Jump to content

Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch


Recommended Posts

You make a number of other comments that are simply wrong. The success of the class is not because of the class association. To start with, far more Lasers are sold to people/organisations that have zero to do with the association or class related events. Remember, Rastegar has stated that this is the market he is after, because the racing/class association related market is too small and insignificant.

Yes he's been quoted as saying that (indirectly, as far as I can tell). I find it quite hard to believe. Are the number of sailing centres, holiday centres and recreational sailors buying new Lasers really that high? Even if it was true, would those sales be as high without the visibility being generated by the racing market? I don't think many people would claim this 40 year old design is really the best recreational boat available.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When are they going to make a decision? I need to know whether I should be training in my RS Aero or my Laser for Paris 2024.     

@WCB  i seriously doubt there is a soul contributing to this thread who honestly disagrees with my perceptions or the reasoning behind my effort to establish an AERO fleet in Texas and at my home

Yes. This looks incredibly similar  to the recent dispute that LP had with the Sunfish class.  When it came time for the Sunfish class to renew their license to use the various trademarks belongi

Posted Images

 

And when a builder produces 300 new boats (at a cost of roughly $3k/boat) and lends them to the World Champs That $900,000 is generously lent to the builder by the local banks for absolutely no cost whatsoever.

At least as far as last Laser Worlds in the UK is concerned, with which I had some involvement, I know for certain the boats weren't provided at "no cost whatsoever". On the contrary, sailors paid approximately US$360K equivalent in charter fees.

Sure but work it out, It takes at least a month to build that many Lasers using full time production and probably more time than that as you are unlikely to have 10 molds for normal production. Lets say you have 3 for your normal production rate. And since it is Poly, you can produce 2 hulls per day out of them: Start cleaning and prepping the mold at 9:00 am, Ready for spray by 10. Spray gell coat, wait for tacky, spray chop layer, layup woven layer, spray chop layer, its now noon. Let sit. 1:00 start bonding 2 hulls and decks, finish by 3. Pop the hull you sprayed in the morning, clean and prep the mold again, spray in another hulll to let kick overnight. rinse and repeat.

 

That's six hulls per day. That's 50 working days. that's 10 weeks, round up to twelve for hiccups. That's 3 months of a $1,000,000 line of credit the builder is carrying. And during this time the molds are in full swing so they aren't getting any cashflow from hulls they sell elsewhere.

 

figure the current rate on that is around 10%... normally around 15% annualized, so lets just make the number easy and say 1%/mo. that's $10k PER MONTH the builder shells out for 3 mos. $30k into it with zero profits.

 

Now when the folks show up, the builder gets $$75k-100k for the "lease" but they are also providing on site service and spares, and a part of that also goes to the sailmaker. So its more like $80k. So now the builder is $50k ahead. But the boats sell at a discount afterwards, so the margins the builder makes on the hulls are lower than they would otherwise get.

 

IOW the builder gave the class $30,000 up front, in hopes of making slightly less than normal return on revenue. Its not a BAD deal for the builder, but its hardly accurate to say that the builder did not front the sailors and the class a lot of money.

 

As to clubs making money on regattaes - the usually do so at the bar. The actual cost of running the event itself is not fully covered - though in some cases, the clubs "charter" themselves to the class at a break even cost and take the profit on the bar. But in that case, the regattae entry fee does not cover the costs of running the regattae, the class with its sponsors kick in the delta. Sure there will be exceptions, but the CYC Seattle recently did a study of this so as to figure out how to balance its books, and entry fees almost never cover the costs except at your local beer can "lets borrow an RC and race" kinda level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

And when a builder produces 300 new boats (at a cost of roughly $3k/boat) and lends them to the World Champs That $900,000 is generously lent to the builder by the local banks for absolutely no cost whatsoever. Hmm do you even know what the borrowing rate for a small business on $1,000,000 is?

BalticBandit, why should we care about the builder's money? It's their business decision that they took. Nobody forced the "poor builder" to supply boats.

It's simple - want to be Olympic? Here's the deal, these are the conditions. Don't like it? Next, please..

As I understand it, the builder is required by their ILCA contracts to supply these boats up front. And as Simon pointed out, most builders are in this for the love of the sport and far less so for the "restructuring profit" that folks like Rastegar specialize in.

 

So if you don't care about the health fo the builder, you end up with a situation like what you saw with Bladerider in the Moth class. They basically could not afford the production system they set up (including the rework) and hence went bust. Now there is no-one building entry level priced Moths.

 

If you don't care about the eco-system, the eco-system will not care about you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now when the folks show up, the builder gets $$75k-100k for the "lease"

Not sure where your $75-100K comes from. I said the figure for the Worlds in the UK was approx $360K. Actually....I forgot about the Masters, so that would have been more like $540K. Work it out. 300 boats, £400 charter fee, three events a few weeks apart (Radials, Standards, Masters) and a £/$ figure around 1.5.

 

If CYC Seattle can't turn a profit on events, maybe they need to look at their costs and/or fees. We make a profit. We wouldn't do it otherwise. Big events disrupt club sailing and the only reason members accept that is because it reduces our club dues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To say Kirby had done nothing for the class simplay displays you are unaware of what he has done.

 

Yep. There appears to be a view here that the designer draws something on a piece of paper, send sit off and does nothing for the next umpteen years but sit on his ass and collect royalties. Such a view is spectacularly naive and suggests the writer knows very little about how things happen in real life.

I never said he did nothing and I don't think that. What I said did that the class association has done more. And he sued the class association that made him his money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Geez Wess, Is it that hard to understand that this is about contracts?

 

I agree with SimonN that a lot of what Wess said is subjective. For example "...UNTIL HE [Kirby] GOT IN BED WITH PSA AND TRIED TO RUN LPE OUT OF TOWN". ...a conspiracy theory! So you are saying that Kirby and PSA somehow forced LP not to pay the royalties? I don't believe that that either Kirby or the Spenser family (PSA/LP) are engaged in a conspiracy. In fact, I think it's laughable - particularly in light of the events that have occurred. Were it true, then surely Kirby would be appointing PSA as the world wide builder for the Torch? He didn't and of course it simply isn't true. Thankfully your view Wess is a minority view.

 

Wess asks: "What right does he [Kirby] own?" The answer is spelled out in the 1983 and 1989 builder agreements that Kirby was party to, which are spelled out in the legal action. The agreements are referenced in the legal submission and are offered as exhibits. The agreements have been talked about for years. They exist. Kirby's rights as the designer named in the contract are real and transferable. There is case law that appears to support Kirby's position. Legal opinions have been offered that say that it appears that Kirby's position appears to be quite strong. It would appear to me the vast majority of sailors I have spoken with support Kirby's position (and a minority don't). There seems to be a smaller number that can't be drawn to support Kirby just yet.

 

Gov said "Wes I'm all for your freedom to not pay Bruce Kirby. And the way you do that is don't use Bruce Kirby's design" - I 100% agree. When I show up with my Laser an some other guy is there in their Laser or Torch - I'm just stoked to be in a sport where it is a level playing field. If someone turns up in a different boat design - lets call it the NewRastegarLaser, I don't so much care - it's not a level playing field any more.

 

There are those who say: "well, it's up to the courts now - let's wait and see". If you are doing that, then you are effectively supporting ILCA acting in support of Laser Performance / Farzad Rastegar.

 

I still have a problem with the way ILCA has acted with effectively supporting Laser Performance / Farzad Rastegar. Those who made the decision are answerable to their members.

 

So what's next? Perhaps we at the grass roots need start talking with our representatives?

 

Does anyone have any idea when the World Council next meets?

Gantt,

 

You are latest in a long line of trolls that keeps repearting the same BS over and over. Saying it is so does not make it so.

 

It is indeed a fact that there was a contract. It is obviously in dispute if it is a necessary or valid contract. To the point when his name was on the sticker it may have been both necessay and valid. But his name is not the boat, its not the design of the boat and its simply not necessary.

 

So I ask again the most saimple and basic question that even BK has never answered in all his puff heart strings pieces (and the shame of it is folks including me might agree with him if there was a straight answer):

 

* What right (patent, copyright, trademark) does he still own to the boat that makes the basis for the contract?

 

So simple really. Just provide a simple answer (Hint - the fact that there was a contract is not the basis for the contract. There needs to be something he OWNS that he can sell for the contract to be valid and enforceable. Hint #2 - You can't say design rights. There is no such thing. There are patents and trademarks and copyrights and construction manuals, etc...those things are owned and are rights).

 

KiwiJoker who I know disagrees with me at least answers honestly and does not use the smoke and mirror BS that you do. The only thing that you guys that support BK can answer is that he holds the trademark to his name and I am sorrry my friend but that is not currently necessary or required AFAIK. Nevermind that it is an unprecedented reach AFASIK.

 

If you like the guy and want to send him your money; go ahead! Maybe in a few years he can return the favor and sue you too. But in the meantime stop requiring others to pay what they don't have to (if a judge agrees they don't have to).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Dogwatch I misread what you wrote. I though you wrote $360US in chater fees per boat. With 300 boats, even at 400L you don't get to that number. 400L == $620US x 300 = $186k US. And from that you have to subtract the cost of the sails, which are $600 retail, Which means probably about $300 Wholesaie from North, leaves you with $320/boat in charter fees so that's $96k in charter fees to the vendor. So they get their $30k back plus $60k profit. But again, that's after shelling out $30k in interest rate costs and making zero profit for 3 mos. Lets say they normally run $10k revenue per month on Lasers, That puts up the investment cost to $60k. Of which they get back $90k before selling the boats as "World's Charters". And by the time they get paid for the boats that get bought, that interest rate charge on that line of credit is easily up to $40k. So essentlially they front the class $70k and get back $90k after 4 months.

 

Its not bad, but its not anywhere near what investing in say a software business will give you.

 

 

I never said he did nothing and I don't think that. What I said did that the class association has done more.

Not quite. You basically claimed he gets no credit for what the Class association HE SET UP. And you claimed that he's "made enough money" and been screwing over sailors when the person screwing over sailors with poor quality and poocketing the license fees is Rastegar.

 

Now you are backtracking

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Dogwatch I misread what you wrote. I though you wrote $360US in chater fees per boat. With 300 boats, even at 400L you don't get to that number. 400L == $620US x 300 = $186k US.

Like I said, times 3 events. Radials, Standards, Masters. So for the same set of boats, around $500K in charter fees.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, you seem to be asking what "consideration" the contract has that makes it valid. It was the design and the right to build it and bring it to market. The success of the Laser is obvious justification of the value of the design and the right to be the builder. Contracts don't end just because the design has been disclosed and fully exploited and made successful. The entire purpose of the contract was to merge talents and capabilities to create a successful market for the design and to reward both parties for that success. If the boat had been a bust then then there would be no royalties to pay and the contract would expire. Success keeps it in force.

 

Had the design been patented, the contract would have been void when the patent expired. But the design was not patented. The royalty is by contract based on the initial disclosure and opportunity. 2% of the success of the builder that is exploiting your design is fair and reasonable and valid. The Supreme Court had already ruled on that type of scenario.

 

Redstar, Bruce is not trying to run the class. He just doesn't want the class to do something that is illegal and ultimately quite costly to the members. As a member I do not support the actions of the ILCA. What they have done is illegal! They aren't communicating with me or representing me. Volunteers or not, the end does not justify the means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, you seem to be asking what "consideration" the contract has that makes it valid. It was the design and the right to build it and bring it to market. The success of the Laser is obvious justification of the value of the design and the right to be the builder. Contracts don't end just because the design has been disclosed and fully exploited and made successful. The entire purpose of the contract was to merge talents and capabilities to create a successful market for the design and to reward both parties for that success. If the boat had been a bust then then there would be no royalties to pay and the contract would expire. Success keeps it in force.

 

Had the design been patented, the contract would have been void when the patent expired. But the design was not patented. The royalty is by contract based on the initial disclosure and opportunity. 2% of the success of the builder that is exploiting your design is fair and reasonable and valid. The Supreme Court had already ruled on that type of scenario.

 

Redstar, Bruce is not trying to run the class. He just doesn't want the class to do something that is illegal and ultimately quite costly to the members. As a member I do not support the actions of the ILCA. What they have done is illegal! They aren't communicating with me or representing me. Volunteers or not, the end does not justify the means.

With respect that is not how it works. He either owns the design or he does not. If it (the design) is public domain he can't write a valid contract that pays him for a design that is in the public domain. He could protect the boat/his work and sell it with patents or trademarks. He might write a construction manual filled with trade secrets and have a valid contract around that. Some claimed trademark. But each in turn were knocked down by Kirby's own supporters. Sorry, but If he does not own it he has no legal right to collect money for it contract (expired or not) or not. You don't have a valid contract if you don't own what you are selling. IMHO.

 

Come on Baltic, be fair. You know darn well my point is that the class did most of the work to make the class a success and that is who he is suing (without anyone on his side being able to state what he owns... seee above yet again... I don't mean you). Its obvious Kiry did some things with respect the class. But come on equally, you leave out the obvious part that he did that from vested self-interest (sell more - make more $). That is not the point. The class did much of thr work and is largely responible for the money he made. And so he sues them. Bite the hand that feeds him I say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess - who do you think pays for the ILCA organization We know that Dues don't cover it all. And we know that race entry fees almost NEVER cover the costs of running a regatta (at a small local club where you are kicking in for Beer, Trophies and mark set gas it does but not above that level).

 

So I guess you think the ILCA and ISAF are counterfeiters just printing money out of thin air. uhuh.

 

And when a builder produces 300 new boats (at a cost of roughly $3k/boat) and lends them to the World Champs That $900,000 is generously lent to the builder by the local banks for absolutely no cost whatsoever. Hmm do you even know what the borrowing rate for a small business on $1,000,000 is?

 

You are an ignorant troll

 

Sounds like you haven't run a regatta before and that is a pretty big generalization. People don't set out to lose money on an event whether it be local or international. That's why they budget things to either break even or make money, no one sets to lose money on something.

 

Big events can get sponsors but you can break even or make money with a regatta easily. It's not that hard to lose money when running a Laser event, in fact because it's a laser you can make it even cheaper if you do food correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry Dogwatch I misread what you wrote. I though you wrote $360US in chater fees per boat. With 300 boats, even at 400L you don't get to that number. 400L == $620US x 300 = $186k US.

Like I said, times 3 events. Radials, Standards, Masters. So for the same set of boats, around $500K in charter fees.

Dog - the quote was for 300 hulls, and I looked it up, in 2012 Germany only held the event for the Laser and Women's Laser Radial, and Australia held the the Youth Worlds, the Masters and the Mens Radial. But here's the real gotcha for Australia. The first batch of boats had to be ready in March, but they couldn't get sold until the end of July. So figuring 3 mos to build - that means PSA was carrying that $1mil US line of credit at $10k/mo for 7 mos. That's $70k just in interest costs alone. plus another estimated $30k in lost revenue costs - and probably more since their market would know there were "almost new" boats to be had in August - so that lost revenue cost is probably closer to $50k and you see that the builder shelled out $120k or so.

 

And they got rentals for 200 x 3 x $320 (cuz they are supplying new sails each time). So they got $192k in return on a $120k up front cost Thats a 50% ROi on the cost but you still have to subtract out that they didn't immeiiately sell off all the inventory etc. So their net profit was decent but not stunning.

 

 

With respect that is not how it works. He either owns the design or he does not. If it (the design) is public domain he can't write a valid contract that pays him for a design that is in the public domain.

I see very little respect there since this is fundamentally wrong and ignorant of how this actually works As has been discussed earlier (with appropriate legal citations) NO HULL CAN BE PATENTED PERIOD.

 

certain novel features of hulls can be but that's it. after that what gets protected are the actual building documents. This is just like a house. Your architect copyrights the Blueprints and licenses you to build one house from those prints and nothing more - that is your CONTRACT.

 

In Kirby's case what he is contracting is the use of his blue prints: His Construction Manual. The CM.

 

As to your claim that "the class did most of the work"

1) is new - it was not your claim at the outset

2) is only possible because of how Kirby set up the class

3) his motives don't matter - the members of the class's motives were better sailing so they were in it for themselves as well

 

The guy biting the hand that feeds it is Rastegar - who does not want to contribute to building and maintaining the class and wants to pocket the extra $$ that he owes Kirby by contract. He wants to keep using Kirby's CM - which is Kirby's property, not pay Kirby, not pay the class and just pocket the $$

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity I just have to ask this:

 

How many of the readers of this thread would be happy to have it 'Kirby's way', but at the same time Laser being thrown out of Olympics and ISAF Sailing World Cup?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity I just have to ask this:

 

How many of the readers of this thread would be happy to have it 'Kirby's way', but at the same time Laser being thrown out of Olympics and ISAF Sailing World Cup?

 

I don't know about the world cup but I definitely couldn't care less about the laser being in the olympics. In fact I'd prefer it if it wasn't. All the olympic classes are basically dead in the US. It's a class killer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting question.

 

Are you asking because someone in ISAF is proposing that?

 

Who has confidence in ISAF´s decision making processes, anyway?

 

This is the team that threw the multihull out of London 2012, replacing it with Womens Match Racing and tried to throw Windsurfing out of Brazil 2016

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity I just have to ask this:

 

How many of the readers of this thread would be happy to have it 'Kirby's way', but at the same time Laser being thrown out of Olympics and ISAF Sailing World Cup?

 

orson-wells-clapping.gif#orson%20wells%2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, some really 'interesting' perspectives. Wess, you are really off the charts with your perspective. I'm really glad that very few share your views.

 

Think of at more like a joint venture, where a 'system' between different parties has been set up. Holding together the system are agreements, and ultimately, the integrity of the respective parties to uphold those agreements. As one of the key architects of the system, Kirby got royalties for his design. When one party decided act out of integrity with the system by not paying royalties, the system fell over.

 

Wess, talking about ownership of rights in the way you are is tangential to the legal action. Ownership does not make for the basis of contract law. Agreement does.

 

 

 

You are latest in a long line of trolls that keeps repearting the same BS over and over. Saying it is so does not make it so.

 

I agree that just saying something doesn't make it so. Note that the "it" that I am saying is that ILCA and ISAF do not support my views by acting in the way they have. I believe that they do not represent the majority views of those who they represent. I believe the membership needs to voice their concerns to their delegates as soon as possible, with a view to reversing ILCA's and ISAF's position.

 

What is so is that this is my position. What is so is that my position appears to be shared by the majority of people I have communicated with. Also, I'm pretty sure that I'm not a troll, whatever that is. I'm fairly certain that raising the subject of bovine faecal matter does very little to serve anyone's cause, though of course, you have every right to talk about it as you seem intent to do - my guess is that you have some morbid fascination in the stuff. I'm glad you (Wess) seem to have dropped your silly conspiracy theory (at least I hope you have). I guess the repetitive nature of the subject from my perspective is that it's all pretty simple and straight-forward when you look at the facts. When you speculate why ILCA and ISAF acted the way they have then it's far more complex.

 

I'm still hoping that the ILCA will reverse their position and represent the views of the majority of their membership.

 

The Olympics kill classes? (nbb) - I'm glad to say that the Laser has been a great exception. I think that the main reason is that the gear used in the Olympics, is pretty much the same gear that's used at club level. The same can't be said for Finns or 470s or for that matter the Tornado when it was used. The newer classes haven't had a chance to reach critical mass yet - and maybe they won't. Tell the guys sailing at the Lake Travis Regatta that their sport is dying. Or The North Harbour champs sailed on Lake Pupuke. Or the various Masters regattas - now there's a success story. Bottom line is that at grass roots level, there's a ton of life in the Laser / Torch class.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To say Kirby had done nothing for the class simplay displays you are unaware of what he has done.

 

Yep. There appears to be a view here that the designer draws something on a piece of paper, send sit off and does nothing for the next umpteen years but sit on his ass and collect royalties. Such a view is spectacularly naive and suggests the writer knows very little about how things happen in real life.

I never said he did nothing and I don't think that. What I said did that the class association has done more. And he sued the class association that made him his money.

This is where I believe you and I see things so differently. As stated before, my view on the role of class associations in the success of a boat is based on years of serving on class committees at national and international level in a variety of classes ranging from Olympic to national classes. The classes range from strict one designs to development classes. I have actually been involved in setting up an Olympic class structure from scratch and I have organised championships at National, European and World championship level. I therefore feel I have more than earned the right to comment on the roles of a class association.

 

The role of the class association can be very different, depending on the type of class. On some situations, the success of the class is totally in the hands of the association, in others, the association contributes far less to the success. IMO, the former situation is best typified in development classes, where there isn't a single manufacturer, or an alliance of manufacturers who drive sales of the boats. We also see this in a number of traditional classes, such as 505's, Fireballs etc. where no single manufacturer is driving the class.

 

However, in strict one designs and SMOD's, the role of the class association is very different. They do not do the main marketing of the class, which is looked after by the manufacturer. In these situations, it is my belief and experience that a class association doesn't contribute to the success but in fact, can be responsible for exactly the opposite. A bad association slows the growth of a class. A good association is, IMO, doesn't increase sales. It is simply a small part of a much bigger picture. In my experience, when a class association is important to the commercial success of a class, you see the manufacturer supporting that association in many ways. However, LP has cut its financial support of the class. If you really want to understand how important the association is to sales, simply look at the actions and comments of Rastegar and LP. He is a clever operator and if he felt that the association led to more sales, he would treat the association in a very different way to how he is currently acting, withdrawing funds through advertising and sponsorship. In case you missed it, that has put the association in a bad position, with it showing a financial loss last year. Then you read his comments about how sales to people who race are only a small amount of his business and he doesn't focus on that. Sales vs membership seems to support that view.

 

To further illustrate the point, look at the numbers. Even allowing for the number of boats that have died over the years, the ILCA membership represents a pretty small numbers of boats out there (probably around10% of boats in existence). Considering that membership is meant to be compulsory, this gives a real indication of the influence of the association on those buying boats.

 

Please don't misunderstand what I say. Everybody who is involved with running class associations deserves respect, because it is a thankless job. You don't get praise when it goes well, but you get caned if it doesn't go well. However, IMO, it is important to understand the true role of a class association in the success of a class. An association needs to model itself on the nature of its role and whether it is the prime source of marketing or not. Understanding that allows a class to use its resources effectively. I personally believe that very few sailors really understand these issues, because they don't find themselves in a position to need to consider the problems and challenges.

 

Finally, the class association would not exist if it weren't for the efforts of the original commercial interests in the Laser. As has been acknowledged on this very thread, BK was one of those whose efforts and support allowed the ILCA to get to the position it has today. At best, one might argue that it was a true symbiotic relationship, but to claim that the Laser is a success because of the class association and that it made BK money simply doesn't stack up to scrutiny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking the Kirby hull out of those contests because of supplier battles is as absurd as playing the world soccer cup with volleyballs because Rawlings, Wilson, and Spaulding got into a fight about who builds soccer balls.

The fact anyone considers this a possible outcome demonstrates the absurdity of the ISAF and ILCA reaction to LPs refusal to build class legal equipment

I think we all get that this is all about contracts, and contracts have also been signed to do with 2016 (maybe even 2020), but I could easily see ISAF revoking something from the laser class if they can't get a reasonable supply of equipment and boats sorted by then. IIRC when the selection of the latest additions to the games were announced, a big part of it was that there was a world-wide distribution system, if the laser builders can't sort out their arguments soon the supply of boats could dwindle and then you're failing to meet a criteria.

 

The laser provides world class racing, whether you love it or hate it you can't deny that. But at the same time, I'm sure ISAF doesn't like this whole fiasco looming over its head and could (in it's usual random way) act like a kid throwing a temper tantrum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not exactly been following this & frankly I actually really dislike the Laser, its a blight on sailing in my opinion.

But from what I've seen its really quite bizzare & outrageous that ISAF is not supporting Kirby here.

 

This is my understanding:

Kirby design

Design is licensed to be built by a builder with royalties for each boat going to Kirby

No sign of design being vested in class association or otherwise lost by Kirby

Builder stops paying royalties (why do they think they can do that?)

Kirby revokes license & assigns new builder who agrees to pay royalties

ISAF & class association backs the old builder???!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess : if ILCA came up with a class ratified proposal to build Kirby designed lasers in accordance to a build / engineering specification of say Gurit, and Gurit had terms that as per an agreement to be payed a fee for each moulding, pursuant to build specification.

Would you have an issue with ILCA paying the moulding fee on each boat built in accordance with the Gurit building specification and ILCA / Gurit agreement ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the options for class members who do not feel the ILCA officers are acting according to the majority of members' expectations? How do we get them to justify and explain their actions and/or request that they reverse their actions or be removed? The potential liability that their actions have just incurred is not an acceptable risk?

 

Wess please tell me you are not the ILCA's attorney. Your understanding of the law scares the crap out of me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are suggesting...

 

If you are suggesting...

 

 

Gouv, don't try to read between the lines more than is written there.;)

It was just a question in an attempt to understand who the posters here are.

 

IMHO, if most are just sailors at the club level, then nothing prohibits them to organize regattas in some sort of an "open class" where all lookalikes are allowed in. But then, for the game to remain fair, there should be no exceptions, otherwise it will become politics and side taking again.

 

Also, such regatta should not be called "Laser something.." and should not use the Laser class rules..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back in quite recent Tracy Usher. before he became ILCA Presiident was a very regular poster on this dinghy forum.

 

He is not doubt watching this exchange.

 

If ILCA is so sure they have done the right thing, wonder why he is not contributing now?

 

Wonder if he can answer the question that the Aussies were asking, how does PSA NOW build class legal Lasers without ending up in the US courts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Also, have you seen this?

http://trademarks.justia.com/857/79/kirby-torch-85779037.html

I interpret it as there will be no "Kirby Torch" trademark.

Notice of publication is the step before issuance. There is a period for opposition then it issues. How do you get no TM?
Did you read everything on that site???

 

2013-04-04 FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN

 

2013-04-04 FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED

 

2013-04-04 NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED

 

P.S. You still owe us some photos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks that Kirby has been trying to trademark everything he can lately.

 

http://trademarks.justia.com/owners/bruce-kirby-inc-1874343/

 

including "Laser":

 

http://trademarks.justia.com/858/76/laser-85876136.html

 

and also the well known sunburst logo:

 

http://trademarks.justia.com/858/76/n-a-85876140.html

 

WTF???

 

ILCA Constitution

 

INSIGNIA

2. The emblem of the Class shall be the recognised Laser symbol, and the

insignia of the officers shall be those prescribed by By-Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of the readers of this thread would be happy to have it 'Kirby's way', but at the same time Laser being thrown out of Olympics and ISAF Sailing World Cup?

I'm not sure there's enough information to know what "Kirby's way" means. He hasn't really set that out in any detail.

 

As for the Laser being removed from the Olympics, I'd have mixed feelings. The availability of the Laser has encouraged participation of countries without an Olympic sailing tradition and that's important, if nothing else for retention of sailing as an Olympic sport. However that aside, I think use of a more modern boat would be a positive development for sailing and the Olympics and I'm not sure it would make any difference to 99.9% of Laser/Torch sailors. There are no other ubiquitous men's or women's single-handers today but trials could be ran and designers/manufacturers would certainly take up the challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...in strict one designs and SMOD's, the role of the class association is very different. They do not do the main marketing of the class, which is looked after by the manufacturer. In these situations, it is my belief and experience that a class association doesn't contribute to the success but in fact, can be responsible for exactly the opposite. A bad association slows the growth of a class. A good association is, IMO, doesn't increase sales. It is simply a small part of a much bigger picture. In my experience, when a class association is important to the commercial success of a class, you see the manufacturer supporting that association in many ways. However, LP has cut its financial support of the class. If you really want to understand how important the association is to sales, simply look at the actions and comments of Rastegar and LP. He is a clever operator and if he felt that the association led to more sales, he would treat the association in a very different way to how he is currently acting, withdrawing funds through advertising and sponsorship. In case you missed it, that has put the association in a bad position, with it showing a financial loss last year. Then you read his comments about how sales to people who race are only a small amount of his business and he doesn't focus on that. Sales vs membership seems to support that view.

 

To further illustrate the point, look at the numbers. Even allowing for the number of boats that have died over the years, the ILCA membership represents a pretty small numbers of boats out there (probably around10% of boats in existence). Considering that membership is meant to be compulsory, this gives a real indication of the influence of the association on those buying boats.

 

Please don't misunderstand what I say. Everybody who is involved with running class associations deserves respect, because it is a thankless job. You don't get praise when it goes well, but you get caned if it doesn't go well. However, IMO, it is important to understand the true role of a class association in the success of a class. An association needs to model itself on the nature of its role and whether it is the prime source of marketing or not. Understanding that allows a class to use its resources effectively. I personally believe that very few sailors really understand these issues, because they don't find themselves in a position to need to consider the problems and challenges.

 

Finally, the class association would not exist if it weren't for the efforts of the original commercial interests in the Laser. As has been acknowledged on this very thread, BK was one of those whose efforts and support allowed the ILCA to get to the position it has today. At best, one might argue that it was a true symbiotic relationship, but to claim that the Laser is a success because of the class association and that it made BK money simply doesn't stack up to scrutiny.

 

SimonN, your post highlights the most plausible reasons (or paints the scenario) why the ILCA might have acted in the way they have. Their strategy might be based on the stand-off that exists between Kirby and Laser Performance / Rastegar, the ICLA are not willing to bite the hand that feeds them. Of course there is more than one builder in the world, it seems that PSA know about the same as us, and we haven't heard from the Japanese. That being said, we can only act on what we know - ILCA are issuing plaques to Laser Performance, in spite of knowing that Laser Performance no longer are authorised to build Kirby's design.

I look at the growth from the perspective of a fairly small, isolated community (New Zealand), where it was the sailors themselves that organized and promoted racing. I recall in 1979 the class starting in the club where I learnt to sail, it was about 5 or 6 guys that simply went sailing and encouraged others to sail as Lasers as well. I remember seeing a chart prepared by the NZYF that had the progression of classes - from junior to senior that included the OK and Finn but I can't recall it including the Laser. I recall reading an article about (by?) Barry Thom in Sea Spay Magazine around 1980 who finished second at the worlds about then. By 1983 we were having 25 lasers regularly show up (sometimes more - I recall 33 once) and race on our small inland lake. The class here in NZ reached a point where it self promoted - in marketing I've often heard this aptly referred to as reaching 'critical mass'. In the early days, Lasers featured in quite a few magazines - and since Kirby had a publishing background, I'm pretty sure that he had a hand in that.

 

It is possible that 'the system' that has served the class very well for 40 years could be improved. For me, I'm not going to sit idly by and watch ILCA support Laser Performance / Rastegar break apart our sport ('the system') to serve their unknown agenda.

 

PS: Survey update is here: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=146522&page=1

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish there was a better record of what was said 2 December 2012.

 

Review of Reports and Submissions: The ILCA World Council was pleased to receive reports from two invited guests. Bruce Kirby, designer of the Laser, and Farzad Rastegar, of LaserPerformance, separately gave an oral presentation to the council regarding their ideas about the future of the Laser Class. Each gave a 30 minute oral presentation followed by a brief question and answer. The World Council is optimistic that a continued dialogue will result in improved relations among all parties.

A report was also received following the meeting of the Technical and Measurement Committee (TMC.) Currently there are no recommended changes to the Class Rules, but several items are being studied for future rule change proposals. The new developments planned to improve the sails and spars are being pushed forward as possible and the ILCA continues to work with the ISAF and the builders to establish a plan for future implementation. Reports were also received from each of the regional representatives in attendance and several submissions relating to specific regions were discussed by the council including the nomination of Regional Measurers.

http://www.laserinternational.org/info/summaryofilcaworldcouncilmeeting

 

Pam's been talking about the Kirby / Laser Performance issue on her blog impropercourse:

http://www.impropercourse.com/2013/05/whos-your-daddy.html

 

I find her blog quite informative.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...... it seems that PSA know about the same as us, and we haven't heard from the Japanese.

I was beginning to think you were a paid puppet of BK or somebody close to BK, but this post tells us that you have no idea what is going on! PSA knows everything that is happening and has come out in full support of BK, if not by their statements then in their actions. They have been announced as one of the builders of the Torch and that they are "converting over" to building Torch's. They have announced that they cannot see a way they can build legal Lasers under the new rules and that their announcement infers they do not recognise the new builders plaques. It would be a huge surprise if PSA didn't know what was going on as they are deeply entrenched with BK and you have to assume that as they have accepted an agreement to allow them to build Torch's.

 

As for the Japanese, although there has been no formal announcement, BK suggested in one of his interviews that they are likely to convert over to building Torch's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...... it seems that PSA know about the same as us, and we haven't heard from the Japanese.

I was beginning to think you were a paid puppet of BK or somebody close to BK, but this post tells us that you have no idea what is going on! PSA knows everything that is happening and has come out in full support of BK, if not by their statements then in their actions. They have been announced as one of the builders of the Torch and that they are "converting over" to building Torch's. They have announced that they cannot see a way they can build legal Lasers under the new rules and that their announcement infers they do not recognise the new builders plaques. It would be a huge surprise if PSA didn't know what was going on as they are deeply entrenched with BK and you have to assume that as they have accepted an agreement to allow them to build Torch's.

 

As for the Japanese, although there has been no formal announcement, BK suggested in one of his interviews that they are likely to convert over to building Torch's.

 

All I know is what I have read on the 'net. I am not close to any of the parties - I have formed my own opinion. (Ultimately, I'm just Joe average Laser (Torch) sailor - definitely not a puppet and definitely not on Kirby's payroll.)

 

Chris Caldecoat's statement a couple of days back says it all for PSA. The Kirby camp have been pretty open about what's happening while ILCA and Laser Performance are anything but open. I don't think you are saying that PSA know what's going on with ILCA and Laser Performance, here's the bit that Chris Caldecoat's said that makes me think he knows much the same as us:

 

‘PSA fails to understand why any Laser builder would knowingly breach their agreements with the designer, ISAF or the ILCA. PSA does not support such activity and renounces such behaviour vehemently.

 

‘As a current compliant builder of Laser boats, and an owner of the Laser Trade Mark, PSA has not been consulted by the ILCA or ISAF with respect to their proposal to keep issuing plaques to a boat building company that has failed to comply with their Laser builders contract and has lost the right to build the Kirby Designed boat. (As the Laser is referred to in the LCM.)

 

‘PSA does not support this action by the ILCA and ISAF, which is in contravention of the LCM.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the options for class members who do not feel the ILCA officers are acting according to the majority of members' expectations? How do we get them to justify and explain their actions and/or request that they reverse their actions or be removed? The potential liability that their actions have just incurred is not an acceptable risk?

I thought I might look into this and as far as I can see, there is nothing at all you can do. First off, you cannot replace the head guys. They are voted on by the regional guys, who are voted for by the district guys. You, the regular sailors, vote for the district guys, but only once a year. therefore, this route is very hard to use to get change.

 

Next, there is no point in proposing a change in class rule. Even if you managed to get it voted on, every vote has to be approved by the World Council, the Advisory council and ISAF. The advisory council consists of the President and vice President of the World Council, plus 2 people representing the builders who hold the trademark. So even assuming you have PSA on your side, they only have 1 of the 3 votes in the Advisory Council and the others are those who supported the activities that led to this crisis.

 

Bottom line is, you are screwed. That's democracy for you. You could all resign from the ILCA and join the Kirby Torch class association, if only as a protest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wess - who do you think pays for the ILCA organization We know that Dues don't cover it all. And we know that race entry fees almost NEVER cover the costs of running a regatta (at a small local club where you are kicking in for Beer, Trophies and mark set gas it does but not above that level).

 

So I guess you think the ILCA and ISAF are counterfeiters just printing money out of thin air. uhuh.

 

And when a builder produces 300 new boats (at a cost of roughly $3k/boat) and lends them to the World Champs That $900,000 is generously lent to the builder by the local banks for absolutely no cost whatsoever. Hmm do you even know what the borrowing rate for a small business on $1,000,000 is?

 

You are an ignorant troll

 

Sounds like you haven't run a regatta before and that is a pretty big generalization. People don't set out to lose money on an event whether it be local or international. That's why they budget things to either break even or make money, no one sets to lose money on something.

 

Big events can get sponsors but you can break even or make money with a regatta easily. It's not that hard to lose money when running a Laser event, in fact because it's a laser you can make it even cheaper if you do food correctly.

 

You are of course correct Sir. I have not organized or run multiple National level regattas in the last five years or any others and if I had they would not have set attendance records. I never serve as PRO multiple times in a year and do not do RC at least 12 times a year either. Only a fool would do so. I do not race in multiple classes, and would not be caught dead in dinghies, multihulls or monohulls. For sure my wife would kill me if I raced about 50-75 days a year so I would never do that either and kids are obnoxious so I would not have introduced dozen to the sport. I am in fact such an a** and so unpopular that I can't ever get crew to sail on my boats. It is all rather shamful. I am the bad ignorant person you think I am. But in every dark cloud there is gold to be mined from the pockets of the little people. And its mine; all mine!

 

A tall tale from a land far, far away.

 

So rather than despair over my sad state of affairs I spent my time on was looking at my name and thinking how important I am and how cool a turkey sandwich is. Nevermind those that don't agree; I went out and trademarked my name. I also tried to trademark "Don't you know who the hell I am!!??" but apparently and sadly I was beaten to the punch on that one from some smart dude in CT. Then, because my name was a tag that was on turkey dsandwich, I got people to pay me and even better I got other silly folks to do lots and lots of work to make the turkey sandwich successful so I could make more and more money. I also wrote a book about how to make a turkey sandwich or so some think. Its the coolest thing ever because nobody can make or sell turkey sandwiches without buying rights to my book. I am pretty sure I copyrighted that book (anybody seen that?), but no matter, you can't make turkey sandwiches unless you buy my book some claim! Its such a slam dunk that while I could have owned a trademark for turkey sandwiches I did not care when somebody else got rights to it. Idiots. They think because they own the trademark to the turkey sandwich they can make and sell trukey sandwiches. But it ain't gonna happen. I am going to sue those turkey sandwich making, trademark owning fools back to the stone ages! Heck I am even going to sue those silly little people that helped make turkey sandwiches popular. Don't they know I own the trademark to turkey sandwiches... uh I mean... "don't they know who the hell I am" and they darn well better put my name on the tag and buy my book! I'll sue them all and their little dog too! Cue the flying monkeys!

 

Now please excuse me, I need to find my people and get them to push out some more "poor little ole me - they are taking my turkey sandwich" stories. I can't believe how smart I am. I mean there are people out there making ham sandwiches, and sausage sandwiches, and even BLTs. Everywhere you go there are sandwiches but nobody was ever so smart as me to use such a great strategy to make sure they got paid forever and ever for their sandwiches. They should bow to me. Don't they know who I am?!

 

Good grief. Sorry you don't like opinion but everybody has one. You vote with Kirby; I vote with ILCA. We think a different set of people should be driving the bus and under the bus. We ain't gonna change each other's minds and at the end of the day it don't matter worth a hill of beans. The judge decides it. If the dude has legitimate rights that he can sell (contract) and are needed to make and sell the boat, he is going to win, collect his money and drive the bus. If not, he is going to be under it. Most likely the parties settle, the lawyers have a payday, and everyone claims victory. But I hope not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wess - who do you think pays for the ILCA organization We know that Dues don't cover it all. And we know that race entry fees almost NEVER cover the costs of running a regatta (at a small local club where you are kicking in for Beer, Trophies and mark set gas it does but not above that level).

 

So I guess you think the ILCA and ISAF are counterfeiters just printing money out of thin air. uhuh.

 

And when a builder produces 300 new boats (at a cost of roughly $3k/boat) and lends them to the World Champs That $900,000 is generously lent to the builder by the local banks for absolutely no cost whatsoever. Hmm do you even know what the borrowing rate for a small business on $1,000,000 is?

 

You are an ignorant troll

 

Sounds like you haven't run a regatta before and that is a pretty big generalization. People don't set out to lose money on an event whether it be local or international. That's why they budget things to either break even or make money, no one sets to lose money on something.

 

Big events can get sponsors but you can break even or make money with a regatta easily. It's not that hard to lose money when running a Laser event, in fact because it's a laser you can make it even cheaper if you do food correctly.

 

You are of course correct Sir. I have not organized or run multiple National level regattas in the last five years or any others and if I had they would not have set attendance records. I never serve as PRO multiple times in a year and do not do RC at least 12 times a year either. Only a fool would do so. I do not race in multiple classes, and would not be caught dead in dinghies, multihulls or monohulls. For sure my wife would kill me if I raced about 50-75 days a year so I would never do that either and kids are obnoxious so I would not have introduced dozen to the sport. I am in fact such an a** and so unpopular that I can't ever get crew to sail on my boats. It is all rather shamful. I am the bad ignorant person you think I am. But in every dark cloud there is gold to be mined from the pockets of the little people. And its mine; all mine!

My comments were directed towards Baltic and his generalizations about running events, not you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From another forum (LinkedIn):

LP did not pay royalties to the other boats they built. The SB3, 2000 and others have been pulled from LP by the designers because non royalty payments. This is why you see RS now marketing the 2000. The difference with Kirby is LP owns the Laser Trademark and Sunburst logo. The other designers had both the design and names.

 

Can anyone verify this?

 

If it's true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), then is shows Laser Performance as a very bad candidate for ILCA to support in any way.

 

ILCA constitution (http://www.laserinternational.org/sites/default/files/Constitution.pdf) says:

 

 

The Association shall be governed by the World Council comprised of the Chairman of each Regional
Executive Committee from time to time holding office, the immediate Past President of the World Council,
the Executive Secretary, the two appointed members of the Advisory Council, and such additional officers
to be appointed by the Council for such term as it may from time to time determine . Each officer shall be
a member of the Association

and;

SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
12 . A member may be suspended by the World Council, on the recommendation of a District Association, for
gross violation of the Rules and By-Laws, for committing an unlawful act in relation to the Association or
one of its members, or for any unsportsmanlike conduct contrary to the interests of the members of the
Association . The duration of the suspension shall be fixed by the World Council and a suspended member
shall during such period be precluded from racing or enjoying any other rights of membership .
13 . A Regional or District officer may be removed from office by the World Council for a wilful and unjustifiable act
of commission or omission detrimental to the Association or to its members.

 

It would seem that the World Council is held accountable by itself.

Are there laws in the UK that organizations must abide with? Must organisations be answerable to their members?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments were directed towards Baltic and his generalizations about running events, not you.

 

Sorry, my bad.

 

And no more popcorn Gouv. Have a turkey sandwich. Just be sure to pay me first! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there laws in the UK that organizations must abide with? Must organisations be answerable to their members?

What do you mean by "answerable"? If there's a constitution and the officers don't follow it and that causes you some wrong, then you might have some redress. However I don't see any evidence ILCA isn't following its constitution. If you are asking is there some general fuzzy principle in UK law that members organisations have to do what the members want, no there isn't.
Link to post
Share on other sites

From another forum (LinkedIn):

LP did not pay royalties to the other boats they built. The SB3, 2000 and others have been pulled from LP by the designers because non royalty payments. This is why you see RS now marketing the 2000. The difference with Kirby is LP owns the Laser Trademark and Sunburst logo. The other designers had both the design and names.[/size]

Can anyone verify this?

 

 

It's a plausible explanation for what's happened in those classes lately. I think that's all the verification you are likely to get.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a plausible explanation for what's happened in those classes lately. I think that's all the verification you are likely to get.

 

To be fair its equally feasible that LPE decided there was insufficient return in continuing to build the boats and just terminated the contracts. They've halted building other classes in the past and they have continued to be built by other builders. An example is the Laser 3000, which must have had fairly complex design ownership since it was a new rig and deck slung on top of a Bethwaite hull.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.. I need to find my people and get them to push out some more "poor little ole me - they are taking my turkey sandwich" stories.I can't believe how smart I am...

 

Establishing the "Church of Turkey Sandwich" surely would help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Wess - who do you think pays for the ILCA organization We know that Dues don't cover it all. And we know that race entry fees almost NEVER cover the costs of running a regatta (at a small local club where you are kicking in for Beer, Trophies and mark set gas it does but not above that level).

 

So I guess you think the ILCA and ISAF are counterfeiters just printing money out of thin air. uhuh.

 

And when a builder produces 300 new boats (at a cost of roughly $3k/boat) and lends them to the World Champs That $900,000 is generously lent to the builder by the local banks for absolutely no cost whatsoever. Hmm do you even know what the borrowing rate for a small business on $1,000,000 is?

 

You are an ignorant troll

 

Sounds like you haven't run a regatta before and that is a pretty big generalization. People don't set out to lose money on an event whether it be local or international. That's why they budget things to either break even or make money, no one sets to lose money on something.

 

Big events can get sponsors but you can break even or make money with a regatta easily. It's not that hard to lose money when running a Laser event, in fact because it's a laser you can make it even cheaper if you do food correctly.

 

You are of course correct Sir. I have not organized or run multiple National level regattas in the last five years or any others and if I had they would not have set attendance records. I never serve as PRO multiple times in a year and do not do RC at least 12 times a year either. Only a fool would do so. I do not race in multiple classes, and would not be caught dead in dinghies, multihulls or monohulls. For sure my wife would kill me if I raced about 50-75 days a year so I would never do that either and kids are obnoxious so I would not have introduced dozen to the sport. I am in fact such an a** and so unpopular that I can't ever get crew to sail on my boats. It is all rather shamful. I am the bad ignorant person you think I am. But in every dark cloud there is gold to be mined from the pockets of the little people. And its mine; all mine!

My comments were directed towards Baltic and his generalizations about running events, not you.

Again I didn't say that people set out to lose money. Rather that clubs rarely make a profit on a regatta FROM ENTRY FEES.. That in fact what sailors pay in entry fees usually has to be subsidized - either by class $$, Fleet $$, club $$, Sponsor $$ or usually some combination thereof. And every budget I've been involved in building (from local beer can fleet to national champs in J-24s) does it this way and ONLY the local beer can racing with a round robin for who does RC with the club's runabout and dues going to gas money ONLY (and no use of clubhouse because they can't afford the cleaning bill) has broken even ON DUES ALONE.

 

Wess' uninformed notion is that somehow class dues and entry fees cover the costs of running all the good regional, national, and world events. And its just not true. Now the club itself may well turn a profit because it charges the event for use of the space at break-even and profits on the bar bill and sometimes even the food bill. But that's not the same as what Wess claimed which is that somehow the builders don't give back to the ILCA events. They have - that is until Rastegar seems to have changed the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess' uninformed notion is that somehow class dues and entry fees cover the costs of running all the good regional, national, and world events. And its just not true. Now the club itself may well turn a profit because it charges the event for use of the space at break-even and profits on the bar bill and sometimes even the food bill. But that's not the same as what Wess claimed which is that somehow the builders don't give back to the ILCA events. They have - that is until Rastegar seems to have changed the game.

 

Not what I said. I said show me where Kirby gave back to ILCA in any meaningful way. See 611, 623, 635, 640. Nice try though.

 

Think you are twisting what this is about. The builders take money from us and then they pay Kirby (the cut he claims). This case is about that cut Kirby claims. Show me where Kirby give that cut back to ILCA.

 

And it didn't start with Rastegar IMHO. It started with BK giving his rights to PSA. So then, LPE would collect money from the NA and EU sailors and have to pay PSA (for the rights Kirby claimed but had sold away at that stage for his (I think it was reported) estate planning purposes or words to that effect). Ignoring that PSA did little to nothing for NA and EU sailors (not that it matters to the case) but after BK sold his rights to PSA and LPE had to pay a competitor (PSA) LPE balked, PSA then gave or sold the rights back to Kirby and then Kirby sued LPE. He also sued the class which helped make the boat so successful which made him the money he claims, no? AFAIK, this is the sequence of events. If the sequence is wrong please enlighten me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wess' uninformed notion is that somehow class dues and entry fees cover the costs of running all the good regional, national, and world events. And its just not true. Now the club itself may well turn a profit because it charges the event for use of the space at break-even and profits on the bar bill and sometimes even the food bill. But that's not the same as what Wess claimed which is that somehow the builders don't give back to the ILCA events. They have - that is until Rastegar seems to have changed the game.

 

Not what I said. I said show me where Kirby gave back to ILCA in any meaningful way. See 611, 623, 635, 640. Nice try though.

 

Think you are twisting what this is about. The builders take money from us and then they pay Kirby (the cut he claims). This case is about that cut Kirby claims. Show me where Kirby give that cut back to ILCA.

 

And it didn't start with Rastegar IMHO. It started with BK giving his rights to PSA. So then, LPE would collect money from the NA and EU sailors and have to pay PSA (for the rights Kirby claimed but had sold away at that stage for his (I think it was reported) estate planning purposes or words to that effect). Ignoring that PSA did little to nothing for NA and EU sailors (not that it matters to the case) but after BK sold his rights to PSA and LPE had to pay a competitor (PSA) LPE balked, PSA then gave or sold the rights back to Kirby and then Kirby sued LPE. He also sued the class which helped make the boat so successful which made him the money he claims, no? AFAIK, this is the sequence of events. If the sequence is wrong please enlighten me.

 

Kirby gives by just showing up. He has held the ICLA to the concept over the years - acting as a watchdog for the ILCA. My belief is that the class rules are in far better shape because of his active input.

 

Wess, your sequence isn't wrong, just you have left important bits out and your judgements and conclusion/s are off. When Kirby sold his rights to Global Sailing, then LP/Rastegar's agreement in my mind should have been transferred. It's important to realise that LP/Rastegar accepted the transfer for a couple of years (paying royalties), then decided to put forward the notion that they did not recognise the transfer. I am of the belief that that's when things went wrong - so I am of the belief that's when it started. Wess, you can believe what you like.

 

The position is (as I said before) there are two scenarios:

The sale was valid and the agreement was transferred. Of course it has been transferred back to Kirby now so any impacts have been reversed.

The sale was NOT valid and the agreement was NOT transferred. Then the agreement is still with Kirby.

 

By what mechanism, legal precedent or other did the sale of Kirby's transfer to Global Sailing invalidate the agreement? It's a bit rich to expect that Ian Bruce's original building rights have been sold and resold over the years and have ended up with LP/Rastegar - but somehow the other party (Kirby) can't transfer his? The current agreements are dated 1984 and 1988 - possibly this was to update or formalize the original agreements. How many times did the agreement transfer? How come the previous parties to the agreements paid the royalties without issue? 'The system' was able to operate for several decades due to the tremendous goodwill between the parties. It seems to me that source of the absence of goodwill is LP/Rastegar.

 

And by the way, this part of the world is ready to rename the Laser the Torch and keep on sailing:

http://laserasiapacific.com/laser-class-changing-to-torch-class/

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wess - who do you think pays for the ILCA organization We know that Dues don't cover it all. And we know that race entry fees almost NEVER cover the costs of running a regatta (at a small local club where you are kicking in for Beer, Trophies and mark set gas it does but not above that level).

 

So I guess you think the ILCA and ISAF are counterfeiters just printing money out of thin air. uhuh.

 

And when a builder produces 300 new boats (at a cost of roughly $3k/boat) and lends them to the World Champs That $900,000 is generously lent to the builder by the local banks for absolutely no cost whatsoever. Hmm do you even know what the borrowing rate for a small business on $1,000,000 is?

 

You are an ignorant troll

Sounds like you haven't run a regatta before and that is a pretty big generalization. People don't set out to lose money on an event whether it be local or international. That's why they budget things to either break even or make money, no one sets to lose money on something.

 

Big events can get sponsors but you can break even or make money with a regatta easily. It's not that hard to lose money when running a Laser event, in fact because it's a laser you can make it even cheaper if you do food correctly.

You are of course correct Sir. I have not organized or run multiple National level regattas in the last five years or any others and if I had they would not have set attendance records. I never serve as PRO multiple times in a year and do not do RC at least 12 times a year either. Only a fool would do so. I do not race in multiple classes, and would not be caught dead in dinghies, multihulls or monohulls. For sure my wife would kill me if I raced about 50-75 days a year so I would never do that either and kids are obnoxious so I would not have introduced dozen to the sport. I am in fact such an a** and so unpopular that I can't ever get crew to sail on my boats. It is all rather shamful. I am the bad ignorant person you think I am. But in every dark cloud there is gold to be mined from the pockets of the little people. And its mine; all mine!

My comments were directed towards Baltic and his generalizations about running events, not you.
Again I didn't say that people set out to lose money. Rather that clubs rarely make a profit on a regatta FROM ENTRY FEES.. That in fact what sailors pay in entry fees usually has to be subsidized - either by class $$, Fleet $$, club $$, Sponsor $$ or usually some combination thereof. And every budget I've been involved in building (from local beer can fleet to national champs in J-24s) does it this way and ONLY the local beer can racing with a round robin for who does RC with the club's runabout and dues going to gas money ONLY (and no use of clubhouse because they can't afford the cleaning bill) has broken even ON DUES ALONE.
My club, which runs local up to major events budgets in the use of gas and such for the club boats and the volunteers offer their boats as well as gas to help out. Most of the time we don't get sponsors but from entry fees alone we never lose money. Things get interesting when certain events have to have people fly in (judges) but we cover that in our budget. We are lucky if we get some sponsors but we can run events and make money on entry fees alone and the fees are reasonable if not lower than what you see for some events.

 

We also may be talking about different fleets where you mention J/24s we are usually smaller one design boats. Also you mention the club turns a profit for the use of the club, at least the way i do it, the club runs the event, not the sailors. I think of something like SSA in Annapolis they have to pay back to the club, but in my case the club runs the event and has the budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it didn't start with Rastegar IMHO. It started with BK giving his rights to PSA. So then, LPE would collect money from the NA and EU sailors and have to pay PSA (for the rights Kirby claimed but had sold away at that stage for his (I think it was reported) estate planning purposes or words to that effect). Ignoring that PSA did little to nothing for NA and EU sailors (not that it matters to the case) but after BK sold his rights to PSA and LPE had to pay a competitor (PSA) LPE balked, PSA then gave or sold the rights back to Kirby and then Kirby sued LPE. He also sued the class which helped make the boat so successful which made him the money he claims, no? AFAIK, this is the sequence of events. If the sequence is wrong please enlighten me.

With the exception that we do not know what the REAL REASON behind the LPE actions was, seems correct to me.

I'm with you, Wess, on this one. I also asked several times on this thread for BK's evangelists to come forward with some evidence but none has been produced so far.

 

IMHO, BK is about as nasty as the other two.

 

At the same time, given the information available, I fully support the actions taken by ILCA (I will support any class association that's not corrupt and acts in the interests of the class members, for that matter) and I stand firmly behind the ISAF, even if I do not always like the outcome that the system produces. It is OUR "United Nations", if you wish, and it is as good as WE make it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kirby gives by just showing up. He has held the ICLA to the concept over the years - acting as a watchdog for the ILCA. My belief is that the class rules are in far better shape because of his active input.

Did not know that a class association needed a watchdog. Gee I wonder who is doing that for all the other classes I sail in. Thank God he was here for this class. Lord only know how helpful it is to get sued. Either way, what a great gig if you can get it. I can well imagine that you/he think the class rules are better because of his active input when the class rules said you needed to pay BK, no? What a great idea. So do you mean it would be good for all in the class if he were to trademark his name, put his name on the plaque, and write rules that he needed to be paid for having his name there? Did I miss something here because his lawsuit seems to claim that is a requirement and the class took steps to change the rules and remove his name but I am just a silly old fool who must misundertand.

Wess, your sequence isn't wrong, just you have left important bits out and your judgements and conclusion/s are off. When Kirby sold his rights to Global Sailing, then LP/Rastegar's agreement in my mind should have been transferred. It's important to realise that LP/Rastegar accepted the transfer for a couple of years (paying royalties), then decided to put forward the notion that they did not recognise the transfer. I am of the belief that that's when things went wrong - so I am of the belief that's when it started. Wess, you can believe what you like.

Why thank you. I like turkey sandwiches. I just don't like people that claim right to them and want me to pay without saying or showing some actual right. And no Gantt, saying there is a contract does not prove that there is or he owns any right.

The position is (as I said before) there are two scenarios:

The sale was valid and the agreement was transferred. Of course it has been transferred back to Kirby now so any impacts have been reversed.

The sale was NOT valid and the agreement was NOT transferred. Then the agreement is still with Kirby.

I think you might be missing some Gantt. Doubt anyone will claim the sale was not valid. But seeing how you still can't answer the one question of what right it is that he has to sell to make the contract valid I can see why you want to stick with that story.

By what mechanism, legal precedent or other did the sale of Kirby's transfer to Global Sailing invalidate the agreement? It's a bit rich to expect that Ian Bruce's original building rights have been sold and resold over the years and have ended up with LP/Rastegar - but somehow the other party (Kirby) can't transfer his? The current agreements are dated 1984 and 1988 - possibly this was to update or formalize the original agreements. How many times did the agreement transfer? How come the previous parties to the agreements paid the royalties without issue? 'The system' was able to operate for several decades due to the tremendous goodwill between the parties. It seems to me that source of the absence of goodwill is LP/Rastegar.

Who said the sale invalidated the agreement? It may be said but not by me. What IS rich is putting your name on a sicker and expecting to get paid for that. Or am I wrong Gantt, does his lawsuit not claim that (the trademark of his name and his name on the plaque)?

And by the way, this part of the world is ready to rename the Laser the Torch and keep on sailing:

http://laserasiapacific.com/laser-class-changing-to-torch-class/

I am sorry but is that a question mark after the title? Help me understand what that means Gantt? Does this mean that PSA will no longer make and sell Lasers but will make and sell Torches? FWIW, I think it would be great if they did and my hat is off to them. Competition is good. By all means lets see what PSA can do with the Torch brand. Oh and BTW, can you tell me who owns the trademark for a Torch brand sailboat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a petition for ILCA to redo the Fundamental Rule change vote.




The statements by ILCA promoting the Fundamental Laser Rule change were materially incorrect and may have significantly biased the results. This petition requests that ILCA set aside the rule change vote and immediately revote on the proposed Fundamental Rule change.


The incorrect statements by ILCA in promoting the rule change were:


1. ‘a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights.'


2. ‘The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired. ... Therefore, we are proposing to change the rule to eliminate the 'building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc' requirement.'


Statement 1 is incorrect because the building agreement was not historical and was in fact highly relevant due to existing builder contracts.


Statement 2 is incorrect and misleading. There never were patents and this statement gave the impression that Kirby rights had lapsed.


I don't want to litigate what is true and false. Rather, I want to see if there is a critical mass to get a more accurate membership vote on the future of the class.


Currently ISAF and ILCA are proceeding using the Fundamental Rule change vote. Whoever wins the court case, basing the future of the class on such a deeply flawed vote is unwise.


Michael O'Brien
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess wrote: "...Doubt anyone will claim the sale was not valid." and "Who said the sale invalidated the agreement?" LP/Rastegar advised Kirby that the sale was not valid as part of justifying their position for not paying royalties. The source was Kirby.


Wess, you seem stuck on the design rights. This is about a contractual matter. The legal action is a civil matter concerning CONTRACT LAW.

 

Wess wrote: "I am sorry but is that a question mark after the title? Help me understand what that means Gantt?" You really want to talk about the existence of the question mark? It doesn't change that in this part of the world we are committed to sailing the boat that Kirby designed, using the system that Kirby was a huge part of developing which includes paying Kirby modest royalties. When I said that this part of the world is ready to rename the Laser to the Torch, that statement does not predict in any way what the future may bring. It simply means that we are ready to move forward and keep on sailing Kirby's boat (AKA the Laser and Torch).

 

Michael, a petition! I'm happy to sign it - my hope is that it succeeds. At some point ILCA need to take notice - or they will be left holding hands with LP/Rastegar while the world moves forward without them - with Kirby's boat renamed the Torch. Who will pay for the executive's wages then? My hope is that the ITCA (International Torch Class Association) will have a constitution that requires it's executive to be more responsive, more open and more answerable to those they represent. And if the ILCA remains in control, then I will be pushing for a changed constitution that does the same.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said that this part of the world is ready to rename the Laser...

Now, where did you find any evidence that "that part of the world is ready to rename the Laser"?

 

All we can see is the same statement that some builders are converting operations.

 

It doesn't say anywhere that the same builders are ceasing production of Laser boats.

 

I haven't seen any Laser Class association of Asia Pacific Region stating that they are ready to rename their Lasers.

 

http://laserinternational.org/contact/asiapacific

 

What kind of fool are you?

 

...Bruce Kirby in conjunction with Performance Sailcraft Australia and two new builders in the US and Europe have announced they are converting operations to produce exactly the same boat under a new brand name the Torch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Also, have you seen this?http://trademarks.justia.com/857/79/kirby-torch-85779037.html

I interpret it as there will be no "Kirby Torch" trademark.

Notice of publication is the step before issuance. There is a period for opposition then it issues. How do you get no TM?
Did you read everything on that site???

2013-04-04 FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN

2013-04-04 FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED

2013-04-04 NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED

P.S. You still owe us some photos.

Yep. Read the whole thing. That's the typical dance at the trademark office. The Examiner's amendment obviously overcame the Examiner's final refusal. The thing is on track for allowance and then Kirby has about two years worth of extensions to file a specimen of how the mark is actually used on the product. It's all pretty standard trademark prosecution and it's in the final stretch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal problem with the guy? Not so. Never met the dude. Do think he is an ass for suing the class association that helped him make his money but the judeg will not care about that for sure. Just an opinion.

 

Wes's, you seem To be stuck on this personal problem with the guy bring paid forever for the boat he designed.
The only reason design rights don't go forever is out governments have written laws which allow entities to steal men's designs.

No way am I debating government policy on IP. However if you do some actual research the US if far more liberal on IP than many, many, many other countries AFAIK.


Why the hell should you be entitled to use Kirby's design without paying him what he asks??
Why the hell should ANY commercial entity EVER be allied to profit from another man's design without paying the designer??

We are not if he protects his design. Did he do that?

 

If there are unique aspects to the hull or other design aspects he could patent them and sell those rights. Apparently there were not because he did not as far as we know (we don't know for sure because neither he or any od his supporters here will tell us what right he actually owns).

 

He could have trademarked the boat (Laser) and in fact it was trademarked... but that is now with the current builders he is suing oddly enough. So yea, we have to pay for that right but its not BK we have to pay its LPE and PSA! Don't blame the messager!

 

He did trademarked his name and and got his name on the class plaque and demanded payment for that (see lawsuit). So folks took the name off as is their right. Strange thing about those rights; they work both ways!

 

He could have had trade secrets about how to make the boat and even written a construction manual and maybe even copyrighted the book (not the boat). But despite Mr O'Brien comments we don't know the status of this. Oddly even BK has not said he owns said manual or a copyright on same AFAIK, even in his lawsuit and even if he did this turn into a discussion of someone holds a trademark to make and sell turkey sandwiches (LPE) and somebody may own a copyright on an old book about how to make turkey sandwiches but a copyright on the book means nobody can copy the book, not the turkey sandwich.

 

So yet again, I don't think anyone should be allowed to use his design IF HE STILL HOLD RIGHTS TO IT! But nobody can seem to tell us what right he still owns. We know LPE and PSA hold the rights. Still waiting to find out what if any Kirby still holds. This really ain't rocket science. The contract is just a vehicle to say much much somebody pays for what. This is about the what IMHO. If he still has legitimate rights to the design he is going to get paid contract or not if somebody is using those rights. If he sold his rights or otherwise released them, then contract or not he ain't getting paid.



Sail se other toy if you don't want to pay Kirby. Kirby doesn't feel like letting you use his design for free.

Gouv, do you get that unless he holds some legal right like a patent, under the law anyone can make an exact copy of a Laser and sell it. Make it tomorrow - you know you could - and sell it. The only reason you can't call it a Laser (just as Kirby can't call his torch - an exact copy of a Laser - a Laser) is because LPE and PSA hold that right. Its not my or ILCA's fault that Kirby does not hold the trademark to his own boat.



What entitles you to use Kirby's design without giving Kirby whatever he asks for the use of his design???

The law if he no longer holds the rights. And it some of the most liberal IP law in the world! Go check out India, even after they signed onto GATT.



Value?!! If the design has no value, them Lp is not losing anything when they are told they cannot use the design without paying

It has value to those who hold the rights. If it had value to Kirby then why did he not protect the one thing we all have to pay for (and what leaves us stuck with LPE and PSA...) the Laser trademark. You are asking the wrong guy. Go ask Kirby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Lord, what's going to happen when a 3d printer can produce a Laser/Torch?

 

Napster all over again?

 

The Chinese have proven contracts aren't worth shit anyway.

 

This thread has proven once again that it's over, dudes.

 

Back to the dark ages. With iPhones!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is a petition for ILCA to redo the Fundamental Rule change vote.
The statements by ILCA promoting the Fundamental Laser Rule change were materially incorrect and may have significantly biased the results. This petition requests that ILCA set aside the rule change vote and immediately revote on the proposed Fundamental Rule change.
The incorrect statements by ILCA in promoting the rule change were:
1. ‘a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights.'
2. ‘The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired. ... Therefore, we are proposing to change the rule to eliminate the 'building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc' requirement.'
Statement 1 is incorrect because the building agreement was not historical and was in fact highly relevant due to existing builder contracts.
Statement 2 is incorrect and misleading. There never were patents and this statement gave the impression that Kirby rights had lapsed.
I don't want to litigate what is true and false. Rather, I want to see if there is a critical mass to get a more accurate membership vote on the future of the class.
Currently ISAF and ILCA are proceeding using the Fundamental Rule change vote. Whoever wins the court case, basing the future of the class on such a deeply flawed vote is unwise.
Michael O'Brien

I am not sure a Petition is the way to go, after all, while as an ILCA member (still) my vote should count, but non ILCA members opinions dont have sway..

 

HOWEVER, I believe the points raised about the ILCA seriously mis-representing the case to stampede its members into voting for the rule change are absolutely valid.

Until the ILCA addresses that fact, I think they could well deserve the treatment they get before the US court system on a whole lot of other issues.

 

Does anyone (other than Wess) seriously believe that the ILCA put forward a true and accurate argument to its members with those statements. Certainly here in the UK, with the Master sailors I have the occasional ale with, there is general disgust at just how ILCA presented their case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When I said that this part of the world is ready to rename the Laser...

Now, where did you find any evidence that "that part of the world is ready to rename the Laser"?

 

All we can see is the same statement that some builders are converting operations.

 

It doesn't say anywhere that the same builders are ceasing production of Laser boats.

 

I haven't seen any Laser Class association of Asia Pacific Region stating that they are ready to rename their Lasers.

 

http://laserinternational.org/contact/asiapacific

 

What kind of fool are you?

 

 

 

 

Yes ojfd. You are right, I am indeed a fool. A fool for believing that the Vice President of the Asia Pacific region (an active sailor and a top guy) has not said that the region is ready rename the Laser. In fact technically he can't say that, as he's a representative of the ILCA. Let's put that rabbit back in the hat for now.

 

Wess, what right does LP have to build Kirby's boat? If you don't produce evidence then we must conclude that (probably) LP has not rights. Also, contracts aren't important - it's about who owns stuff - right? (In fact, Wess, I think it's your responsibility to inform those involved in contract law that they have had it wrong all along.) If there is a contracted agreement, then it's not longer valid because of the ownership situation. Have I got it right Wess?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...So you like guys who look just like me??

 

frightening.

Uh ... yeah. I saw your ESPN body layout. If I hold my head just right and squint and turn the lights down low ... sure, oh baby, oh baby. But if I open my eyes and turn the lights on ... oh shit, oh shit!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think that Wess might the LaserPerformance North America's Bill Crane?

I have no idea who Wess is or who Bill Crane is either, but I do know that Wess's viewpoint is so one sided and blinkered that it makes it look as if he has some alliance he isn't telling us about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...viewpoint is so one sided and blinkered that it makes it look as if he has some alliance he isn't telling us about.

I dunno Simon, isn't one thing you learn going round the net that there is no viewpoint, not one, that people who have no financial or other alliance will not hold far more vehemently than people who actually have an non-emotional interest in the outcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My club, which runs local up to major events budgets in the use of gas and such for the club boats and the volunteers offer their boats as well as gas to help out. Most of the time we don't get sponsors but from entry fees alone we never lose money.

But Eric, you DO have sponsors: the volunteers who offer their boats and gas. That's sponsorship. And what they get out of it is the club continuing with its events.

 

But it is still sponsorship and it means that the REGATTA FEES DID NOT COVER COSTS - instead club members had to chip in costs of boat useage and gas to make up the difference. Now they may well enjoy doing so, but that doesn't change the fact that the entry fees didn't cover the regattae.

 

As for J24s being bigger boats - that actually makes it easier for the club to turn a profit. because

  1. crews are more likely to spend an extra $20 to buy an event Shirt as memorabilia since they didn't kick in the entry fee
  2. a crew of 4 will drink more at the bar than a crew of 1 or 2. but the cost of setting up the course, providing judges etc. is mostly dependent on the number of boats
  3. the cost of running the course for a 50 boat regattae is about the same for a 24'er as for a 14'er. slightly more gas for the 24'er mark set boats as the marks need to be set a bit further upwind, but a bit more gas for the dinghies for crash boats so that's a push.

So the reality is that its easier to deal with the budget of a 24er regattae rather than 14'er regattae.

 

Again the bottom line is that even at your club, entry fees don't cover the costs. as you yourself have pointed out

  • The club kicks in the operations of the club for free even though that takes away from member usage of the space
  • Club Members sponsor the mark set boat rental
  • Club Members sponsor the gas for running the markset boats

None of those costs are covered by the Entry Fee. And yet Wess is claiming that entry fees and class dues are enough to cover this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

If you cannot make your entry fees cover your costs, what stops you from setting the fees so they do?

 

That's what we do. I've heard this "entry fees don't cover costs" mantra before but only from the USA. Around here, clubs make money from running racing. In fact I can think of at least one club that survives on the entry fees paid for a major series it runs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Wess is a fucking idiot. Sorry mate but lets face facts, you are.

 

As for the rest of this whole long winded and now life sapping debate, all I have to say is this, blah blah fucking blah.

 

Yeah, it has become bogged down into arguments over legal minutiae. No one fucking cares.

 

Those who sail lasers could not care less if it is called a Torch or a Laser or a Maser or w/e name you prefer. Yes, we acknowledge it is a crap boat compared to a 30knot foiling moth or an A class catamaran that can gloriously fly a hull at a 20 knots upwind but at least we can can sail against others all around the world without spending a fortune to do so and we know that the results reflect ability. ( I don't want to hear one fucking word about old boats being slow here.)

 

Pay Kirby his fucking money and lets move one Rastegar You are a grade A douche Farzad and we all know it. You know it. Your wife knows it. When your daughter is a little older she will know it. Every time you bend your mistress over, she no doubt knows it. Get over it dude. You are fucking hated but with a douche name like Farzed that probably comes as no surprise to you.

 

You are the 1% you fucking cunt and you need to give yourself an upper cut right to the side of that greasy head of yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.....douche name like Farzed.... that greasy head of yours.

The racists are coming out of the closet.

 

Pray tell, how is that in any way racist?

 

Frankly I do not much care what you think my friend. With all due respect, I have lived in suburbs of full on Islamic immigrants and if you have not done that and seen what I have seen you can shut the fuck up.

 

Oh and by the way, I hope that wherever they bury that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, if it is on US soil, some patriot digs his filthy corpse up and tosses it to the dogs, which is still more than he deserves. If that makes me a racist so be it.

 

I would like to see the UK start to be a bit racist by the way and stand up for itself at long last. You may not have any pride in your heritage but fortunately many UK citizens do.

 

http://www.bnp.org.uk/ Show some pride Dogwatch and reclaim your nation. I can understand if the EDL wasn't your thing but this party wants and deserves your support. Throw those corrupt mongrels out of power and reclaim your borders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And prey tell me what heritage you are referring to? Are you talking about Vikings landing here and displacing those Romans who'd settled before them? Or how's about those Frenchies coming over here in 1066 and sticking one in the eye of the 'English' king... the bloody French... (That's an example of xenophobia by the way, not racism.)

 

Maybe you're talking about the more recent immigration- where people from former British colonies were encouraged to come and do jobs 'we whiteys' were too good for... were their kids and grand kids expected NOT to have grander aspirations? That's hardly very British is it? Sounds more like fucking apartheid to me.

 

Farzad may be one nasty piece of work with questionable business ethics, but his ethnicity has nothing to do with it. In fact, you could argue that his actions are in direct contradiction from Islamic core beliefs. I suggest you go google 'Islam and Debt'. Get yourself a little more au fait with global politics, ethnicity and religion, then come back and properly debate whether there's a genuine secularist angle on this story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And prey tell me what heritage you are referring to? Are you talking about Vikings landing here and displacing those Romans who'd settled before them? Or how's about those Frenchies coming over here in 1066 and sticking one in the eye of the 'English' king... the bloody French... (That's an example of xenophobia by the way, not racism.)

 

Maybe you're talking about the more recent immigration- where people from former British colonies were encouraged to come and do jobs 'we whiteys' were too good for... were their kids and grand kids expected NOT to have grander aspirations? That's hardly very British is it? Sounds more like fucking apartheid to me.

 

Farzad may be one nasty piece of work with questionable business ethics, but his ethnicity has nothing to do with it. In fact, you could argue that his actions are in direct contradiction from Islamic core beliefs. I suggest you go google 'Islam and Debt'. Get yourself a little more au fait with global politics, ethnicity and religion, then come back and properly debate whether there's a genuine secularist angle on this story.

 

I am not going into a debate with you jwl. I am aware of the lending practices of Islam and its notions on debt. I am aware of global politics, quite possibly more than you. I am fully aware of the history of the UK and its waves of invaders but you are missing the main point. All the invaders of Great Britain were what made Great Britain what it was. There has been no successful Islamic invasion of GB soil ever and that is because the very examples you used to show that the UK has been subject to much "immigration", fought the Musselmen on their holy soil to ensure that they did not subjugate the West.

 

As for your reference to apartheid that is ridiculous. The UK has never been a Muslim or black nation like South Africa. The population of Great Britain have been at the forefront of Western thought for centuries. If all nations are equal matey why do so many people want to leave the shit hole countries they were unluckily born in to immigrate. All these shit nations need to get their act together, separate church and state and accept science and modern thinking as their guiding lights instead of medieval nonsense. It saddens me to hear you speak, as you clearly have no idea of how under attack western culture is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't feed the troll boys.

 

 

Hey Jimmy lad, I note you are British. Keep voting Labour and Liberal Democrat mate and keep watching your country slide ever further down the toilet. Easier than thinking for yourself at least. Or maybe you are wealthy and immigration has lined your purse hence your support of it.

 

Stand up and be counted unless you are a traitor or a coward, or both.

 

I hope that one day the BNP will be putting all its nations traitors up against the wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realised you pussies are going to get all offended over a dissenting voice. Here is a fucking news flash for you, we don't all have to agree. You can hate me and my views and even despise me but guess what ladies, I am not here to seek your respect or applause. I am here for me.

 

We can disagree, we can argue, we can debate in a civil manner but the moment I see a mob forming, I win and you lose. You lose because you are no longer capable of rational thought and are being led by emotion.

 

I am going for lunch now and will not reply to the inevitable dick head responses till tonight, so don't be offended if I don't reply in the same nasty manner you replied me to right away, particularly the swine in the UK who would sell out their nation for a purse full of silver. I know how easily you get offended. Precious things....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, what right does LP have to build Kirby's boat? If you don't produce evidence then we must conclude that (probably) LP has not rights. Also, contracts aren't important - it's about who owns stuff - right? (In fact, Wess, I think it's your responsibility to inform those involved in contract law that they have had it wrong all along.) If there is a contracted agreement, then it's not longer valid because of the ownership situation. Have I got it right Wess?

 

Wow. Just wow. Can't believe you actually asked that, but OK.

 

What right does LP have to build Kirby's boat? THEY OWN THE LASER TRADEMARK! You know, the one that BK could own but apparently does not.

 

Webster defines trademark: a device pointing distinctly to the origin or ownership of merchandise to which it is applied and legally reserved to the exclusive use of the owner as maker or seller.

 

And no Gantt, you don't have it right. A contract may not be or may no longer be valid due to "consideration."

 

Here is a link to help you understand consideration and contracts: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/consideration-every-contract-needs-33361.html

 

So Gantt, once again I have answered your questions. Straight forward and no BS. And I realize that if you can add 1 plus 1 and get 2, just the definition of trademark and who owns it might cause you some consternation as it suggests perhaps, maybe, just possibly its not "Kirby's boat" anymore. But maybe I am wrong. That is why I keep hoping you would be so kind as to answer just one simple question (the reverse actually of what you asked and I so easily answered)...

 

* Given Kirby does NOT own the Laser trademark - clearly defined above and not disputed by anyone - what right does he hold to make it his boat as you say and that he could offer as consideration under a valid contract?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My club, which runs local up to major events budgets in the use of gas and such for the club boats and the volunteers offer their boats as well as gas to help out. Most of the time we don't get sponsors but from entry fees alone we never lose money.

But Eric, you DO have sponsors: the volunteers who offer their boats and gas. That's sponsorship. And what they get out of it is the club continuing with its events.

 

But it is still sponsorship and it means that the REGATTA FEES DID NOT COVER COSTS - instead club members had to chip in costs of boat useage and gas to make up the difference. Now they may well enjoy doing so, but that doesn't change the fact that the entry fees didn't cover the regattae.

 

As for J24s being bigger boats - that actually makes it easier for the club to turn a profit. because

  • crews are more likely to spend an extra $20 to buy an event Shirt as memorabilia since they didn't kick in the entry fee

     

     

  • a crew of 4 will drink more at the bar than a crew of 1 or 2. but the cost of setting up the course, providing judges etc. is mostly dependent on the number of boats

     

     

  • the cost of running the course for a 50 boat regattae is about the same for a 24'er as for a 14'er. slightly more gas for the 24'er mark set boats as the marks need to be set a bit further upwind, but a bit more gas for the dinghies for crash boats so that's a push.

     

     

 

So the reality is that its easier to deal with the budget of a 24er regattae rather than 14'er regattae.

 

Again the bottom line is that even at your club, entry fees don't cover the costs. as you yourself have pointed out

 

  • The club kicks in the operations of the club for free even though that takes away from member usage of the space

     

     

  • Club Members sponsor the mark set boat rental

     

     

  • Club Members sponsor the gas for running the markset boats

     

     

 

None of those costs are covered by the Entry Fee. And yet Wess is claiming that entry fees and class dues are enough to cover this.

In our case, club members will donate the use of their boats and gas but they could easily be payed back and we wouldn't be in the negative. For the most part we don't have an issue with the use of the club since we keep things in the boat yard and not at the main club. Members have no issue using the property for their own sailing or boating. We still continue operations with regattas going on; we have the flexibility. We have plenty of space for members to use the facilities on their own during an event that there are no issues there. Could always have a conflict with the use of our main clubhouse but that's rare and really there haven't been any complaints by members when they want to do something at the club.

 

My bottom line is that we have members use their boats to help out and many donate their time, boat and gas. I don't care if it's sponsorship by the members, we could cover it and still not lose money.

 

I still don't get why people would lose money on an event. You budget it properly and there shouldn't be a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about who Wess is or Gantt or much of anybody else. What I do know is, "Those who disagree with me are wrong."

 

Unless, like me, they are right!

 

(6 words).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread will improve dramatically if each poster follows the simple rule that each post must be exactly 6 words...no more or no less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wess, what right does LP have to build Kirby's boat? If you don't produce evidence then we must conclude that (probably) LP has not rights. Also, contracts aren't important - it's about who owns stuff - right? (In fact, Wess, I think it's your responsibility to inform those involved in contract law that they have had it wrong all along.) If there is a contracted agreement, then it's not longer valid because of the ownership situation. Have I got it right Wess?

 

Wow. Just wow. Can't believe you actually asked that, but OK.

 

What right does LP have to build Kirby's boat? THEY OWN THE LASER TRADEMARK!

You are so wrong about that. Owning a trademark doesn't give you any rights to manufacture a particular design. it's about time you learnt something about the law, rather than spouting bullshit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites