Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

I've been wondering how much of a Release Fee, SailGP paid to ETNZ to get, Burling and Tuke aboard?

Any thoughts?

No release fee at all me thinks, it’s to ETNZ advantage to have these guys competing in foiling boats. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

 

2 hours ago, mako23 said:

No release fee at all me thinks, it’s to ETNZ advantage to have these guys competing in foiling boats. 

Plus I'm sure Grant Dalton was happy to get someone to pick up the wage bill for some of the sailors for a bit

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

'Restraint of Trade' clauses unlikely?

It's hard to know what the contracts were like. SailGP is not direct competition to the AC, any more than Olympic sailing is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, cbulger said:

I have no inside scoop on how the teams and their leaders/drivers are selected - but would be surprised if RC didn’t have an important vote.  Having said that, if one of the team leads wanted DB or TH as a wing trimmer or grinder, then I’d expect RC would stay out of the decision.

Why would they want TH or DB as a wing trimmer or grinder compared to who they chose? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2021 at 10:55 AM, cbulger said:

Hard not to notice the absence of AM afterguard from SailGP.  Sir Russell is the best AC CEO ever and  the critical skill in that job is talent identification.

Well, you have the AM flight controller as a grinder on the US boat....... Best use of resources?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, basketcase said:

you tell me......

oopsie.jpg

Not much the flight controller could have done once they bore away into that gust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2021 at 5:07 AM, Norcal said:

Well, you have the AM flight controller as a grinder on the US boat....... Best use of resources?

Andrew Campbell was flight controller, and I don't think he was grinding, it's a full time job.

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

Not much the flight controller could have done once they bore away into that gust.

My theory is that Andrew Campbell didn't prevent the pitch up in time, some seconds elapsed before the gust when they were already about 1° pitch up instead of down.

I had a close look at the sequence of events at:

Did Flight Controller Andrew Campbell Cause AM's Capsize?

AM Capsize Analysis

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2021 at 2:30 PM, MaxHugen said:

My theory is that Andrew Campbell didn't prevent the pitch up in time, some seconds elapsed before the gust when they were already about 1° pitch up instead of down.

I had a close look at the sequence of events at:

Did Flight Controller Andrew Campbell Cause AM's Capsize?

AM Capsize Analysis

Blaming Campbell is very unfair, it wasn't him who put Patriot in that position, it was Hutch and Barker (and I am a Hutch fan by the way).

Goodison called it -  it was going to be a "very hard manouvre" and he told them twice. Just for reference, he's an Olympic gold medalist and a 3 times Moth World Champion, and they ignored his advice as the tack-bearaway was tactically a better option. That manouvre is pretty straight forward in a TP52, but not so easy in a high performance foiling boat.

The rudder stalled which caused the pitch up, not Campbells lack of action or skill. Once the rudder was stalled, they were all just along for the ride.

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

Blaming Campbell is very unfair, it wasn't him who put Patriot in that position, it was Hutch and Barker (and I am a Hutch fan by the way).

Goodison called it -  it was going to be a "very hard manouvre" and he told them twice. Just for reference, he's an Olympic gold medalist and a 3 times Moth World Champion, and they ignored his advice as the tack-bearaway was tactically a better option. That manouvre is pretty straight forward in a TP52, but not so easy in a high performance foiling boat.

The rudder stalled which caused the pitch up, not Campbells lack of action or skill. Once the rudder was stalled, they were all just along for the ride.

If you re-watch the videos carefully, particularly the one from the chopper and also one on the boat looking aft, I don't think you'll see any sign of rudder stall for some seconds leading up to rudder loss and the sky leap, where I pointed out the continued bow-up attitude.

It was fairly clear when the rudder lost it IMO, and pitch had not been corrected before that.

Goodie's warning is just that, "it's going to be hard, be careful". They had good reason to go left - that would put them to weather, plus the right hand marker was another 100m to sail. IIRC, LR also chose to go left.

Perhaps I'm wrong. At the time, Deano was getting a lot of flack here, I felt there was more than one side to the story.

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

If you re-watch the videos carefully, particularly the one from the chopper and also one on the boat looking aft, I don't think you'll see any sign of rudder stall for some seconds leading up to rudder loss and the sky leap, where I pointed out the continued bow-up attitude.

It was fairly clear when the rudder lost it IMO, and pitch had not been corrected before that.

Goodie's warning is just that, "it's going to be hard, be careful". They had good reason to go left - that would put them to weather, plus the right hand marker was another 100m to sail. IIRC, LR also chose to go left.

Perhaps I'm wrong. At the time, Deano was getting a lot of flack here, I felt there was more than one side to the story.

I've watched the videos a few times, back when it happened and just now again.

There's a lot of leeward heel angle also before the rudder loses grip. When you think of the geometry of the foil and their locations, heeling to leeward creates a pitch up position. Campbell was probably doing all he could to keep it down. Watching the video you can actually see they sail a decent way with the boat heeling to leeward and then the rudder lets go.

So who's to blame -  the flight controller who couldn't control the pitch, the mainsheet trimmer and jib trimmer for not depowering the boat and keeping it flat?(main was at max ease), Deano for not getting through the turn faster? Or the guys that made the tactical call to perform "a very hard manouvre", against the advice of the highly experienced foiler on the boat. 

To me, Hutch and Deano put them in a position that they or the boat couldn't handle, and Goodison knew it before they did it. (the fact that he felt the need to speak up, twice, when he was neither tactician or helmsman, says a lot).

Perhaps we're both wrong and the Gust was not survivable by anyone.

I've been wrong before, just ask my wife :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chapter Four said:

I've watched the videos a few times, back when it happened and just now again.

There's a lot of leeward heel angle also before the rudder loses grip. When you think of the geometry of the foil and their locations, heeling to leeward creates a pitch up position. Campbell was probably doing all he could to keep it down. Watching the video you can actually see they sail a decent way with the boat heeling to leeward and then the rudder lets go.

So who's to blame -  the flight controller who couldn't control the pitch, the mainsheet trimmer and jib trimmer for not depowering the boat and keeping it flat?(main was at max ease), Deano for not getting through the turn faster? Or the guys that made the tactical call to perform "a very hard manouvre", against the advice of the highly experienced foiler on the boat. 

To me, Hutch and Deano put them in a position that they or the boat couldn't handle, and Goodison knew it before they did it. (the fact that he felt the need to speak up, twice, when he was neither tactician or helmsman, says a lot).

Perhaps we're both wrong and the Gust was not survivable by anyone.

I've been wrong before, just ask my wife :D

whoever decided not to release the backstay  ?

personally i think the hull was not built stiff enough and so they were in the habit of leaving backstays on to reduce the rudder judder.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chapter Four said:

I've watched the videos a few times, back when it happened and just now again.

There's a lot of leeward heel angle also before the rudder loses grip. When you think of the geometry of the foil and their locations, heeling to leeward creates a pitch up position. Campbell was probably doing all he could to keep it down. Watching the video you can actually see they sail a decent way with the boat heeling to leeward and then the rudder lets go.

So who's to blame -  the flight controller who couldn't control the pitch, the mainsheet trimmer and jib trimmer for not depowering the boat and keeping it flat?(main was at max ease), Deano for not getting through the turn faster? Or the guys that made the tactical call to perform "a very hard manouvre", against the advice of the highly experienced foiler on the boat. 

To me, Hutch and Deano put them in a position that they or the boat couldn't handle, and Goodison knew it before they did it. (the fact that he felt the need to speak up, twice, when he was neither tactician or helmsman, says a lot).

Perhaps we're both wrong and the Gust was not survivable by anyone.

I've been wrong before, just ask my wife :D

Quite right about the problematic geometry causing pitch up when heeling, which can very rapidly lead to dramas as we saw many times during the series.

A lot may depend on how user-friendly the controllers are designed too. One of the NZ chaps mentioned they were on their 7-8th iteration of the flight controller, prior to the the actual AC races.  Maybe AM needed a Big Red Crash Button, that automatically set the foil flap to reduce flight height plus a bit of up rake for the rudder foil, to level everything out. :P

Agree with you... and my armchair might be wrong too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2021 at 9:22 PM, MaxHugen said:

Andrew Campbell was flight controller, and I don't think he was grinding, it's a full time job.

I meant he is a grinder on the US GP cat.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2021 at 9:30 PM, MaxHugen said:

My theory is that Andrew Campbell didn't prevent the pitch up in time, some seconds elapsed before the gust when they were already about 1° pitch up instead of down.

I had a close look at the sequence of events at:

Did Flight Controller Andrew Campbell Cause AM's Capsize?

AM Capsize Analysis

There is nothing the flight controller can do once the rudder is gone, the boat is going to try and go vertical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don´t understand. So they are waiting in Auckland until a decision has been made by ETNZ where the next cup will be?

 

I was under the impression that this decision won´t be made within the next 5 months. 

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

7 - 8 days?  You need 14 days to get everyone through NZ's Managed Isolation, assuming you can even get 50 team member's managed isolation booked.  Additionally there is no way those Evinrude Engines are still operable.  Therefore you need to repower all of the chase boats.  Thirdly, a lot of the team, including Campbell is working for various Sail GP teams right now.

Last item - you need lots of money and are DeVos, Penske and Fauth really going to throw another $100M to a sail team that looked like a bunch of amateurs when it came down to game day?

Maybe he meant only he needs 7 - 8 days or he is losing his mind, or both.

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

I don´t understand. So they are waiting in Auckland until a decision has been made by ETNZ where the next cup will be?

 

I was under the impression that this decision won´t be made within the next 5 months. 

Ineos and American Magic could leave their bases up for 90-days pending direction on where the next Cup would be held.   Luna Rosa had to dismantle their base because that wharf was being used or developed after the Cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chobani Sailor said:

Additionally there is no way those Evinrude Engines are still operable. 

Why would that be the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Chobani Sailor said:

7 - 8 days?  You need 14 days to get everyone through NZ's Managed Isolation, assuming you can even get 50 team member's managed isolation booked.

He means ready to sail, as in being back to an operating cup base, e.g they're packed up but they could unpack (shocker I know :lol:), and not all of there sailors are in the US, they had a local skipper (fresh from the young 88 championships so ready for anything :lol::lol:) and some local shore crew, plus I'd imagine some of the team will be holidaying in NZ / AUS.

Maybe they could borrow Te Kahu of TNZ to get Deano some practise? :lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, atwinda said:

So... because they've stopped production, all the current Evinrude engines in existence are no longer operable? 

I would assume they are pretty well shot after 2 years of full-throttle.  According to Hutchinson, AM spent the most number of days on the water compared to the other teams.  On that note, considering they came in last place, the effectiveness of those sailing days is heavily debatable. 

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

I would assume they are pretty well shot after 2 years of full-throttle.

I've no idea the wear rate of E-Tecs, but generally outboards that are used consistently rack up way more trouble free hours than ones that sit idle for long periods.

Not surprised Evinrude is giving it away though, 4-strokes have become ubiquitous.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the benefit of time, reflection and hindsight, it is highly unlikely that AM will continue with almost any of the existing sailing team, key personnel, design avenues or choices; intact.

Nothing of their programme (community engagament aside - but this is not a principle goal) would be judged as satisfactory when held up to comparison with the other teams, let alone the blowtorch of this place.

Those who argue otherwise are dyed in the wool AM fans who are disconnected with reality.

Their choice of Hull Designs, Foil Designs, Aero package (with respect to agricultural booms and rope control) really highlight that they were at least 2 generations behind in what ultimately proved to be the fast solutions.

The whole ergonomic layout of their boat was terribly uninspiring. The wrong people were in the wrong positions. Although a fan of TH - what was he doing on the boat? That in itself is a clear indication to the vanity of the project over the harsh reality of putting the right poeople in the right roles....... You see this ruthless people swaps in Formula 1 and Football, so it will come to this sport, if not already (GD's selection of PB & BT over DB, post San Fran is looking more and more reasoned) - which is still largely a sport of mates chosen by mates to do a bit of well paid sailing.

Goody should have been steering or tactican. TH & DB off the boat. US sailing is not exactly deep in talent, but it will likely be harder going forward with tougher nationality clauses. Bora is no spring chicken, nor even Jimmy should negotiations with Prada go awry......

Sail design was a step away from the North programmes - obviously with the DeVos involvement that was locked in from the get go. But persisting down the design choices of Patriot & Defiant did leave them locked into the conservative and slow corner. Both boats looked like comfortable cruisers compared to Prada and ETNZ.

Recall the steering system and how much Deano had to fight it even in a straight line? I mean WTF........ was going on there? 

Unfortunately the AC world needs a US based team to remain pertinent to the values of the competition and history - from which so much sponsorship is raised. But  if AM and NYYC go again - then it will need to be a very different animal if it wants to be competitive. Maybe the A of AM will stand for Antithesis of the last campaign.

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

I've no idea the wear rate of E-Tecs, but generally outboards that are used consistently rack up way more trouble free hours than ones that sit idle for long periods.

Not surprised Evinrude is giving it away though, 4-strokes have become ubiquitous.

Yes, they were the only holdout with the 2 stroke engines.  It looks like they have shifted over to making boats and other recreation vehicles and contracted with Mercury to supply the motors for their boats.  Many of the companies are headquartered up in my neck of the woods here in Minnesota, USA.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2021 at 2:30 AM, MaxHugen said:

If you re-watch the videos carefully, particularly the one from the chopper and also one on the boat looking aft, I don't think you'll see any sign of rudder stall for some seconds leading up to rudder loss and the sky leap, where I pointed out the continued bow-up attitude.

It was fairly clear when the rudder lost it IMO, and pitch had not been corrected before that.

Goodie's warning is just that, "it's going to be hard, be careful". They had good reason to go left - that would put them to weather, plus the right hand marker was another 100m to sail. IIRC, LR also chose to go left.

Perhaps I'm wrong. At the time, Deano was getting a lot of flack here, I felt there was more than one side to the story.

LR chose to go left some 30 seconds or so later, when the gust was already established and AM had capsized. LR tack and bear off had no 'race' pressure and no question of which mark was favourable. They had all the time in the world to do a lazy tack then speed build and bear off. TH indicated that LR choosing the same manoeuvre as backing up their own decision, but the two are unrelated in my opinion. 
723051078_AMrounding.thumb.jpg.0c4db21faacf2d11aba298cf7276c0cb.jpg

Secondly, the right gate was favoured. It was further downwind. However, the wind had gone so far left that either gate would have probably seen you get to the leeward in one gybe. 

I think Goodie could have been more forceful. But it was clear to me. Maybe it's a cultural thing. 

TH says the decision to go left was due to Campbell saying that it looked light out to the right (Campbell sits forward Starboard side). If go to the stern cam the discussion starts around 2:44:20 when they tack on to port for the final approach to the windward gate.

Goody says 'it's all about staying to the left for this pressure'.

Campbell '100 meters better to the right' (right gate is favoured due to shift).

Dean 'copy'

Campbell 'you need to get back in this breeze on the left hand side of the course though. All soft to leeward (right)'. 2:44:40.

BUT: at 22:44:58 the gust hits. Goody screams for ease.

It's at this point you need to revaluate. They're on the gust front and it's now not just 'good pressure' it's a bit too much to handle. You need to be able to think on your feet and change plans. 

Goody says 'I think it's a smarter move the bear away gybe, here'. Then twice says it'll be a 'real' hard manoeuvre the tack bear away. It's more than a warning of caution, its a suggestion to not go ahead with the manoeuvre and an alternative option.  This was the same goody who 30 seconds earlier had said 'it's all about staying to the left for this pressure'. He changed his mind when the gust hit and they struggled to cope with the ease. 

What strange was that instead of changing plans based on Goodison's advice, the guy who could feel the gust, how overpowered they were and see the ominous visual signs to the left, Dean went with Campbells advice from 20-30 seconds prior.  

Context is important here too. They had a 500m lead. There is no need to do a racing rounding on either mark. The tack bear away probably would have been fine, had they gone for a safety manoeuvre like LR. What does this mean? Well, Dean getting to the windward side where he can see the gust he is bearing off in. Giving time to Goody to set up the main and make sure nothing is fouling the leech. And giving plenty of time to Campbell to stabilise the flight. If you sail past the mast for 5-10 seconds then so what? 

In the press conference the next day TH plays it as more bad luck and a unforeseeable gust. And he cites Campbells advice not to go left and plays it that there was some conflicting advice going deans way. But if you listen back, it's not really conflicting advice, it's just outdated.  Obviously he's not going to throw his helm under the bus. But frankly if anyone on that team believes it was just an unavoidable racing incident, then that's part of the problem. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The above description of communication sounds like those NTSB analyses of airplane crashes where the junior officer either says nothing or makes a weak caution as the senior one makes a clear pilot error.  Happens in surgery, too. I believe airlines and hospitals have training on speaking up forcefully if the big guy is doing something that's not right.

AM needed that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately Deano made the wrong call. I don't think it was an egregious one based on the information he had at the time, but he did make it and it went wrong. 

Agreed that Goody's communication needed to be more direct. "This is going to be a hard maneuver" can either be a warning not to do it, or a heads up that everyone needs to be focused. It's entirely possible that even if he said "The maneuver is unsafe in these conditions, recommend we go to the other gate" Deano would have still overruled him. 

What's disturbing is that Terry, who is listed as the skipper, had his head in the boat and wasn't fully aware of the situation and offering direction when a critical decision was being made.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EastCoastHustle said:

They can't! Entries are not open for additional Challengers right now. And they are not the CoR!

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

They can't! Entries are not open for additional Challengers right now. And they are not the CoR!

Submitting a challenge when there is already a challenger makes more sense if it is a precursor to a court action by the second challenger to have the first challenge deemed invalid so they the second challenger ends up first in line. I sincerely hope that is not the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"“Our challenge is inclusive,” says Culver. “I’ve have spoken with representatives of both the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and the Royal Yacht Squadron to assure them that New York Yacht Club is ready and willing to come to the table . . . . " 

By challenging and if accepted then they have a seat at the table. COR represents all challengers and on the surface their suggestions are in line with COR and ETNZ anyway.  Major issues at the moment will be lack of cash for (E)TNZ since Emirates were a major cash sponsor with potentially a negative climate for NZ govt funding. Having NYYC on board this early can add NY to Cowes for a couple of amazing locations.

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

Submitting a challenge when there is already a challenger makes more sense if it is a precursor to a court challenge by the second challenger to have the first challenge deemed invalid so they the second challenger ends up first in line. I sincerely hope that is not the case. 

The Royal Yacht Squadron is a Legit Challenger apparently! These NYYC Clowns can do whatever they want. ETNZ will never accept their Protocol demands.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

The Royal Yacht Squadron is a Legit Challenger apparently! These NYYC Clowns can do whatever they want. ETNZ will never accept their Protocol demands.

As long as the challenge from the RYS is legitimate -- and I assume it is -- ETNZ can tell NYYC to go shit in a hat if they want.  It's an odd move by NYYC.

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

As long as the challenge from the RYS is legitimate -- and I assume it is -- ETNZ can tell NYYC to go shit in a hat if they want.  It's an odd move by NYYC.

That's excatly what it is!

Link to post
Share on other sites

From their new protocol (and much more )

"17.6 New York Courts. 27 In defect of arbitration, or as per imperative law, New York Courts will be the only courts with 28 jurisdiction over the America’s Cup, the Event, this Protocol and the Rules."

and

18.13.3 Jurisdiction on extraordinary review: 6 a) The Arbitration Panel will have jurisdiction to decide if a contested decision is a subject 7 to extraordinary review and to decide on the substance of review. 89 b) The New York Courts will have jurisdiction if the contested decision, subject to the 10 request of extraordinary review, was issued by the Arbitration Panel.

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

@chesirecat

The Question is: Why did the NYYC do this? Their thinking must be that the "RYS Ltd/ITUK" is a Invalid Challenger.

What concerns me most is that the NYYC submitted a challenge. If all NYYC wanted to do was to show interest in AC37 and to try to get a seat at the table, they could have released their draft protocol and talked about it, or backed up the Brinks truck. Why submit a second challenge when the Deed specifically prohibits a second one from being considered as long as there is a valid first one?  Makes no sense unless the court finds there to be some problem with the first challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From RG:

On Thursday, May 6, the New York Yacht Club submitted to the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron in Auckland, New Zealand, a challenge for the 37th America’s Cup. The challenge was accompanied by a draft Protocol for the regatta, which would see the Cup Match take place in New Zealand during early 2024, utilizing the AC75 class.

“The America’s Cup is at a pivotal point in its 170-year history,” says Christopher J. Culver, Commodore of the New York Yacht Club. “The competition for the 36th edition was thrilling, and Emirates Team New Zealand, representing the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron, was a worthy winner. However, the New York Yacht Club, as the original trustee of the event and a participant in the most recent edition, has serious concerns about the future of this great competition. The cost of a competitive campaign, the lack of continuity in the class and the inability to plan beyond the current cycle have combined to create a prohibitive barrier to entry, which has manifested in the dwindling number of challengers and public interest. While we await further details on the location, timing and conditions for the 37th America’s Cup, we want to emphatically signal our enthusiasm for a multi-challenger event in 2024.

“Our proposed Protocol for the 37th America’s Cup is the product of months of work and countless conversations with America’s Cup stakeholders, including current and former challengers and defenders,” continues Culver. “It includes the tools necessary to improve the long-term commercial viability and global reach of the competition, while remaining true to the Deed of Gift and to the spirit of one of international sport’s oldest competitions. Other established teams that have similar views on the future of the competition.”

A multi-event schedule—time and location—for the next four America’s Cup regattas, which will enable teams, corporate partners and media to plan in advance, think beyond single campaigns and maximize revenue opportunities

Enhanced and independent event management via the creation of an America’s Cup Board of Governors, which will provide continuity and impartial oversight

Consistency in design, starting with the confirmation of the AC75 as the class for the 37th America’s Cup

 

https://www.sail-world.com/news/237426/Americas-Cup-New-York-YC-submits-Challenge?fbclid=IwAR0Qhd6Qu8Yej2leUtLPzyo9toQe5xF88ARlPTiJDZ3zXRk0z17ZSGmz40Y

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

@chesirecat

The Question is: Why did the NYYC do this? Their thinking must be that the "RYS Ltd/ITUK" is a Invalid Challenger.

Thinking hopefully (not always a good option) their legitimacy would have already been raised if there were doubt. 

Noticed their protocol has "confidential" all over it. Maybe NZYS and RYS have already seen it and their challenge might just nudge  NZ Gov and speed things up. Last thing anyone except NYYC, would want, is this to end up in NY courts or even have the event governed by them.

 

No doubt we'll be finding out more soon enough.

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

Thinking hopefully (not always a good option) their legitimacy would have already been raised if there were doubt. 

Noticed their protocol has "confidential" all over it. Maybe NZYS and RYS have already seen it and their challenge might just nudge  NZ Gov and speed things up. Last thing anyone except NYYC, would want, is this to end up in NY courts or even have the event governed by them.

 

No doubt we'll be finding out more soon enough.

I doubt NZ Government will fight over AC. They have other problems. I hope NYYC realizes that we still live under COVID and it doesn't make any kind of sense to stage the AC until we get back to normacy with Free Travelling!

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

@chesirecat

The Question is: Why did the NYYC do this? Their thinking must be that the "RYS Ltd/ITUK" is a Invalid Challenger.

Can someone please refresh my memory on this. The challenger is not RYS but some subsidiary of RYS, correct?

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

Can someone please refresh my memory on this. The challenger is not RYS but some subsidiary of RYS, correct?

Please not that shit again, instead google "alzheimer"...

 

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

Please not that shit again, instead google "alzheimer"...

 

I know we already discussed it. I’m not sure which thread. I did look for it. I’m not looking to stir shit, I’m just trying to remember what the actual facts are.

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

I know we already discussed it. I’m not sure which thread. I did look for it. I’m not looking to stir shit, I’m just trying to remember what the actual facts are.

I have forgotten too. :D

But assume that the Royal Yacht Squadron Ltd. is as legit as it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line here is that NYYC has chucked a bloody great rock in the pond.

It is pretty clear that the club is not enamoured of the hasty acceptance by RNZYS of the RYS challenge.  And of course all the palaver associated with challenges over recent decades.

The Yanks are set on a major reset. The original and sole challenger for the Auld Mug for many moons has delivered a Draft Protocol aimed at logical governance of all aspects of AC racing and associated activities.

It runs to 156 pages!  

So far, I've only read part of the intro but it appears to endorse and codify measures and approaches that have successfully been adopted in past events while attempting to nail down management and supporting roles that are typically reinvented every time there is a match.

https://nyyc.org/documents/10184/0/Draft+Protocol+37th+America's+Cup/bc4ab8b3-6404-4120-b333-1effa1be6889

"The America’s Cup is at a pivotal point in its 170-year history,” says Christopher J. Culver, Commodore of the New York Yacht Club. “Our proposed Protocol for the 37th America’s Cup is the product of months of work and countless conversations with America’s Cup stakeholders, including current and former challengers and defenders,” he said. “It includes the tools necessary to improve the long-term commercial viability and global reach of the competition, while remaining true to the Deed of Gift and to the spirit of one of international sport’s oldest competitions. Other established teams that have similar views on the future of the competition.”

In other words, none of this should be a surprise to the RNZYS or other key players!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

We don't give a flying fuck of your assumptions, we do about NNYC ones.

NNYC? Neenah Nodaway Yacht Club? :D

Edit: The Neenah-Nodaway Yacht Club (NNYC) has been in existence since 1864, making it one of the oldest Yacht Clubs in the country.

Sorry, couldn't resist

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

NNYC? Neenah Nodaway Yacht Club? :D

Edit: The Neenah-Nodaway Yacht Club (NNYC) has been in existence since 1864, making it one of the oldest Yacht Clubs in the country.

Sorry, couldn't resist

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that by reading that part of the prot we could find what they may not agree with Ben's Challenge, I don't. I see a lot of redunancies with the Deed, they could have just said that it supercedes the protocol.


37 Signature and acceptance by the Yacht Club of the covenants and agreements required by the
38 Deed of Gift and the Protocol by undertaking the obligations and signing the Notice of
39 Challenge which includes the agreement that, should the Challenger win the America’s Cup
40 Match, then the Challenger must hold the ownership of the Cup and the Corporations subject
41 to the trust, terms and conditions established by the Deed of Gift and this Protocol, and that by
42 entering in the Event and accepting this Protocol, the Challenger hereby covenants and agrees
43 that subsequently:
44 i) it will faithfully and will fully see that the conditions of the Deed of Gift and this
45 Protocol are fully observed and complied with by any Competitor during the holding
46 of the Cup by it; and

America’s Cup Protocol - Page 52 of 156
ii) the agreement that it will assign, transfer and deliver the Cup 1 and the Corporations
2 to the foreign Yacht Club whose representative yacht shall have won the Cup in
3 accordance with the terms and conditions of the Deed of Gift and the Protocol
4 provided that the foreign Yacht Club must, by lawfully executing this Protocol with
5 the Defender and by signing the Notice by the Defender in identical form, assume
6 the obligation to contain this provision for the successive assignees of the Cup to
7 enter into the same covenants with their respective assignors, and to be executed
8 in duplicate, one retainer by each Yacht Club and a copy to be forwarded to the
9 other part; and
10 iii) the agreement that in case the above terms and conditions are not met by the
11 foreign Yacht Club whose representative yacht shall have won the Cup; it will not
12 assign, transfer and deliver the Cup and the Corporations until the terms and
13 conditions of the Deed of Gift and the Protocol are met by such foreign Yacht Club;
14 and
15 iv) the acceptance that, should the Yacht Club holding the Cup be for any cause
16 dissolved, the Cup shall be transferred to some Yacht Club of the same nationality,
17 eligible to Challenge under the Deed of Gift, in trust and subject to the provisions of
18 the Deed of Gift and this Protocol; and
19 v) the acceptance that, in the event of the failure of such transfer within three months
20 after such dissolution, the Cup shall revert to the preceding Yacht Club holding the
21 same, and under the terms of the Deed of Gift and this Protocol; and
22 vi) the distinct understanding that the Cup is to be the property of the Yacht Club
23 subject to the provisions of the Deed of Gift and this Protocol, and not the property
24 of the owner or owners of any vessel winning a match.
25
26 c)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand what is going on but this defend is the strangest I have ever seen yet.

1) There is  possibility that AC37 races in a year but the protocol may be known in ....6 months

2) We don't know the venue, Auckland, UK, Emirates, or wherever best shopped.

3) We don't know if it's going to be raced next year or in 4 years

4) A challenger makes public a protocol without the agreement of the defender or the official CoR

5) We don't even know the official CoR opinion aside from " the defender decides", which is nonsense as a protocol is decided with C0R/D.

6) We don't even know if the CoR is considered CoR by all potential challengers.

 

Is Dalton sleeping or smoked a good one ?

This is not even a circus, it's "la cour des miracles".

Well, I would not hate some NYSC involvement, it's part of the AC after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NYYC is breaking with tradition and the plain language of the deed.

The tradition is that the defender chooses their challenger by accepting a challenge as soon as the last AC is finished. The Royal Yacht Squadron have lodged a challenge.

The NYYC has many of the top lawyers in NY to consult with, both as members and friends of members. They must know what they are doing here.

One wonders WTF they are up to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friends, Romans, countrymen, 

instead of hijacking this "Team NYYC" thread, let's discuss the actual "Evolutionary Draft Protocol of the NYYC " in a new clean thread.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailweb

Editor Note: The Challenger of Record for AC37 — the Royal Yacht Squadron Ltd (GBR) — have not invited other challengers to file for AC37. It is therefore not clear what status, if any, this document has.

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and Emirates Team New Zealand (current Defender of the America’s Cup) issued a statement in response that . . . ‘welcomed the New York Yacht Club’s interest in the next America’s Cup, but questions their motives for such a presumptuous statement when entries do not open for some time’.

Joint statement from Royal Yacht Squadron Ltd and INEOS TEAM UK – 9 May, 2021

As the Challenger of Record for the 37th America’s Cup, we are working collaboratively with the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and Team New Zealand to write the Protocol that will define the rules moving forward. We are delighted to hear that the New York Yacht Club are interested in continuing participation in the America’s Cup and we will keep them informed as we move forward

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

Bottom line here is that NYYC has chucked a bloody great rock in the pond.

It is pretty clear that the club is not enamoured of the hasty acceptance by RNZYS of the RYS challenge.  And of course all the palaver associated with challenges over recent decades.

The Yanks are set on a major reset. The original and sole challenger for the Auld Mug for many moons has delivered a Draft Protocol aimed at logical governance of all aspects of AC racing and associated activities.

It runs to 156 pages!  

So far, I've only read part of the intro but it appears to endorse and codify measures and approaches that have successfully been adopted in past events while attempting to nail down management and supporting roles that are typically reinvented every time there is a match.

https://nyyc.org/documents/10184/0/Draft+Protocol+37th+America's+Cup/bc4ab8b3-6404-4120-b333-1effa1be6889

"The America’s Cup is at a pivotal point in its 170-year history,” says Christopher J. Culver, Commodore of the New York Yacht Club. “Our proposed Protocol for the 37th America’s Cup is the product of months of work and countless conversations with America’s Cup stakeholders, including current and former challengers and defenders,” he said. “It includes the tools necessary to improve the long-term commercial viability and global reach of the competition, while remaining true to the Deed of Gift and to the spirit of one of international sport’s oldest competitions. Other established teams that have similar views on the future of the competition.”

In other words, none of this should be a surprise to the RNZYS or other key players!

Reading snippets of this vast protocol, they are proposing a complete overhaul of the AC.  The "commission seems to be a propsed controlling body.

1. The NYYC becomes permanently involved. They are automatically on the so-called "commission" even if not participating.

2. The commission comprises the Defender, the NYYC, and any prior winner of the cup who are participating in the current cup or participated in one of the last 3 cycles, the challenger of record.

3. The Challenger of Record is automatically the club defeated in the prior match.

Thus we deduce that if this protocol was in place today, the commission would consist of

RNZYS/TNZ representative

NYYC rep

Golden Gate YC/ Team Oracle Represntative

Luna Rossa Representative

That does not seem like a functional commission to me.

It also means that if you challenge using a club that has previously won the cup (San Diego YC , Geneva YC, Royal Pert YC etc) you immediately have a seat on the commission. If you challenge from another club....you do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Budget Caps down to $ 75 M per Team according to that Draft Shit. Teams down to 85-120 People, 20 of them have to be Designers.

NYYC Commodore Culver needs to be BLASTED for that crap!

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theory....Grant secretly requested the NYYC issue this Challenge/Protocol. Why? Talks have stalled with the RYS/NZ Govt, and he needed something to nudge this along.

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

Conspiracy theory....Grant secretly requested the NYYC issue this Challenge/Protocol. Why? Talks have stalled with the RYS/NZ Govt, and he needed something to nudge this along.

I seriously doubt that! I think NYYC issued this Challenge/Protocol to prevent 1 - 1 between the Kiwis and the Brits for AC37.

However if that was their (NYYC) goal they could have done it in a more elegant way and not provoke the RNZYS and the RYS + their respective Teams TNZ and INEOS!

Link to post
Share on other sites

NYYC lost the Cup back in 1983 and have not regain it since, that is 38 years ago!

Now they want a say in how to run the Cup?

I think it is better to concentrate on how to win the Cup first.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Horn Rock said:

Conspiracy theory....Grant secretly requested the NYYC issue this Challenge/Protocol. Why? Talks have stalled with the RYS/NZ Govt, and he needed something to nudge this along.

If we’re going to go with conspiracy theories, let’s go all in!  NYYC submitted the challenge because TNZ (note the missing E) doesn’t have the funds to defend and plan to relinquish the Cup. NYYC want to be CoR with the Brits as defenders!

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

If we’re going to go with conspiracy theories, let’s go all in!  NYYC submitted the challenge because TNZ (note the missing E) doesn’t have the funds to defend and plan to relinquish the Cup. NYYC want to be CoR with the Brits as defenders!

I thought if defender relinquishes the cup, it goes back to the team that last won it, i.e. GGYC & Larry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

NYYC wants a spending cap because they blew away $150M for a last place finish.   Assuming $20M was for tangible items you can still conclude that Hutchinson overpaid A LOT of people.  Ignorance is not bliss in the AC.

While the NYYC may want another crack at the AC, does DeVos, Penske and Fauth really want to given Hutchinson more money.  Maybe Comm. Culver is writing a big check. 

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

NYYC wants a spending cap because they blew away $150M for a last place finish.   Assuming $20M was for tangible items you can still conclude that Hutchinson overpaid A LOT of people.  Ignorance is not bliss in the AC.

While the NYYC may want another crack at the AC, does DeVos, Penske and Fauth really want to given Hutchinson more money.  Maybe Comm. Culver is writing a big check. 

* Tied for last, remember after $150M they were tied on points with stars + stripes........

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

I thought if defender relinquishes the cup, it goes back to the team that last won it, i.e. GGYC & Larry?

and if Larry doesn't want to play it goes to Alinghi? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jethrow said:

and if Larry doesn't want to play it goes to Alinghi? :lol:

Maybe NYYC is playing the long game.

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

NYYC wants a spending cap because they blew away $150M for a last place finish.   Assuming $20M was for tangible items you can still conclude that Hutchinson overpaid A LOT of people.  Ignorance is not bliss in the AC.

While the NYYC may want another crack at the AC, does DeVos, Penske and Fauth really want to given Hutchinson more money.  Maybe Comm. Culver is writing a big check. 

There is no second and there is no last. It’s all or nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2021 at 5:58 PM, porthos said:

Submitting a challenge when there is already a challenger makes more sense if it is a precursor to a court action by the second challenger to have the first challenge deemed invalid so they the second challenger ends up first in line. I sincerely hope that is not the case. 

Agreed. From a few weeks ago.. Culver:

"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

My guess is that there's a real possibility that even under their new name (and... which name did the Ineos team Challenge under?) the now-named RYS Limited is still a commercial entity and not a YC. They have no Commodore and no YC.  

I heard Hamish Ross get pretty deep into all this a few weeks back when he was on TE's Sailing Illustrated show, it was show # 408 I think and that discussion happened starting at around 120 minutes into the show.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2021 at 12:58 PM, porthos said:

Submitting a challenge when there is already a challenger makes more sense if it is a precursor to a court action by the second challenger to have the first challenge deemed invalid so they the second challenger ends up first in line. I sincerely hope that is not the case. 

still doesn't mean that they can force their views on the defender. Still has to be agreed and clearly there may be some parts that don't fit well with the defenders view on things

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

My guess is that there's a real possibility that even under their new name (and... which name did the Ineos team Challenge under?) the now-named RYS Limited is still a commercial entity and not a YC. They have no Commodore and no YC.  

I heard Hamish Ross get pretty deep into all this a few weeks back when he was on TE's Sailing Illustrated show, it was show # 408 I think and that discussion happened starting at around 120 minutes into the show.

 

if that is NYYC assumption either Grants accepts the new challenge or it goes to the NYSC as it did before, but Grant don't have the money for that, unless Ratcliffe helps. But why would he help the defender ? Not his interest. Accepting a protocol allowing him to race in UK would be easier and wiser for him. Dalt is broke and no sponsor would be willing to enter with a case in court, so he could not do anything but negociate. Thus the 3 venues in the protocol: Auckland, UK, US. It would a base for discussion, not sure they would even defend in Auckland. It would be a protocol decided by 3 parties and it is Deed compliant if the first two agree to it.

That would be a pretty smart plan.

 

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

still doesn't mean that they can force their views on the defender. Still has to be agreed and clearly there may be some parts that don't fit well with the defenders view on things

One of the features of the AC and Deed is that a valid challenger can sort of force their views on a defender. That's basically what happened in 1988 and 2010. 

In any event, if RYS Ltd. is a valid challenger, RNZYS can tell NYYC to use its draft protocol as shit wipe. The deed is very clear that a defender cannot consider a second challenge if a valid one already exists. Surely NYYC's crack team of attorneys knows that. So why in the world would NYYC release a document that is DOA at the start?

One way -- and perhaps the only way -- that releasing what appears to be a pointless document actually makes some sense is if the NYYC is planning on doing something else that suddenly makes the draft protocol relevant, such as challenging the validity of RYS Ltd. 

N.B. I've actually read the incorporating documents of RYS Ltd., and I fully expect the NYSC to find RYS Ltd. to be a Deed-complaint challenger. Article 4 of the RYS Ltd's Articles of Association are particularly compelling. In other words, if NYYC is planning something like this, they will lose and look worse than they already do.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

My guess is that there's a real possibility that even under their new name (and... which name did the Ineos team Challenge under?) the now-named RYS Limited is still a commercial entity and not a YC. They have no Commodore and no YC.  

I heard Hamish Ross get pretty deep into all this a few weeks back when he was on TE's Sailing Illustrated show, it was show # 408 I think and that discussion happened starting at around 120 minutes into the show.

 

I think the exact opposite. I've read the association documents for RYS Ltd. It's incorporated and formed for the purposes of being a yacht club. It's got an annual regatta. That's it. That's all the Deed requires.  And there is nothing to the name change. That happens all the time.  The entity itself has been around since 2014.  I fully expect the NYSC to reject any challenge to RYS Ltd. 

Link to post
Share on other sites