Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, cbulger said:

So wait - Yacht Clubs are bastions of morality??? 

They should be less biased towards the economic aspects. But I get your point, it's a little bit of an illusion :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.6k
  • 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

12 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

It would be great to have Artemis back.....but do they have enough experienced AC foilers to create a team ?      It is one of the reasons why I have very mixed feelings about the 100% crew requirement.  

Outside of US (and even that is going to be tight), NZ, Italy, Australia and UK.......who else has enough experience to put together a team without poaching a few Aussies, Kiwis and Brits?

Spain< France and Japan would be good to have come back......

But maybe this a new era that dates from 2013 (SF) where the cup has permenaently moved to larger budgets and fewer teams.

Agree re the nationality rules, but there may be many more first class foiling sailors out there?

Classes like the Moth, Nacra 17, etc, probably have a large group of up and coming young sailors.

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

I'm super happy to be corrected by you and Porthos, because I know that you have a lot more background knowledge than I. Although it might then happen that I need to ask further questions...
Thanks for your thoughts, corrections, annotations and good discussions, you and @porthos

Edit: I forgot to mention @Will_Co. He/She seems to know how to read legalese as well. Hats off!

 

You may want to branch out on who you're willing to receive corrections from, because porthos is letting you down.  I get it. I'm the newest user around here, so I must be an idiot.  But, you should also note that I provide facts to my arguments and do not resort to name calling and insults.  LPT, typically the first guy to resort to insults has lost the arguement. 

And really, I can't believe there is even a discussion regarding legal standing. Its not up for debate; it has proven historical precedent. 

In 2009, the Golden Gate Yacht Club was neither the Defender NOR the Challenger.   According to porthos, they therefore had no legal standing to sue in the NYSC.  But they DID sue the trustee of the trust, as a disenfranchised beneficiary, in the NYSC. (GGYC won that suit, btw, but its completely irrelevant to the question of standing).

The current situation is absolutely no different in regards to question of legal standing.

I hope this helps.  I hope you have a greater understanding of the law, and might not so quickly dismiss nor disparage "the new guy" in future. 

https://casetext.com/case/golden-gate-yacht-club-v-societe

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, strider470 said:

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.

I'm not really convinced that NYYC isn't a facade also.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, strider470 said:

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.

Actually if you read the first volume of Fisher's tome, at least as far as challengers were concerned, it was always that way, right from the beginning. Owners (now teams) were the movers and shakers, clubs a necessary appendage. Not what the DoG envisaged but how it actually played out.

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

You may want to branch out on who you're willing to receive corrections from, because porthos is letting you down.  I get it. I'm the newest user around here, so I must be an idiot.  But, you should also note that I provide facts to my arguments and do not resort to name calling and insults.  LPT, typically the first guy to resort to insults has lost the arguement. 

And really, I can't believe there is even a discussion regarding legal standing. Its not up for debate; it has proven historical precedent. 

In 2009, the Golden Gate Yacht Club was neither the Defender NOR the Challenger.   According to porthos, they therefore had no legal standing to sue in the NYSC.  But they DID sue the trustee of the trust, as a disenfranchised beneficiary, in the NYSC. (GGYC won that suit, btw, but its completely irrelevant to the question of standing).

The current situation is absolutely no different in regards to question of legal standing.

I hope this helps.  I hope you have a greater understanding of the law, and might not so quickly dismiss nor disparage "the new guy" in future. 

https://casetext.com/case/golden-gate-yacht-club-v-societe

In 2009, the GGYC had standing as a potential challenger alleging that CNEV was disqualified as a challenger under the Deed. In other words, SNG, by picking an improper challenger, harmed GGYC by denying GGYC the opportunity to challenge for the cup pursuant to the Deed. Harm = standing.

If NYYC wants to challenge the status of RYS as a challenger, it will certainly have standing to do that (and I have said that all along).  I don't think they'd be successful but it would probably get past the pleading stage. I also don't think this is the scenario we have been discussing.

What we have been discussing is what happens If NYYC wants to challenge the fact that RNZYS and RYS have decided to exclude other challengers from AC37.  Under that scenario, NYYC will have no standing to assert that as it has not been harmed in that process.  As I indicated previously, the Deed specifically contemplates that all otherwise eligible yacht clubs would be excluded, so the fact that NYYC is in that group does not evidence any harm.  Standing isn't universal and depends on the particular facts of a case and the claims made by the plaintiff.

Blitz, I didn't ask you if you went to law school so I could get into some dick-swinging contest.  You are advancing legal opinions that are, suffice to say, novel. My opinions are formed by having gone to a law school ranked with a single digit and having practiced in the federal and state courts for 20+ years. I'm giving you and others my resume just so you know I'm not making this stuff up. 

Most of the time I sit silent here and in equal awe of those who have such impressive sailing knowledge. I don't have that, so I take a lot more than I give. When it comes to legal stuff, however, I do know my stuff.

That said, I could be wrong and I hold you no ill will, Blitz.   

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogwatch said:

Actually if you read the first volume of Fisher's tome, at least as far as challengers were concerned, it was always that way, right from the beginning. Owners (now teams) were the movers and shakers, clubs a necessary appendage. Not what the DoG envisaged but how it actually played out.

I would like to read some of the books written by Fisher

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

It would be great to have Artemis back.....but do they have enough experienced AC foilers to create a team ?      It is one of the reasons why I have very mixed feelings about the 100% crew requirement.  

Outside of US (and even that is going to be tight), NZ, Italy, Australia and UK.......who else has enough experience to put together a team without poaching a few Aussies, Kiwis and Brits?

Spain< France and Japan would be good to have come back......

But maybe this a new era that dates from 2013 (SF) where the cup has permenaently moved to larger budgets and fewer teams.

One thing that peeps are over looking is the prospect to poach foreign sailors for development of the boat and sailors. I would imagine having Tuke, Burling and Ashby on your team, sailing your test boat and mentoring your crew would be highly beneficial to you and, as an added bonus, would be of enormous harm to ETNZ.

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

I would like to read some of the books written by Fisher

Clearly a labour of love on his part. Whatever you do, don't drop a volume on your toe. I'm not sure its currently easy to get hold of and I'm not selling mine.

I hope volume 3 that he apparently had in progress somehow makes its way into print.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

Actually if you read the first volume of Fisher's tome, at least as far as challengers were concerned, it was always that way, right from the beginning. Owners (now teams) were the movers and shakers, clubs a necessary appendage. Not what the DoG envisaged but how it actually played out.

While during Schuyler's time, the Owners were usually well respected members or even officers of the challenging YC. They were members long before the challenge was made. I can't remember a Larry-type "buying" a YC for a challenge.

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

One thing that peeps are over looking is the prospect to poach foreign sailors for development of the boat and sailors. I would imagine having Tuke, Burling and Ashby on your team, sailing your test boat and mentoring your crew would be highly beneficial to you and, as an added bonus, would be of enormous harm to ETNZ.

Neither of those three will sit out an AC as a "test driver".  

If someone wanted to be a real scuz bag and get round the nationality rule and they could challenge from a club/country of their own choosing to suit the design of their crew and then waive the nationality rule and host the next event back in their own country.  Use an obscure club in WA to challenge because you want to hire Ashby and NO. Then obscure club hosts next event in country of your choosing (eg USA) and defense can effectively be in the challenger round

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

While during Schuyler's time, the Owners were usually well respected members or even officers of the challenging YC. They were members long before the challenge was made. I can't remember a Larry-type "buying" a YC for a challenge.

Oh, there's at least one example of an owner shopping around for a club through which to challenge. It wasn't all rosy.

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

Neither of those three will sit out an AC as a "test driver".  

That might be true, but if someone like Jimmy is excluded from the cup (which could definitely happen).

Lets assume LR ditch Jimmy in favour of Bruni and neither the US nor Australia enter then Jimmy can either commentate like Nate or be a test driver for someone.

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

While during Schuyler's time, the Owners were usually well respected members or even officers of the challenging YC. They were members long before the challenge was made. I can't remember a Larry-type "buying" a YC for a challenge.

The early NYYC were a fairly racy set if you read their history. They had a club house on the New Jersey shore and their principal interest seemed to have been wagering on the outcomes of races between their yachts.

The early challengers were club members but the challenge clearly came from the owner and the challenging YC was the club they happened to be members of.

Earl Dunraven was a member of RYS (of course)

Tommy Lipton was a member of several clubs and  chose to challenge via Royal Ulster.

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

The early NYYC were a fairly racy set if you read their history. They had a club house on the New Jersey shore and their principal interest seemed to have been wagering on the outcomes of races between their yachts.

The early challengers were club members but the challenge clearly came from the owner and the challenging YC was the club they happened to be members of.

Earl Dunraven was a member of RYS (of course)

Tommy Lipton was a member of several clubs and  chose to challenge via Royal Ulster.

I'm not contesting this.
I just wonder who was the "early Larry" @dogwatch alluded to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The early NYYC were a fairly racy set if you read their history. They had a club house on the New Jersey shore and their principal interest seemed to have been wagering on the outcomes of races between their yachts.

The early challengers were club members but the challenge clearly came from the owner and the challenging YC was the club they happened to be members of.

Earl Dunraven was a member of RYS (of course)

Tommy Lipton was a member of several clubs and  chose to challenge via Royal Ulster.

Ironically, Tommy Lipton was denied membership of the RYS until shortly before his death. Despite building a very successful businessman, he was not considered upper class.

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

In 2009, the GGYC had standing as a potential challenger alleging that CNEV was disqualified as a challenger under the Deed. In other words, SNG, by picking an improper challenger, harmed GGYC by denying GGYC the opportunity to challenge for the cup pursuant to the Deed. Harm = standing.

If NYYC wants to challenge the status of RYS as a challenger, it will certainly have standing to do that (and I have said that all along).  I don't think they'd be successful but it would probably get past the pleading stage. I also don't think this is the scenario we have been discussing.

What we have been discussing is what happens If NYYC wants to challenge the fact that RNZYS and RYS have decided to exclude other challengers from AC37.  Under that scenario, NYYC will have no standing to assert that as it has not been harmed in that process.  As I indicated previously, the Deed specifically contemplates that all otherwise eligible yacht clubs would be excluded, so the fact that NYYC is in that group does not evidence any harm.  Standing isn't universal and depends on the particular facts of a case and the claims made by the plaintiff.

Blitz, I didn't ask you if you went to law school so I could get into some dick-swinging contest.  You are advancing legal opinions that, suffice to say, novel. My opinions are formed by having gone to a law school ranked with a single digit and having practiced in the federal and state courts for 20+ years. I'm giving you and others my resume just so you know I'm not making this stuff up. 

Most of the time I sit silent here an in equal awe of those who have such impressive sailing knowledge. I don't have that, so I take a lot more than I give. When it comes to legal stuff, however, I do know my stuff.

That said, I could be wrong and I hold you no ill will, Blitz.   

Great input there. I'm back on the fence.  I no longer think standing is guaranteed, but I wouldn't rule it out either (in the context of being harmed by the 1on1).  

Tho, as a betting man, I bet NYYC would be found to have standing in basically any suit it might bring regarding the AC/DoG.  Though we love to say "Justice is Blind", she really isn't.  I just can't see the NYSC not allowing the venerable NYYC to have at least one day in court even for a relatively baseless claim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

Clearly a labour of love on his part. Whatever you do, don't drop a volume on your toe. I'm not sure its currently easy to get hold of and I'm not selling mine.

I hope volume 3 that he apparently had in progress somehow makes its way into print.

 

Prices for those two first volumes are incredibly high, I see. Hope there will be cheaper reprints.

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

In 2009, the GGYC had standing as a potential challenger alleging that CNEV was disqualified as a challenger under the Deed. In other words, SNG, by picking an improper challenger, harmed GGYC by denying GGYC the opportunity to challenge for the cup pursuant to the Deed. Harm = standing.

If NYYC wants to challenge the status of RYS as a challenger, it will certainly have standing to do that (and I have said that all along).  I don't think they'd be successful but it would probably get past the pleading stage. I also don't think this is the scenario we have been discussing.

What we have been discussing is what happens If NYYC wants to challenge the fact that RNZYS and RYS have decided to exclude other challengers from AC37.  Under that scenario, NYYC will have no standing to assert that as it has not been harmed in that process.  As I indicated previously, the Deed specifically contemplates that all otherwise eligible yacht clubs would be excluded, so the fact that NYYC is in that group does not evidence any harm.  Standing isn't universal and depends on the particular facts of a case and the claims made by the plaintiff.

Blitz, I didn't ask you if you went to law school so I could get into some dick-swinging contest.  You are advancing legal opinions that are, suffice to say, novel. My opinions are formed by having gone to a law school ranked with a single digit and having practiced in the federal and state courts for 20+ years. I'm giving you and others my resume just so you know I'm not making this stuff up. 

Most of the time I sit silent here and in equal awe of those who have such impressive sailing knowledge. I don't have that, so I take a lot more than I give. When it comes to legal stuff, however, I do know my stuff.

That said, I could be wrong and I hold you no ill will, Blitz.   

If I'm NYYC, and I am aggrieved by the absence of a multi-challenger event, and I am concerned about standing, wouldn't the lesson from GGYC v. SNG be this: submit a challenge with a CSS and argue that the ITUK challenge, which does not provide for a multi-challenger event and that seeks to impose the AC75 on future cups, is not DoG compliant?

Top map the roles onto the GGYC litigation, NYYC would be GGYC (the rebuffed challenger), ETNZ would be SNG (the defender) and ITUK would be CNEV (the accepted challenger whose status/challenge is being questioned in court).  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Great input there. I'm back on the fence.  I no longer think standing is guaranteed, but I wouldn't rule it out either (in the context of being harmed by the 1on1).  

Tho, as a betting man, I bet NYYC would be found to have standing in basically any suit it might bring regarding the AC/DoG.  Though we love to say "Justice is Blind", she really isn't.  I just can't see the NYSC not allowing the venerable NYYC to have at least one day in court even for a relatively baseless claim. 

Thanks. Since you cited GGYC v. SNG, you know how the NYCA would approach this question. They would look to the plain language of the Deed to see what it says. Moreover, the NYCA would rely on its prior rulings. In GGYC v SNG, the court specifically noted that a valid challenge precludes any other yacht club from participating:  "It is undisputed that the defender has the obligation to address a challenge only when the challenger is a 'club fulfilling all the conditions required' (Deed of Gift, October 24, 1887, ¶ 10). When such a challenge occurs, all other challenges are foreclosed." GGYC v SNG (bold emphasis added). 

If you can find something in the Deed showing some harm to NYYC if RNZYS and RYS decide to hold a 1v1 match, I'm all ears. Yes, NYYC is venerable, but justice is blind enough to ignore that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is RYS Racing a yacht club, yes. Has an annual regatta, yes. Arm of the sea, yes. We've been through all this a few weeks ago. Hard to see what's wrong with the accepted challenge, versus the DoG. Parallels to the CNEV challenge are weak.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Will_Co said:

If I'm NYYC, and I am aggrieved by the absence of a multi-challenger event, and I am concerned about standing, wouldn't the lesson from GGYC v. SNG be this: submit a challenge with a CSS and argue that the ITUK challenge, which does not provide for a multi-challenger event and that seeks to impose the AC75 on future cups, is not DoG compliant?

Top map the roles onto the GGYC litigation, NYYC would be GGYC (the rebuffed challenger), ETNZ would be SNG (the defender) and ITUK would be CNEV (the accepted challenger whose status/challenge is being questioned in court).  

But a multi-chall AC is not at all content of the DoG.
A 1:1 match is the race the DoG is regulating.

Have I understood you correctly?

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

If I'm NYYC, and I am aggrieved by the absence of a multi-challenger event, and I am concerned about standing, wouldn't the lesson from GGYC v. SNG be this: submit a challenge with a CSS and argue that the ITUK challenge, which does not provide for a multi-challenger event and that seeks to impose the AC75 on future cups, is not DoG compliant?

Top map the roles onto the GGYC litigation, NYYC would be GGYC (the rebuffed challenger), ETNZ would be SNG (the defender) and ITUK would be CNEV (the accepted challenger whose status/challenge is being questioned in court).  

Two different outcomes. I have always said that NYYC would have standing to challenge any attempt by RNZYS/RYS to control AC38 through AC37. Doing so violates the Deed and NYYC would have standing to complain as a potential challenger for AC38.

NYYC has no right under the Deed to a multi-challenger event. In fact, the Deed contemplates only a 1v1 match. So NYYC would not have standing to complain about not being included in a 1v1 match. 

The analogous situation to the 2009 GGYC/SNG scenario would be this (which I don't think anyone is suggesting will be possible): RNZYS (SNG) selected RYS (CNEV).  RYS (CNEV) is not a Deed-compliant yacht club (having never held a regatta).  NYYC (GGYC) issues a challenge and sues claiming that RNZYS violated the Deed by selecting an non-Deed compliant challenger. Court concludes RYS (CNEV) is not a valid challenger, sees that NYYC (GGYC) is a valid challenger and was next in line, and orders that NYYC (GGYC) is the proper challenger.

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

Parallels to the CNEV challenge are weak.

Weak perhaps, but relevant.  My point is that unlike SDYC v. Mercury Bay where the two litigants were COR/D, the GGYC v. SNG case involves the Defender and an DoG beneficiary that is not the Challenger.  That is the relevance to the current situation. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Paddywackery said:

Ironically, Tommy Lipton was denied membership of the RYS until shortly before his death. Despite building a very successful businessman, he was not considered upper class.

Sir Tommy was brilliant in many respects and rose from genuine poverty to great success. He also lived with his assistant William Love for 30 odd years.  In those days it was hard to come out. I dont think he minded one way or another about RYS membership but it was nice and appropriate that he was finally invited to join.

You dont apply to RYS, you want untilinvited.

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

But a multi-chall AC is not at all content of the DoG.
A 1:1 match is the race the DoG is regulating.

Have I understood you correctly? 

No, but that's my fault. The basis of the complaint by NYYC would imposing the AC75 on future events. In other words, it would be a complaint based on the "no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided" clause. 

The goal of the litigation would be to open it up to a multi-challenger event; the means to get there would be to say that the ITUK challenge is not DoG compliant. 

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

Two different outcomes. I have always said that NYYC would have standing to challenge any attempt by RNZYS/RYS to control AC38 through AC37. Doing so violates the Deed and NYYC would have standing to complain as a potential challenger for AC38. Agreed. That would be the basis of the NYYC complaint. They may not need to submit a challenge to have standing to make that argument, but if they were concerned about standing, then the litigation strategy from GGYC would be to submit a challenge and argue that ITUK's is not DoG compliant. 

NYYC has no right under the Deed to a multi-challenger event. In fact, the Deed contemplates only a 1v1 match. So NYYC would not have standing to complain about not being included in a 1v1 match. Agreed. The goal, not the means, of litigating the ITUK challenge would be to bring about the result of a multi-challenger event. 

The analogous situation to the 2009 GGYC/SNG scenario would be this (which I don't think anyone is suggesting will be possible): RNZYS (SNG) selected RYS (CNEV).  RYS (CNEV) is not a Deed-compliant yacht club (having never held a regatta).  NYYC (GGYC) issues a challenge and sues claiming that RNZYS violated the Deed by selecting an non-Deed compliant challenger. Court concludes RYS (CNEV) is not a valid challenger, sees that NYYC (GGYC) is a valid challenger and was next in line, and orders that NYYC (GGYC) is the proper challenger. Yes, that is what I was suggesting, though perhaps it wasn't clear. The only clarification I would add that the complaint against RYS would be as you noted above, i.e., about the AC75 for AC37-38, not about having held a regatta.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is now the court case forum, I'd like to ask the amassed memory of SAAC whether the Blue Arrow Challenge ever made it to NYSC with their bid to enter the '88 Big Boat V's Cat challenge or was it just rejected out of hand like what seems to be occurring for AC37?

It would seem to me that this would have more relevance to the current proceedings than some of the other claims, in relation to being excluded from AC37 anyway?

I seem to remember that Iain Murry had a boat in development if Blue Arrow was let in to a CSS but it never proceeded.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jethrow said:

Since this is now the court case forum, I'd like to ask the amassed memory of SAAC whether the Blue Arrow Challenge ever made it to NYSC with their bid to enter the '88 Big Boat V's Cat challenge or was it just rejected out of hand like what seems to be occurring for AC37?

It would seem to me that this would have more relevance to the current proceedings than some of the other claims, in relation to being excluded from AC37 anyway?

I seem to remember that Iain Murry had a boat in development if Blue Arrow was let in to a CSS but it never proceeded.

IIRC no it didn't. NYSC told Fay and Connor to go at it which left Blue Arrow out. Then they killed it at 30 knots sending it down the mine. Interesting boat though, well ahead of its time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dogwatch said:

Actually if you read the first volume of Fisher's tome, at least as far as challengers were concerned, it was always that way, right from the beginning. Owners (now teams) were the movers and shakers, clubs a necessary appendage. Not what the DoG envisaged but how it actually played out.

No surprise surely, that the money does all the talking.

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

Is it possible to have the Mods change the thread title to "Judge Porthos' Court"?  He does seem to be the resident expert.

Don't worry -- I will shortly and thankfully go back to being irrelevant.

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

Don't worry -- I will shortly and thankfully go back to being irrelevant.

I have complete faith and confidence that the actual and potential legal shenanigans will continue long into the future!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dogwatch said:

 

I hope volume 3 that he apparently had in progress somehow makes its way into print.

 

I am told there are people working to make that happen. The YJA can earn its keep!

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

I have complete faith and confidence that the actual and potential legal shenanigans will continue long into the future!

I sure hope so. I’m about to move about 3 hrs from the court and would love to go sit in like in the glory days of SA

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

The early NYYC were a fairly racy set if you read their history. They had a club house on the New Jersey shore and their principal interest seemed to have been wagering on the outcomes of races between their yachts.

The early challengers were club members but the challenge clearly came from the owner and the challenging YC was the club they happened to be members of.

Earl Dunraven was a member of RYS (of course)

Tommy Lipton was a member of several clubs and  chose to challenge via Royal Ulster.

If you're talking about Monmouth Hills and the Water Witch gambling clubhouse (from the lawn of which they would watch the AC races off Sandy Hook), I grew up in one of the original houses. The club house was not officially NYYC, but members were definitely well represented, and the wagers were serious money from what we were told.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I have missed it among all the bullshit and over reaction, but it seems to me that the NYYC statement contains a major flaw. It refers to a DoG match. Even in the wildest conspiracy theories about the next edition, I have not seen any suggestion that there will be a DoG match. What everybody says might happen is a mutually agreed 1 on 1 match, just like we saw for 18 out of 26 NYYC defences. A DoG match is what happens when the defender and challenger cannot agree terms.

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

Maybe I have missed it among all the bullshit and over reaction, but it seems to me that the NYYC statement contains a major flaw. It refers to a DoG match. Even in the wildest conspiracy theories about the next edition, I have not seen any suggestion that there will be a DoG match. What everybody says might happen is a mutually agreed 1 on 1 match, just like we saw for 18 out of 26 NYYC defences. A DoG match is what happens when the defender and challenger cannot agree terms.

No, it is definitely not a DoG match. People are calling it that because in recent history the only time there has been 1 v 1 is in a DoG match.

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

No, it is definitely not a DoG match. People are calling it that because in recent history the only time there has been 1 v 1 is in a DoG match.

But what's so strange about what NYYC says is that they are incorrectly likening the rumour to the 2 DoG matches there have been, even though it is not like them and is like the 19 single challenger mutual consent matches that NYYC ran. I expect people on here to get confused between the differences between the 2 but the NYYC? That's almost unbelievable and shows how far out of touch they must be.

 

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

But what's so strange about what NYYC says is that they are incorrectly likening the rumour to the 2 DoG matches there have been, even though it is not like them and is like the 19 single challenger mutual consent matches that NYYC ran. I expect people on here to get confused between the differences between the 2 but the NYYC? That's almost unbelievable and shows how far out of touch they must be.

 

So the NYYC have their knickers in a twist because they want to play and the next AC is looking likely to be a private party only. However, there is fuck all they can do about that cos nothing in that contradicts the DoG.

 

Where ETNZ COULD get into strife is if they go ahead with their signalled plan to attempt to force the AC75 in the subsequent cup.

For me however, the big confusion is that they are saying that AC37 is 1 vs 1 but are also indicating entry will be conditional on acceptance of AC75s for the following cup. So why are they doing this if INEOS are the only ones who can enter and are clearly of like minds regarding the AC75?

All too bizarre. The handling of the optics of this have been appalling.

 

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

So the NYYC have their knickers in a twist because they want to play and the next AC is looking likely to be a private party only. However, there is fuck all they can do about that cos nothing in that contradicts the DoG.

 

Where ETNZ COULD get into strife is if they go ahead with their signalled plan to attempt to force the AC75 in the subsequent cup.

For me however, the big confusion is that they are saying that AC37 is 1 vs 1 but are also indicating entry will be conditional on acceptance of AC75s for the following cup. So why are they doing this if INEOS are the only ones who can enter and are clearly of like minds regarding the AC75?

All too bizarre. The handling of the optics of this have been appalling.

 

Not bizarre at all in my opinion.

On 3/21/2021 at 10:17 PM, 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.

 

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

But what's so strange about what NYYC says is that they are incorrectly likening the rumour to the 2 DoG matches there have been, even though it is not like them and is like the 19 single challenger mutual consent matches that NYYC ran. I expect people on here to get confused between the differences between the 2 but the NYYC? That's almost unbelievable and shows how far out of touch they must be.

 

What is not strange is that you are not properly informed.

"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."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly for Americans who are passionate about the "Americas Cup" that America as a country are unlikely to ever win the Cup for a long time. They made it very hard for the challengers in so many ways for over 100 years until Australia came along and broke the stranglehold. And now we have one of the smallest countries in the world appear seemingly unbeatable. I wonder, we will see America challenge again after some would review as a disastrous campaign? And now I believe we may have Country of citizenship what does America have in it's wardrobe to be a threat once again?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

What is not strange is that you are not properly informed.

"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."

Whether they support it or not is irrelevant - since they are powerless to prevent it, using the provisions in the DoG. An IoW challenge would be DoG compliant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though it’s months before anyone will know for sure, presuming that there is an attempt to turn AC37 into a one on one game, for NYYC, Oracle (only because they like doing these kinds of things) or anyone else that might want to play the next time around (and has the resources to approach the NYSC), the functional phrasing of the DOG is this: “Any organized Yacht Club.......SHALL ALWAYS be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup...” (Emphasis mine).  Kearney could walk into court and say “my guy wants to sail in AC37.  The Deed says he shall always have the right to sail and RNZYS/INEOS says he can’t.  We would like to have our ticket punched.”  Seems about as equally compelling as the CNEV case.  Assuming that if more than one party wanted to sail in AC37, in no way is a one on one match DOG compliant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, classfve said:

Even though it’s months before anyone will know for sure, presuming that there is an attempt to turn AC37 into a one on one game, for NYYC, Oracle (only because they like doing these kinds of things) or anyone else that might want to play the next time around (and has the resources to approach the NYSC), the functional phrasing of the DOG is this: “Any organized Yacht Club.......SHALL ALWAYS be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup...” (Emphasis mine).  Kearney could walk into court and say “my guy wants to sail in AC37.  The Deed says he shall always have the right to sail and RNZYS/INEOS says he can’t.  We would like to have our ticket punched.”  Seems about as equally compelling as the CNEV case.  Assuming that if more than one party wanted to sail in AC37, in no way is a one on one match DOG compliant.

The Deed does not specify a particular challenge (eg: AC37) where any qualifying club must be allowed to participate. But any qualifying club is always entitled to challenge. But they must wait their turn if a challenge has already been accepted (eg AC38).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NZK said:

Apparently Jimmy has US citizenship and it's his primary residence so he should qualify - bigger question is whether they could offer him enough to leave Prada? My gut says no....  

I think it is setting up for Jimmy to be at the helm for the next American challenge.  Jimmy is committed to helm the US entry in SailGp this year.  Prada has experience at helm from this year and do not need him for the next cup.

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

Don’t know if I’d agree with that.  It seems to maybe tie in with the “hip pocket challenge” idea.  Line enough of these up ahead of time and you’d be standing in line forever.  It’s the whole concept of “unfair dealing”.  The “hip pocket challenge” thing is something that I think will have to be dealt with in the future.  Hopefully not litigated but who knows.

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

 what does America have in it's wardrobe to be a threat once again?

Money.

Lots and lots of it.

Innovation

Lots and lots of it

Technology

lots and lots of it

Experienced and talented AC helms and tacticians?  Not so much. But refer to #1 above and  the fast track citizenship process for athletes

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

Money.

Lots and lots of it.

Innovation

Lots and lots of it

Technology

lots and lots of it

Experienced and talented AC helms and tacticians?  Not so much. But refer to #1 above and  the fast track citizenship process for athletes

Whilst I absolutely don't agree with Terrafirma's outlook on the US' chances in the cup, just a couple of points:

* Too late to fast track the citizenship under the proposed nationality rules.

* Whilst American Magic have shown up with some cash, I'm not sure if there are any other money belts out there with sufficient passion for yachting to stump up a spare $100 Million

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

Whilst I absolutely don't agree with Terrafirma's outlook on the US' chances in the cup, just a couple of points:

* Too late to fast track the citizenship under the proposed nationality rules.

* Whilst American Magic have shown up with some cash, I'm not sure if there are any other money belts out there with sufficient passion for yachting to stump up a spare $100 Million

Maybe Ratcliffe could fund a third team then ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NZ Herald published an article where Hutchinson claims

"Team New Zealand will struggle with Challengers"

Unfortunately it's behind a Paywall.

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

Whether they support it or not is irrelevant - since they are powerless to prevent it, using the provisions in the DoG. An IoW challenge would be DoG compliant.

Isn't the first AC where a hip pocket prevents other YCs to sail ? What if the were testing this concept to the court ?

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

The NZ Herald published an article where Hutchinson claims

"Team New Zealand will struggle with Challengers"

Unfortunately it's behind a Paywall.

I think its a regurge of this:

 

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/other/terry-hutchinson-warns-rising-costs-could-keep-future-challengers-america-s-cup

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

The NZ Herald published an article where Hutchinson claims

"Team New Zealand will struggle with Challengers"

Unfortunately it's behind a Paywall.

 Pssst:  Firefox plus add-on "Bypass Paywalls".  Other browsers no doubt have similar.  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MaxHugen said:

 Pssst:  Firefox plus add-on "Bypass Paywalls".  Other browsers no doubt have similar.  ;)

Only seems to work for WindBlows and I try to keep my WindBlows machine free from anything sketchy cos its where I do a lot of work.

Any chance of a copy & paste?

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

Only seems to work for WindBlows and I try to keep my WindBlows machine free from anything sketchy cos its where I do a lot of work.

Any chance of a copy & paste?

Sure, got the NZH url?  Save me trying to find it. :P

ps: been using the bypass for some time, I've had no issues.

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

Only seems to work for WindBlows and I try to keep my WindBlows machine free from anything sketchy cos its where I do a lot of work.

Any chance of a copy & paste?

Found it...

American Magic skipper and CEO Terry Hutchinson thinks a Deed of Gift challenge in the United Kingdom next year for the 37th America's Cup would be a "massive step backwards" for the competition.

It's understood IneosTeam UK owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe and Team New Zealand boss Grant Dalton are entertaining the idea of a Deed of Gift challenge on the Isle of Wight in 18 months with a guarantee that whoever wins would then defend the Cup in Auckland in 2024.

That would generate European time zone exposure for the AC75s and it's also thought financial security for Team New Zealand, by effectively selling the Cup venue to the UK billionaire.

On the eve of his departure to his home in Annapolis, Maryland, after nine months in Auckland, Hutchinson has raised concerns about the idea.

"From a sporting perspective [a Deed of Gift match] would be disappointing and a regatta in England in 18 months is a logistical challenge," Hutchinson told the Herald.

American Magic skipper Terry Hutchinson. Photo / Photosport American Magic skipper Terry Hutchinson. Photo / Photosport

Hutchinson felt the New York Yacht Club would be keen to continue with the American Magic programme even if the Cup went in the direction of a match between the Challenger of Record and the defender in the UK next year.

"If the competition goes that way then it's disappointing, but that's out of our control and that's the America's Cup - you have to look at it with all the optics of it. If it went in that direction you have to see what the landscape is for what is being proposed [in Auckland] in 2024 and make a decision on the viability to win the regatta."

However Hutchinson is sceptical about the viability of such a regatta, saying it would be "fraught with logistical challenges".

"You are talking about a boat that is 80,000 man hours to build," Hutchinson said. "Both teams have to go back to England and set up the infrastructure they have to build the boats, they have to sea-trial the boats and go through all that. We know that if its 18 months from today you have three more months of fluff because there is still negotiations going on between Team NZ and the Government here, nothing is set in stone and the only thing that is happening is the time gets shortened."

Team New Zealand and American Magic in action during a practice session earlier this year. Photo / Photosport Team New Zealand and American Magic in action during a practice session earlier this year. Photo / Photosport

Hutchinson leaves New Zealand with mixed feelings. The pain of American Magic's catastrophic capsize still burns and there is a genuine feeling of 'what if?' Hutchinson firmly believes Patriot was the best boat among the challengers, but the fact the boat only raced eight times has left Hutchinson with a sense of unfinished business.

"Given the opportunity we would definitely want to come back. It's one of those situations where if it doesn't kill you it's only going to make you stronger."

One of the three team principals, Doug DeVos is still holidaying in New Zealand with his family and is thought to be blown away by the AC75s and Hutchinson is optimistic DeVos, and fellow team principals Hap Fauth and Roger Penske, will be keen for another crack.

"I'm really confident they want to be involved. When we went into the 36th America's Cup our eyes were open, but now they are more open to the whole picture. As a team we did a really good job navigating through the challenges we had. The mistake would be not to build on those things we did well and at the same thing not to learn from the things we did poorly, so it's definitely unfinished business."

Hutchinson, who was the public face of American Magic for weeks after their on-water disaster, looks back on his time in Auckland with tremendous gratitude.

"Our time in New Zealand has been phenomenal when you think about what has been going on in the world. We have been incredibly fortunate to be here. Obviously the regatta did not go anywhere near how we planned, and I think in retrospect we had planned for a lot of things to happen but the one thing we didn't plan for is capsizing and putting a hole in the boat. In saying that I think the way our team responded to the situation was phenomenal and spoke volumes about the people inside and spoke volumes about our competitors and how they helped us out to get back on the water."

For the most part Hutchinson is in favour of the new class rules that have been drawn up between Team New Zealand and Ineos Team UK. He says the move to make 100 per cent of the sailing team passport holders of the country they represent or having been resident there for the past three years is "a logical progression for the competition".

"The original guiding principle of the Deed of Gift was this competition amongst nations and what has happened there is they've turned the sporting side back to a competition between nations. It's hard not to favour that. That's a great opportunity from a US sailing perspective to develop talent and continue to showcase our sailors."

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Alchemist said:

I think it is setting up for Jimmy to be at the helm for the next American challenge.  Jimmy is committed to helm the US entry in SailGp this year.  Prada has experience at helm from this year and do not need him for the next cup.

I don't think the US-ficiation of Jimmy's SGP activity means much about national preference in AC, it's basically a removable decal on a random AC50 as far as he is concerned.

He appears to be quite smitten with his Italian relationship... might have been the pinot kicking in tho...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

No surprise surely, that the money does all the talking.

Agreed. I just smile at the DoGmatists who insist on the centrality of clubs. With the exception of NYYC in the era of defender trials, I'm not sure it has ever been so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry says they would have to build new boats, but would they? Only LR would have to build a new boat right? Or use their first boat (unlikely but possible) as it has been defeated in the cup match? 

Obviously any new teams are going to struggle to get involved in 18 months time. But for new teams I think it's more about security of the AC75 being the class in 2024(ish) that is a important, and whether or not there is another cup next year or not is probably of less importance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mozzy Sails said:

Terry says they would have to build new boats, but would they? Only LR would have to build a new boat right? Or use their first boat (unlikely but possible) as it has been defeated in the cup match? 

Obviously any new teams are going to struggle to get involved in 18 months time. But for new teams I think it's more about security of the AC75 being the class in 2024(ish) that is a important, and whether or not there is another cup next year or not is probably of less importance. 

I believe LR could use B2 in Cowes.

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

I believe LR could use B2 in Cowes.

I dont think so. It lost the match and cannot be in another match for a period of 2 years per DoG

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any
Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened,
or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat.

 

Again..Im not a lawyer but I think I understand this to be the case.

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

I dont think so. It lost the match and cannot be in another match for a period of 2 years per DoG

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any
Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened,
or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat.

Ah yes, you are probably correct, I misremembered the clause. I recalled it as challenging again rather than competing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mozzy Sails said:

Terry says they would have to build new boats, but would they? Only LR would have to build a new boat right? Or use their first boat (unlikely but possible) as it has been defeated in the cup match? 

Obviously any new teams are going to struggle to get involved in 18 months time. But for new teams I think it's more about security of the AC75 being the class in 2024(ish) that is a important, and whether or not there is another cup next year or not is probably of less importance. 

I think that would be an interesting DoG clause to try to have removed from the DoG.  I get that 150 years ago they didn't want the loser to continually rechallenge in the same losing yacht.   

But these days, in the age of sophisticated boats that are literally changed daily, and multiple challengers in a CSS, it makes no sense that the best of the losers can't reuse their boat, but the worst of the losers can. 

Also, 150 years ago, the "same vessel" was fairly easy to define. But today?  Couldn't you argue that the foils are as significant as hull shape?  So, might new foils equate to it being a "new" boat?  Plus add in an updated computer and control system...  couldn't that make it a "new" boat?  

I think there is a case to be made to the NYSC. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

An AC75 is defined by it's measurement certificate for a competition, so could it not be argued that new foils = new measurement certificate = new boat?

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

I think that would be an interesting DoG clause to try to have removed from the DoG.  I get that 150 years ago they didn't want the loser to continually rechallenge in the same losing yacht.   

But these days, in the age of sophisticated boats that are literally changed daily, and multiple challengers in a CSS, it makes no sense that the best of the losers can't reuse their boat, but the worst of the losers can. 

Also, 150 years ago, the "same vessel" was fairly easy to define. But today?  Couldn't you argue that the foils are as significant as hull shape?  So, might new foils equate to it being a "new" boat?  Plus add in an updated computer and control system...  couldn't that make it a "new" boat?  

I think there is a case to be made to the NYSC. 

Agree, as I noted earlier with the definition of vessel.

 

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

An AC75 is defined by it's measurement certificate for a competition, so could it not be argued that new foils = new measurement certificate = new boat?

Agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JonRowe said:

An AC75 is defined by it's measurement certificate for a competition, so could it not be argued that new foils = new measurement certificate = new boat?

A very easy fix of the issue. Great.

Edit: All it needs then is a protocol that allows more than one or two boats per campaign... And a respective clause in the challenge document.  Hmmmm... Maybe not so easy after all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

I dont think so. It lost the match and cannot be in another match for a period of 2 years per DoG

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any
Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened,
or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat.

 

Again..Im not a lawyer but I think I understand this to be the case.

Is that maybe one of those things that can be decided in the protocol with mutual consent?

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

Is that maybe one of those things that can be decided in the protocol with mutual consent?

Good question. What is MCable and what not?

Could one argue that it is part of "the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match,"?

IMHO, this is not MCable (G. Schuyler himself once rejected a request for a second challenge with the same boat, but I cannot remember which boat it was. One of the Canadians?).
Reason: It is not included in above MC clause ("boats" are not mentioned) neither in the complete Deed section of the MCable points, but it's located in one of the sections with non-negotiable rules, and it shares a paragraph with another fixed regulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, terrafirma said:

Sadly for Americans who are passionate about the "Americas Cup" that America as a country are unlikely to ever win the Cup for a long time. They made it very hard for the challengers in so many ways for over 100 years until Australia came along and broke the stranglehold. And now we have one of the smallest countries in the world appear seemingly unbeatable. I wonder, we will see America challenge again after some would review as a disastrous campaign? And now I believe we may have Country of citizenship what does America have in it's wardrobe to be a threat once again?

This is kind of bullshit. Americans have won the cup more than you since you have been involved while not even giving a shit. That combined with the Kiwi's sublime ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and it may not be so long. You cocky, insecure fucks will lose it sooner than you think.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

I think that would be an interesting DoG clause to try to have removed from the DoG.  I get that 150 years ago they didn't want the loser to continually rechallenge in the same losing yacht.   

But these days, in the age of sophisticated boats that are literally changed daily, and multiple challengers in a CSS, it makes no sense that the best of the losers can't reuse their boat, but the worst of the losers can. 

Also, 150 years ago, the "same vessel" was fairly easy to define. But today?  Couldn't you argue that the foils are as significant as hull shape?  So, might new foils equate to it being a "new" boat?  Plus add in an updated computer and control system...  couldn't that make it a "new" boat?  

I think there is a case to be made to the NYSC. 

While I agree with you that LR probably has a lot more speed to be discovered and I agree there is much in the DoG that is no longer fit for purpose , I doubt anyone is going to try and get that individual clause removed.

A better route would be for the trustee and all former trustees get together and unanimously work on a complete rewrite of the deed.......and I do not rank that very high on the probability spectrum.

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



IMHO, this is not MCable (G. Schuyler himself once rejected a request for a second challenge with the same boat, but I cannot remember which boat it was. One of the Canadians?).
 

I think it was the third Canadian challenge from Cuthbert, which led to the introduction of the "no vessel -- 2 year" clause in the second version of the DoG.

 

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

I think it was the third Canadian challenge from Cuthbert, which led to the introduction of the "no vessel -- 2 year" clause in the second version of the DoG.

 

Thanks, excellent memory!
I had the Canadians in mind, but couldn't find evidence so fast.

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

Thanks, excellent memory!
I had the Canadians in mind, but couldn't find evidence so fast.

We Canadians have the benefit and ignobility of having only a brief acquaintance with the AC to recall. 

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

We Canadians have the benefit and ignobility of having only a brief acquaintance with the AC to recall. 

we were, a long time ago, a COR. and not too long ago there was Red Maple Racing, that went no where.

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

I dont think so. It lost the match and cannot be in another match for a period of 2 years per DoG

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any
Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened,
or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat.

 

Again..Im not a lawyer but I think I understand this to be the case.

If they can sufficiently remediate the structural problems with B1 they could use that hull and strip absolutely everything else off B2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

While I agree with you that LR probably has a lot more speed to be discovered and I agree there is much in the DoG that is no longer fit for purpose , I doubt anyone is going to try and get that individual clause removed.

A better route would be for the trustee and all former trustees get together and unanimously work on a complete rewrite of the deed.......and I do not rank that very high on the probability spectrum.

because the DoG/NYSC wont recognise it. Anyone could still DoG challenge, that is the problem. You can have all the agreements in the world but all it takes is one wanker to piss in the pool.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites