can have alternate branded boats racing alongside Lasers.
  7. Sorry, I will admit to getting a little tired of people trying to claim that the C rigs are meant to replace the existing rigs and somehow the class is going to make everyone ditch their existing equipment and buy "expensive" replacements... so a bit of rant here... From my perspective, these are the same tired arguments that were used when the Radial was introduced, and then the 4.7 and yet, shockingly, 30 years later, lots of people still sail Standard rigs but in the meantime the class has attracted way more new sailors to the two alternate rigs. And both the Radial and 4.7 classes are almo
  8. I'm not going to fantasize that in a class as big as the Laser that everyone is going to agree with everything that the ILCA World Council (which, currently, is comprised mostly Laser Masters sailors) does, particularly when it has become a contentious issue for what I personally believe are the wrong reasons. In any case, at the international level, yes, the World Council is focused on the big picture of trying to be the largest, most universal and gender balanced class it can be. And, yes, the Olympics provide a number of mechanisms to help make that happen - particularly because it drives t
  9. I would think the casual club dinghy sailor would be more interested in the rather large increase in retail pricing over the past several years rather than this World Sailing 1% fee which is still under discussion and yet to be implemented. On the other hand, we can all agree to be outraged at any increase in taxes when we don't see the benefit of paying them. My newest boat is #212583 which I bought new two Summers ago. My recollection is that the retail price was around $6800. I received an email flyer the other day advertising event boats and contrasting pricing to a new boat at $7800
  10. While ILCA has not done an inspection in many years, it is our understanding that all LP hulls are built at the UK facility. It is also our understanding that "LaserPerformance (Europe) Ltd" will "cease to exist" at the end of August and a new company "LaserPerformance LLC" will replace it. I am not a legal expert, so I am not sure the legally correct wording for "replace it" (enter here some amount of drama...).
  11. "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" You know, I think this topic demonstrates how almost all the sailors are really more interested in sailing than issues like this - until someone decides to make it controversial and then suddenly the sky starts falling. The 1% fee has been out there for more than 18 months now and was discussed extensively at the World Sailing Annual meeting this past Fall. There was particularly pointed discussion during a "closed" session of the Olympic Classes subcommittee (you can see the item on the agenda here, look at the bottom
  12. While you did qualify this statement it does point out a common misconception many people have, that the Laser Class is SMOD. It is not. To the average sailor it might appear that way because dealers are constrained to sell equipment only from a builder with authorization to use the trademark in that area. But this does not mean any sailor cannot buy any boat from any builder, in fact this happens. For example, here in the SF Bay Area there is one boat from Japan and a couple from Australia. Likewise, I know there are UK boats in Oceania (as well maybe a Japanese boat) and, of cour
  13. Actually, the RS folks would not have been adequate either since World Sailing didn't publish their Olympic Equipment Policy until after the midyear meeting. I've written this before, what World Sailing put in place is a policy that stands above the minimum that they could have done to probably squeak past EU anti-trust laws - their policy goes the extra distance so there can be no question. You can argue that point with them all day, that's fine. In the meantime they set the rules for Olympic equipment and we can choose to play by their rules or not by deciding whether we want to be in or out
  14. There are several producers of copy boats in the world but, as of March, 2019 there were only three approved builders and their factories: PSJ in Japan, PSA in Australia and LP in the UK. There was almost an approved builder in China, Shanghai Far East went through the entire process up through producing the requisite 10 boats and the ILCA Technical Officer "approved" them to be a builder. And then SFE and LP were not able to come to terms for the rights to use the name Laser. What was interesting in this case is that they were going to be a sub-builder of LP (as allowed in the LCMA) and
  15. Hugh's comment is correct but, of course, it glosses over much detail... So, first, remember that there is not just one builder and/or trademark owner for the Laser Class, right now there are three of each. At present, all of the other classes at the sea trials have only one builder and, importantly, one trademark owner. Plus at least two of those are still young enough to not have well established class associations. So it makes sense that the Laser Class "presents" the bid for the Olympics going forward, rather than any one of the builders, particularly since trademark constraints would
×
×
  • Create New...