Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 15.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And we have liftoff!!

I for one was happy to finally see an American team that didn’t just reek of assholes. Terry was a great bloke to have in front of the cameras and the intimate videos behind the scenes I found quite f

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

No.  NY State names their courts funny. For civil matters, like the DoG, the New York Supreme Court *is* the trial court and court of original jurisdiction. ;)

courtstructure_civil.gif

Uh, I know that. In response to Rennmaus, you were talking about the highest courts in the state and federal systems having discretion to decide whether to take cases. That's absolutely true and entirely irrelevant as they are appellate courts. Of course they have discretion to hear cases, but that doesn't mean that every court does.  That's why I mentioned courts of "original jurisdiction" in my reply (referred to as "original instance" in your chart).

I am fully aware that the NYSC is the court of original jurisdiction in the NY system. The point is that in New York (and every other state in the country) there is a court that does not have discretion over whether to hear cases. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, porthos said:

Uh, I know that. In response to Rennmaus, you were talking about the highest courts in the state and federal systems having discretion to decide whether to take cases. That's absolutely true and entirely irrelevant as they are appellate courts. Of course they have discretion to hear cases, but that doesn't mean that every court does.  That's why I mentioned courts of "original jurisdiction" in my reply (referred to as "original instance" in your chart).

I am fully aware that the NYSC is the court of original jurisdiction in the NY system. The point is that in New York (and every other state in the country) there is a court that does not have discretion over whether to hear cases. 

Gotcha.  We on the same page.   I was responding to this:

"Oh, please explain. Is there a legal system in the US where the judge can select which case to hear, even if it is valid?"

And my response was YES!  YES THERE IS!  We have a lot of people here from other countries that have other legal systems. I do not know how they all work. But, yes, in the USA we *do* have a legal system where in certain situations a judge can deny to hear a case, even if it has merits.   I was just trying to educate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jaysper said:

LOL! Legendary Italian hospitality!

Our legal system is FAR more efficient, let me tell you.

You can go from just fine to totally fucked in under a week if you get lucky!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@porthoshere is a fascinating one from last year.  A watchdog group sued the state of Georgia. They lost at the Federal circuit level, but won in the Federal Appeals court.   Case closed, right?  Nope.  With a plaintiff's victory in hand... they appealed *their own victory* to the Federal Supreme Court!  They risked having their own win reversed by appealing to the next level.  Absolute mad men.   Btw, they won again in the Supreme Court. 

I had no idea you can appeal a winning verdict. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

@porthoshere is a fascinating one from last year.  A watchdog group sued the state of Georgia. They lost at the Federal circuit level, but won in the Federal Appeals court.   Case closed, right?  Nope.  With a plaintiff's victory in hand... they appealed *their own victory* to the Federal Supreme Court!  They risked having their own win reversed by appealing to the next level.  Absolute mad men.   Btw, they won again in the Supreme Court. 

I had no idea you can appeal a winning verdict. 

You only appeal if you are unhappy with some decision made by the judge, so the plaintiffs in that case were unhappy about something. And there can be lots of reasons to win and still appeal. For example, the judge allows your case to go to trial but rules that you may only collect a certain type of damages that will limit your recovery. You go to trial and the jury finds in your favor -- you win. You nonetheless appeal the trial court's ruling limiting your damages.  

I'm not sure what case you are referencing, but it's possible that the court of appeals in that case reinstated one of the plaintiff's claims but not the other, so they appealed the denied claim to SCOTUS to get that reinstated as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think/hope a multi challenge event is the most likely outcome.  But let us run with this  1 vs 1 scenario for a while .

1. I highly doubt it will be subject to a successful court action to prevent it . 1 vs 1 with mutual consent is entirely square with the DoG.

2.  If Ineos win, they will host AC 38 in the Solent with a multi boat challenge

3. If ETNZ win, I have no idea what ETNZ will do, nor do I fuly understand why ETNZ even wants a 1 vs 1 match.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, porthos said:

You only appeal if you are unhappy with some decision made by the judge, so the plaintiffs in that case were unhappy about something. And there can be lots of reasons to win and still appeal. For example, the judge allows your case to go to trial but rules that you may only collect a certain type of damages that will limit your recovery. You go to trial and the jury finds in your favor -- you win. You nonetheless appeal the trial court's ruling limiting your damages.  

I'm not sure what case you are referencing, but it's possible that the court of appeals in that case reinstated one of the plaintiff's claims but not the other, so they appealed the denied claim to SCOTUS to get that reinstated as well. 

You obviously know your shit which is why I thought you'd enjoy this case!  And...  believe it or not, it was NONE of your reasons.  :) :) :)

In this instance, the Federal Appeals court only had the authority to rule that Georgia couldn't do something. The plaintiffs said "Fuck that. We don't want to litigate this 49 more times.  We want the SC to rule this unconstitutional so that it applies to all 50 states".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_7m58.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiItdzi0MHvAhX8MlkFHTq5DGsQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw1gGD1CzNWD308waUW3jl_r

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Public.Resource.Org,_Inc.

It is by far one of the most fascinating cases I've ever read. And the 5 to 4 split has never occurred like this before. 3R2D for, 2R2D against.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IPLore said:

I still think/hope a multi challenge event is the most likely outcome.  But let us run with this  1 vs 1 scenario for a while .

1. I highly doubt it will be subject to a successful court action to prevent it . 1 vs 1 with mutual consent is entirely square with the DoG.

2.  If Ineos win, they will host AC 38 in the Solent with a multi boat challenge

3. If ETNZ win, I have no idea what ETNZ will do, nor do I fuly understand why ETNZ even wants a 1 vs 1 match.

 

1) True, as stated before.
2) Well, there is a rumor that AC37 will take place in the Solent, AC38 in AKL, whoever wins.
3) Indeed. Must have something to do with money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2021 at 12:37 AM, accnick said:

That was a serious flashback for me. Lots of familiar faces, some of whom I haven't thought about in years, others that I still run into from time to time.

Life was much simpler then. And we were much, much younger.

Glad you liked it mate, I figured if anyone here would appreciate it, it would be you :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Overnight, a statement issued by Christopher J. Culver, Commodore of the New York Yacht club and widely reported by Reuters stated: “A deed of gift match off the Isle of Wight would be a huge step in the wrong direction. The two previous Deed of Gift matches were distinct low points in the history of the America’s Cup. The New York Yacht Club will not support a Deed of Gift match or an America’s Cup competition that…is effectively open to only the defender and Challenger of Record.”

 

From a Magnus post. Rather ominous, don’t you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, .......................... said:

I wasn't referencing NYYC in particular, I was referencing the US attendance lopsided or not but your point is valid.  Either way it will be the end of a 125+ year streak of US participation, and I said the same thing about NZL and others being excluded when the SUI/USA DoG match occurred.  

When DoG matches happen it is unfortunate because they generally happen when the cup had been building/maintaining participation and rich guys don't like larger participation, too many variables to control (e.g. 2003/2007 Larry buying 2 cup teams of sailors and benching them "while paid" to remove the good sailors from the crew pools).  When the multihull DoG happened Spain, Germany, China and other teams were active and the DoG all but ended their long term participation, none have been back since the Multihull DoG unless I am mistaken.  Italy had 3 campaigns going at this time, France 2, Sweden and SUI.

The problem seems to be that NZL unfortunately does not have a cash pipeline in place due to no failure of their own (covid/tourism etc) and has few other options then to partner with someone like Sir Jim.  I am still holding out hope that this is not Jim, some rumors are still being heard that this is Tony and the Origin crew and not INEOS who have shown they do not want to be part of a Yacht Club challenge.  If so then let INEOS represent Monaco.

Folks also keep saying it should be taken to court. I will say that if anyone thinks the NY State Supreme Court or AG cares about something like the AC or a case like the DoG you have likely not been paying attention to US news in general or NYC/State politics lately, they do have quite a bit on their plate right now and it is not an political environment that likely gives "two fucks" about "yachting" unless it will get them elected to a new term... SF made that clear after the races there and NY is just as bad if not worse.

You raise some interesting points. But ITUK is definitely involved with the RYSR Challenge for AC37 and is confirmed by RNZYS as CoR.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Actually, I disagree. I'm pretty sure your average NYSC judge would relish adjudicating the merits and intents of a 170 year old deed if trust.  There can't be but a handful that are even in existence anymore. I'm pretty sure judges would wait in line to be selected for that case. It is quite unique. 

To clarify: the Deed of Gift dates to 1887, not to the original awarding of the Cup in 1851, so it is 134 years old.  By the Deed, George Schuyler, last surviving member of the original yacht America syndicate that won and held the Cup, donates the Cup to the NYYC as a perpetual challenge cup. 

It is a document that is poignant, elegant in its simplicity, and durable. Note that this is the deed as twice amended, once in 1956 to reduce minimum waterline length and remove the "own bottom" provision, and again in 1985 per the Southern Hemisphere provision

The first paragraphs read:

This DEED OF GIFT made the twenty-fourth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, Between GEORGE L. SCHUYLER as sole surviving owner of the Cup won by the yacht America at Cowes, England, on the twenty-second day of August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, of the first part, and THE NEW YORK YACHT CLUB, of the second part, as amended by orders of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dated December 17, 1956, and April 5, 1985, WITNESSETH:

THAT the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the premises and of the performance of the conditions and agreements hereinafter set forth by the party of the second part, has granted, bargained, sold, assigned, transferred and set over, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, assign, transfer and set over unto the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the Cup won by the schooner yacht America at Cowes, England, upon the twenty-second day of August, 1851. To Have and To Hold the same to the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, IN TRUST NEVERTHELESS, for the following uses and purposes: -

This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

Who would be the best US helm around these days? 

For apparent wind sailing? Or a 12knot lead mine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

Apparent wind I guess, someone for an AC75 

Kyle Langford is pretty handy. Nobody turned up in the top 10, 49er Worlds representing America.

I'd say pretty slim pickings all round actually.

Plenty of top Australians looking for berths though. Too bad about the new Nationality Rules for AC37.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

Apparent wind I guess, someone for an AC75 

That’s yet another reason these iterations of the AC are crap.  You are taking a niche sport and then reducing that into a very small niche of that.  I am not taking away from the skill sets of those guys but the AC used to be considered one of the pinnacles of the Sport and to be there you had to be a well rounded sailor.  Now you need one or two specialists and grinders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Kyle Langford is pretty handy. Nobody turned up in the top 10, 49er Worlds representing America.

I'd say pretty slim pickings all round actually.

Plenty of top Australians looking for berths though. Too bad about the new Nationality Rules for AC37.

Jimmy and Slinger both qualify.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jaysper said:

Jimmy and Slinger both qualify.

Indeed. And he ask about "US helm".

There you go, Roller. Your US helm prospects appear to be, Australian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well fuck - i though NYYC was done after pissing away on a $100 million campaign and losing 10 in a row in one the greatest collapses in history but all is not lost...

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/americas-cup-2021-new-york-yacht-club-commodore-slams-talk-of-one-off-americas-cup-match-between-team-new-zealand-and-ineos-team-uk/TD7SMUSX7Q5AACSJ2P7XICD4KM/

 

they sound shittin.....

 

"The two previous Deed of Gift matches, in 1988 and 2010, were distinct low points in the history of the America's Cup," Culver said.

"Regardless of the conditions, the New York Yacht Club will not support a Deed of Gift match or an America's Cup competition that, due to the schedule and rules for competition, is effectively open to only the defender and Challenger of Record.

"The AC75 is a remarkable boat that will only produce closer and more exciting competition in future cycles. As the world emerges from the Covid-19 pandemic, there will be a thirst for the fusion of competition, tradition and social interaction that the America's Cup can provide like no other sporting event.

"With the right schedule and match conditions, there is every expectation we would see a competition to rival Perth in 1987, Auckland in 2003 and Valencia in 2007.

"Each of those America's Cup cycles drew 10 or more teams to compete for the Auld Mug and the significant commercial interest necessary to support such a grand event. To waste this confluence of opportunity on a two-team event, to potentially once again plunge the competition into the New York State Courts, is not in the best interests of the America's Cup or the sport of sailing."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Enzedel92 said:

Well fuck - i though NYYC was done after pissing away on a $100 million campaign and losing 10 in a row in one the greatest collapses in history but all is not lost...

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/americas-cup-2021-new-york-yacht-club-commodore-slams-talk-of-one-off-americas-cup-match-between-team-new-zealand-and-ineos-team-uk/TD7SMUSX7Q5AACSJ2P7XICD4KM/

 

they sound shittin.....

 

"The two previous Deed of Gift matches, in 1988 and 2010, were distinct low points in the history of the America's Cup," Culver said.

"Regardless of the conditions, the New York Yacht Club will not support a Deed of Gift match or an America's Cup competition that, due to the schedule and rules for competition, is effectively open to only the defender and Challenger of Record.

"The AC75 is a remarkable boat that will only produce closer and more exciting competition in future cycles. As the world emerges from the Covid-19 pandemic, there will be a thirst for the fusion of competition, tradition and social interaction that the America's Cup can provide like no other sporting event.

"With the right schedule and match conditions, there is every expectation we would see a competition to rival Perth in 1987, Auckland in 2003 and Valencia in 2007.

"Each of those America's Cup cycles drew 10 or more teams to compete for the Auld Mug and the significant commercial interest necessary to support such a grand event. To waste this confluence of opportunity on a two-team event, to potentially once again plunge the competition into the New York State Courts, is not in the best interests of the America's Cup or the sport of sailing."

 

so lets say it does end up being a mutual 2 boat AC37, can NYYC take it to NYSC if they are not happy with it?

does NYYC have any power in this regard?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, accnick said:

To clarify: the Deed of Gift dates to 1887, not to the original awarding of the Cup in 1851, so it is 134 years old.  By the Deed, George Schuyler, last surviving member of the original yacht America syndicate that won and held the Cup, donates the Cup to the NYYC as a perpetual challenge cup. 

It is a document that is poignant, elegant in its simplicity, and durable. Note that this is the deed as twice amended, once in 1956 to reduce minimum waterline length and remove the "own bottom" provision, and again in 1985 per the Southern Hemisphere provision

The first paragraphs read:

This DEED OF GIFT made the twenty-fourth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, Between GEORGE L. SCHUYLER as sole surviving owner of the Cup won by the yacht America at Cowes, England, on the twenty-second day of August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, of the first part, and THE NEW YORK YACHT CLUB, of the second part, as amended by orders of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dated December 17, 1956, and April 5, 1985, WITNESSETH:

THAT the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the premises and of the performance of the conditions and agreements hereinafter set forth by the party of the second part, has granted, bargained, sold, assigned, transferred and set over, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, assign, transfer and set over unto the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the Cup won by the schooner yacht America at Cowes, England, upon the twenty-second day of August, 1851. To Have and To Hold the same to the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, IN TRUST NEVERTHELESS, for the following uses and purposes: -

This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries.

Oh fuck.  Never mind. Its only a 130 year old trust and not a 170 year old trust. Gotcha. 

Seriously tho...  that's great info, but what's the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

so lets say it does end up being a mutual 2 boat AC37, can NYYC take it to NYSC if they are not happy with it?

does NYYC have any power in this regard?

No and no.

12 minutes ago, Xlot said:

Am I the only one to smell a threat?

 

Only in regards to agreeing AC38 regulations in the AC37 protocol, which also potentially excludes otherwise eligible challengers. Strange enough, the "stability" for beyond AC27 is not the issue the NYYC complains about.
My 
2cts.jpg.6e4d88be6ab728e93fbb86e4ebf6ae5f.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

so lets say it does end up being a mutual 2 boat AC37, can NYYC take it to NYSC if they are not happy with it?

does NYYC have any power in this regard?

If ETNZ and INEOS want to have a 1v1 and exclude everyone else, they can do that and nobody can complain. If ETNZ and INEOS somehow try to control AC38 and the choice of boat via the AC37 protocol (even if the AC37 protocol is just for the 1v1 match), then they've opened the door for someone to sue them, but only with respect to the AC38 stuff. But maybe nobody will complain. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

so lets say it does end up being a mutual 2 boat AC37, can NYYC take it to NYSC if they are not happy with it?

does NYYC have any power in this regard?

NYYC has standing as an interested and qualifying yacht club.   

As to what cause or grievance they have to make a meritorious claim...  I can't find it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rennmaus said:

No and no.

Only in regards to agreeing AC38 regulations in the AC37 protocol, which also potentially excludes otherwise eligible challengers. Strange enough, the "stability" for beyond AC27 is not the issue the NYYC complains about.
My 
2cts.jpg.6e4d88be6ab728e93fbb86e4ebf6ae5f.jpg

Fuck...  again?  Yes!  NYYC has standing. Please try to understand this. No, I do not see a valid claim of disenfranchisement.

So, the short answer is:

Yes, no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

so lets say it does end up being a mutual 2 boat AC37, can NYYC take it to NYSC if they are not happy with it?

does NYYC have any power in this regard?

There is fuck all they can do about it. A 1 vs 1 challenge is how it was done until the 70s and the challenger meets the criteria for a challenger as per the DoG (which is how Lazza nailed Ernie in 2010).

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Fuck...  again?  Yes!  NYYC has standing. Please try to understand this. No, I do not see a valid claim of disenfranchisement.

So, the short answer is:

Yes, no.

Fuck, you again too?
Please try to understand that if the 1:1 challenge has no fault (like a non-valid YC) NYYC has no reason to go to the NYSC. On what ground can they lodge a complaint in front of the court? Please explain.

Edit: Jaysper beat me to it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

NYYC has standing as an interested and qualifying yacht club.   

As to what cause or grievance they have to make a meritorious claim...  I can't find it. 

Where do they get the standing from tho? 

They're a previous holder sure, but they're not at the table now, they didn't have a say in the GGYC vs SNG case did they? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

Fuck, you again too?
Please try to understand that if the 1:1 challenge has no fault (like a non-valid YC) NYYC has no reason to go to the NYSC. On what ground can they lodge a complaint in front of the court? Please explain.

+1

Gotta give you a fake like Rennie.

Apparently I have been over exuberant in the last 24 hours.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

Where do they get the standing from tho? 

They're a previous holder sure, but they're not at the table now, they didn't have a say in the GGYC vs SNG case did they? 

They would not have standing to challenge anything related to a 1v1 match under AC37. They would have standing as a potential participant/challenger in AC38 to challenge anything that ETNZ and INEOS might do in the AC37 protocol to try to control the AC38 match.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, porthos said:

They would not have standing to challenge anything related to a 1v1 match under AC37. They would have standing as a potential participant/challenger in AC38 to challenge anything that ETNZ and INEOS might do in the AC37 protocol to try to control the AC38 match.

That's what I thought mate, thanks 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

Fuck, you again too?
Please try to understand that if the 1:1 challenge has no fault (like a non-valid YC) NYYC has no reason to go to the NYSC. On what ground can they lodge a complaint in front of the court? Please explain.

Edit: Jaysper beat me to it.

Haha my friend!  Good stuff.  

Overall we're on the same page, but perhaps we disagree on the minutiae.   Here is my point:  I don't like the 1vs1.  Now, there are two questions: 1) do I have the legal authority to sue? (i.e. do I have standing) and 2) is there merit to my case?  The answer is No and No.

But the answer to the same two questions regarding NYYC is: Yes and No.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Haha my friend!  Good stuff.  

Overall we're on the same page, but perhaps we disagree on the minutiae.   Here is my point:  I don't like the 1vs1.  Now, there are two questions: 1) do I have the legal authority to sue? (i.e. do I have standing) and 2) is there merit to my case?  The answer is No and No.

But the answer to the same two questions regarding NYYC is: Yes and No.

No, NYYC does not have standing to sue over anything related to a 1v1 match in AC37. The only standing NYYC would have would be as a potential challenger in AC38, and only then related to any attempts by ETNZ/INEOS to control AC38 from the AC37 protocol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

Where do they get the standing from tho? 

They're a previous holder sure, but they're not at the table now, they didn't have a say in the GGYC vs SNG case did they? 

They have standing as a qualifying yacht club that is potentially disenfranchised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Haha my friend!  Good stuff.  

Overall we're on the same page, but perhaps we disagree on the minutiae.   Here is my point:  I don't like the 1vs1.  Now, there are two questions: 1) do I have the legal authority to sue? (i.e. do I have standing) and 2) is there merit to my case?  The answer is No and No.

But the answer to the same two questions regarding NYYC is: Yes and No.

Well sure, they have standing as a yacht club.

If I form a yacht club and start racing some dinghies annually then I too would have a standing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

They have standing as a qualifying yacht club that is potentially disenfranchised. 

Ok, but do they not have to have a challenge accepted by the current holder of the cup before they become a "qualifying yacht club" ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Well sure, they have standing as a yacht club.

If I form a yacht club and start racing some dinghies annually then I too would have a standing.

Yes!  Yes you would! (Though, there are a few other requirements like, I think, 5 years old and on "an arm of the sea.).

But, yes, you're spot on.  Any qualifying yacht club on the world has standing.   That's the only point I'm trying to make. 

Can NYYC sue?  YES!  Emphatically YES!!! They have standing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is today, the 1 - 1 appears to be perfectly legal as per the DoG. Could NYYC ask to amend the Deed of Gift to better clarify some terms used in it, and that nowadays can lead to an interpretation of the Deed itself different from the original intent? Example: the word "vessel" (as already said by someone, I think @The Advocate)

Today it could become "any vessel from the same yachtclub or team"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, porthos said:

No, NYYC does not have standing to sue over anything related to a 1v1 match in AC37. The only standing NYYC would have would be as a potential challenger in AC38, and only then related to any attempts by ETNZ/INEOS to control AC38 from the AC37 protocol.

Thanks. That's exactly what I try to make clear. Maybe we need to repeat it for a couple of times ;).
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Oh fuck.  Never mind. Its only a 130 year old trust and not a 170 year old trust. Gotcha. 

Seriously tho...  that's great info, but what's the point?

The point was merely to clarify a misconception about the origin and age of the Deed of Gift. Nothing more, and no slight intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, strider470 said:

As it is today, the 1 - 1 appears to be perfectly legal as per the DoG. Could NYYC ask to amend the Deed of Gift to better clarify some terms used in it, and that nowadays can lead to an interpretation of rhe Deed itself different from the original intent? Example: the word "vessel" (as already said by someone, I think @The Advocate)

Today it could become "any vessel from the same yachtclub or team"

YES!  The NYYC has standing to petition the NYSC to change the wording of the DoG. 

BUT, then, in order to change the wording you would have to demonstrate that the current wording has disenfranchised you. To my knowledge, the definition of "vessel" has never been a point of contention. In the absence of one party being demonstrably wronged, the DoG will not be altered nor amended. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Say it all you want. It doesn't make you and porthos right. :)

Just because the NYYC may have standing in some cases related to the Deed or match doesn't mean it has standing in all cases related to the Deed or match. The best you can say about the NYYC is that their status as a potential challenger or participant may give them standing depending on the circumstances. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jaysper said:

There is fuck all they can do about it. A 1 vs 1 challenge is how it was done until the 70s and the challenger meets the criteria for a challenger as per the DoG (which is how Lazza nailed Ernie in 2010).

 

Interestingly, there was almost always a Defender selection series in the 12m class events. It's no wonder the Defender usually prevailed, especially in the single-challenger events.. 

It's not just "the NYYC stacked the deck."   The ultimate Defender was both battle-hardened, and the best of a selection of potential Defenders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

YES!  The NYYC has standing to petition the NYSC to change the wording of the DoG. 

BUT, then, in order to change the wording you would have to demonstrate that the current wording has disenfranchised you. To my knowledge, the definition of "vessel" has never been a point of contention. In the absence of one party being demonstrably wronged, the DoG will not be altered nor amended. 

The intent showed by the Defender and COR to plan more than a challenge between them in rapid succession could be something that was not in the intention of the original drafter of the Deed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Yes!  Yes you would! (Though, there are a few other requirements like, I think, 5 years old and on "an arm of the sea.).

But, yes, you're spot on.  Any qualifying yacht club on the world has standing.   That's the only point I'm trying to make. 

Can NYYC sue?  YES!  Emphatically YES!!! They have standing. 

As per the Deed, the YC does not need to be 5 years old, it does not need to be on an arm of the sea. The YC needs to have an annual regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. It's all in the DoG.
 

12 minutes ago, strider470 said:

As it is today, the 1 - 1 appears to be perfectly legal as per the DoG. Could NYYC ask to amend the Deed of Gift to better clarify some terms used in it, and that nowadays can lead to an interpretation of rhe Deed itself different from the original intent? Example: the word "vessel" (as already said by someone, I think @The Advocate)

Today it could become "any vessel from the same yachtclub or team"

Of course NNYC can ask the NYSC to amend/change the Deed. The questions will be: "Is the request valid? Will the request be approved?"
Here, the NYYC has standing. But it has no standing when it comes to the AC37 1:1 match.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, accnick said:

Interestingly, there was almost always a Defender selection series in the 12m class events. It's no wonder the Defender usually prevailed, especially in the single-challenger events.. 

It's not just "the NYYC stacked the deck."   The ultimate Defender was both battle-hardened, and the best of a selection of potential Defenders.

For a significant period of the cup they could choose whichever defender suited them on the day.

This was the equivalent of varying the ballast (ala Liberty) taken to the extreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, porthos said:

Just because the NYYC may have standing in some cases related to the Deed or match doesn't mean it has standing in all cases related to the Deed or match. The best you can say about the NYYC is that their status as a potential challenger or participant may give them standing depending on the circumstances. 

I'll take it!!!  Agreed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the back.to-back posts, but every time I reply, there are several new posts :D.

 

2 minutes ago, porthos said:

Just because the NYYC may have standing in some cases related to the Deed or match doesn't mean it has standing in all cases related to the Deed or match. The best you can say about the NYYC is that their status as a potential challenger or participant may give them standing depending on the circumstances. 

I cannot give you enough likes.
 

1 minute ago, strider470 said:

The intent showed by the Defender and COR to plan more than a challenge between them in rapid succession could be something that was not in the intention of the original drafter of the Deed.

Exactly. This is the main issue (if true).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jaysper said:

For a significant period of the cup they could choose whichever defender suited them on the day.

 

That has not happened ever in the modern era, or even back through time at least to the end of the 19th century. I would have to research whether it has ever happened at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 45Roller said:

so lets say it does end up being a mutual 2 boat AC37, can NYYC take it to NYSC if they are not happy with it?

does NYYC have any power in this regard?

It does not contravene any provisions in the DoG, as far as I can tell, so I doubt the NYYC could interest the NYSC to hear a case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:
14 minutes ago, strider470 said:

The intent showed by the Defender and COR to plan more than a challenge between them in rapid succession could be something that was not in the intention of the original drafter of the Deed.

Exactly. This is the main issue (if true).

ETNZ and INEOS desperately need to put the conditions for AC38, already in the AC37 protocol, to give assurance of continuity to possible teams interested in challenging in AC38, since no team would find any sponsor willing to invest in an event that cannot be yet planned and whose class of boats is yet to be confirmed.
But if they do, they will prone to be brought to the NYSC for trying to bend the Deed of Gift in a way different from the original intent.

Asking for a (Swiss) friend :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Okay, my friend. Okay. Agree to disagree. 

So you agree with Porthos and not with me, although we are writing the same, just in other words? What's wrong with you?

Well, agree or disagree, I rest my case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sailbydate said:

It does not contravene any provisions in the DoG, as far as I can tell, so I doubt the NYYC could interest the NYSC to hear a case.

Anybody else want to respond to this?  (P.s. The NYSC doesn't have a choice...  if a case is brought, it must be heard...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

So you agree with Porthos and not with me, although we are writing the same, just in other words? What's wrong with you?

Well, agree or disagree, I rest my case.

K.  You're right. I'm wrong. I'm here cause I like being here and having awesome intellectual conversation with some really smart people.  You and porthos are great. I didn't mean to offend. We're actually all like 99% on the same page, so who gives an eff about the last 1%

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cbulger said:

Best helms are on the Olympic Nacra team - Riley Gibbs, Sarah Newberry, Ravi Parent and David Liebenberg.  

Ok great, thanks for the heads up 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, strider470 said:

ETNZ and INEOS desperately need to put the conditions for AC38, already in the AC37 protocol, to give assurance of continuity to possible teams interested in challenging in AC38, since no team would find any sponsor willing to invest in an event that cannot be yet planned and whose class of boats is yet to be confirmed.
But if they do, they will prone to be brought to the NYSC for trying to bend the Deed of Gift in a way different from the original intent.

Asking for a (Swiss) friend :D

perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries

Also this line could impliy "not limited to two countries" that artificially limit the competition betwen themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, strider470 said:

perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries

Also this line could impliy "not limited to two countries" that artificially limit the competition betwen themselves.

You're thinking too much. The DoG must be read not thinking at all. Take it literally. Imply no second meaning. Take it for what it is. Don't assume any intent. These are the four corners of the Deed (that these are four suggestions is pure coincidence, but it fits well :)).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rennmaus said:

You're thinking too much. The DoG must be read not thinking at all. Take it literally. Imply no second meaning. Take it for what it is. Don't assume any intent. These are the four corners of the Deed (that these are four suggestions is pure coincidence, but it fits well :)).

Perfectly stated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rennmaus said:

You're thinking too much. The DoG must be read not thinking at all. Take it literally. Imply no second meaning. Take it for what it is. Don't assume any intent. These are the four corners of the Deed (that these are four suggestions is pure coincidence, but it fits well :)).

The Deed of Gift should have my intent :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jaysper said:

For a significant period of the cup they could choose whichever defender suited them on the day.

This was the equivalent of varying the ballast (ala Liberty) taken to the extreme.

And this was actually a concession as prior to this the challenger had to race against a fleet of defenders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, idontwan2know said:

And this was actually a concession as prior to this the challenger had to race against a fleet of defenders.

Ah yes! Of course you are correct! Thanks for the reminder :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, idontwan2know said:

And this was actually a concession as prior to this the challenger had to race against a fleet of defenders.

That only happened once on the first challenge

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IPLore said:

That only happened once on the first challenge

Yes, the early defenses were set up to require the challenger to duplicate America's feat by sailing across the atlantic and beating an entire fleet from the defending nation. The deed was rewritten and the terms of the match became gradually more favorable to the challengers throughout the history of the cup until the NYYC allowed multiple challengers to race against each other to determine who would face the defender. They knew that they'd eventually lose the cup once they allowed that and did it anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cbulger said:

Best helms are on the Olympic Nacra team - Riley Gibbs, Sarah Newberry, Ravi Parent and David Liebenberg.  

Gibbs and Newberry are also racing in the Persico 69F foiling fleet which should bring more experience. Unfortunately, whilst they are unquestionable very talented sailors, when considering them on an AC level I think they are quite a way off the pace when compared to the current team helms and the likes of Outeridge, Slingsby etc. I think for at least the next cycle the best bet for a US challenge would be to replace Barker with Goody (or one of the Aussie's that still have citizenship after the Oracle campaigns) and integrate sailors like Gibbs, Newberry etc into the team in non-helming roles to continue building a new generation of top level foiling US sailors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NZK said:

Gibbs and Newberry are also racing in the Persico 69F foiling fleet which should bring more experience. Unfortunately, whilst they are unquestionable very talented sailors, when considering them on an AC level I think they are quite a way off the pace when compared to the current team helms and the likes of Outeridge, Slingsby etc. I think for at least the next cycle the best bet for a US challenge would be to replace Barker with Goody (or one of the Aussie's that still have citizenship after the Oracle campaigns) and integrate sailors like Gibbs, Newberry etc into the team in non-helming roles to continue building a new generation of top level foiling US sailors.

The key to AC 75 development is having helms with experience foiling.  "Feel" on a foiler is completely different from traditional sailing.   It is Glenn, Peter and Blairs"s experience with foiling that drives their development - foil shape, hull shape, aero  package and most importantly controls/modes.  In both Bermuda and the recent win they have developed boats (and teams) with adjustment capabilities way beyond the competition.

The AC is won before the first race.  As the Kiwi's have proven - you don't put your AC experience in the back of the boat.  You put foiling experience in the back of the boat.   Cant develop fighter jet with a bus driver as your test pilot.

I was thinking of Americans when I made my list - forgot Goody might qualify - but still stand by my list.  They not as good as TS, NO, GA, PB and BT - but they are the best we got.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2021 at 4:33 PM, 45Roller said:

Where do they get the standing from tho? 

They're a previous holder sure, but they're not at the table now, they didn't have a say in the GGYC vs SNG case did they? 

They get standing from being an accepted Challenger for AC36 that is being denied a chance to challenge for AC37.  Being a trustee helps as well.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, WetHog said:

They get standing from being an accepted Challenger for AC36 that is being denied a chance to challenge for AC37.  Being a trustee helps as well.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Yeah gotcha, I was basing my question on them not being an accepted challenger for AC37, and was wondering where they were getting the standing from outside of that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

Yeah gotcha, I was basing my question on them not being an accepted challenger for AC37, and was wondering where they were getting the standing from outside of that. 

Unless there is something wrong with the challenger for AC37, NYYC does not have standing to file any sort of claim related to AC37. As long as the AC37 challenger is a valid challenger, ETNZ and INEOS can hold a 1v1 and other teams who are excluded and don't like it are stuck with it. All of that is perfectly fine under the Deed. Now if ETNZ and INEOS somehow try to dictate the terms for AC38 in the AC37 process or protocol (which the press release seems to suggest), then the NYYC would have standing as a potential challenger for AC38 to file a claim to block that effort.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that nowadays yacht clubs, with the notable exception of NYYC, are merely facade entities in the AC environment. It's all about the teams, the billionaires, the funding and the business. RNZS, despite its glorious history in New Zealand, must solely obey GD for what concerns the America's Cup.

So the economic aspects of the competion surpass the moral and sport aspects.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites