Jump to content

Stars and Stripes Team USA is gone


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, XPRO said:

Having been involved with two failed/sham campaigns I think there are three types of programs that fail:

1. Con-men at the top that want to appear big, travel the world to go the AC meetings and have never been involved with anything at this level. Often they burn sailors, a few sponsors and maybe a YC. Often they are doing it to look big and feel special.

2. Very good sailors that do not have, or fail to bring in the business team to get the money or the resources in line to get them off the ground. often they burn a YC, many sponsors, and sailors. Often they are too busy doing other sailing to manage the program.

3. Programs that  form at a YC and don't realize what will have to go into a program. Often burning sailors some sponsors but generally have their priorities straight.

The problem with S+S is they grabbed a famous name that people knew rather than building a new legacy, tried to get sailors to work for peanuts, did not pay anything that was required  on time, ran a terrible marketing and fundraising campaign and then burned and humiliated a YC.  They had an outside chance of getting a US made boat, but spent a lot of bandwidth on continually saying " we are the only American American campaign"...  well duh ... good luck with that other american B1 boat.

 

it is unfortunate, would have been helpful to have 4 boats in the challenger series....

Nailed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's this type of spite that got the fucktard elected in the first place... 

I just love how so many commentors from countries with still far from controlled Covid outbreaks wrecking their economies seem to think that NZ somehow has a more severe economic issue than their own.

No hurt feelings at all just further confirmation that your primary pleasure in life is talking shit, don't worry about me I've got a life.

Posted Images

23 minutes ago, XPRO said:

Favorite exchange of this thread....

Capture11.JPG

My favorite was Clownwell's furtive guarantee to TE that S+S would be at the line. It was the first real indicator to me that GD was involved. The second was (apart from the Hungarian Goulash) the flagrant pimping of S+S by Clownwell a few weeks ago trying desperately to find money.

Sham is right.

 

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

D39F6D66-AC4A-4D2E-BDFC-F155760E4CE0.thumb.jpeg.0bffe0f25a7573287dbcc2e0bea51ebb.jpeg

It would have been nice to have another challenger but this is the right decision.

The only option now is for S+S to negotiate buying AM's constructed-in-USA B1. I can't see many pros for AM .... they would get some amount of cash plus could maintain an agreement of info sharing that would amount to two boat testing. Can't see it happening though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a similar case that went to the AP some months ago, I think it was submitted by AM, about who if any late Challengers were legal. It involved 4 things but 3 of them got resolved somehow, with only 1 of them getting ruled on. And that 1 remaining ruling, that teams who were not paid up, got superceded by an intermediate decision by the D and the CoR to Change the Prot. Or something like that.

In this case an intervening Prot change did not happen, maybe suggesting disagreement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So S+S needs to pay even more money they may or may not have to cover costs of this little foray into the land of the lost boys  ("clap if you want Tinkerbell to live and S+S to sail in Te Aihe")

I smell jail time, stepping back into one role to better than focus on winning, being disowned by a yacht club, and continued hype. I leave it as an exercise for the readers to sort out who gets what.

I am surprised and impressed by the panel.

Hope this does not discourage S+S sponsors. They can build faster, that's all. I am sure the design package docs are around somewhere.

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

Having been involved with two failed/sham campaigns I think there are three types of programs that fail:

1. Con-men at the top that want to appear big, travel the world to go the AC meetings and have never been involved with anything at this level. Often they burn sailors, a few sponsors and maybe a YC. Often they are doing it to look big and feel special.

2. Very good sailors that do not have, or fail to bring in the business team to get the money or the resources in line to get them off the ground. often they burn a YC, many sponsors, and sailors. Often they are too busy doing other sailing to manage the program.

3. Programs that  form at a YC and don't realize what will have to go into a program. Often burning sailors some sponsors but generally have their priorities straight.

The problem with S+S is they grabbed a famous name that people knew rather than building a new legacy, tried to get sailors to work for peanuts, did not pay anything that was required  on time, ran a terrible marketing and fundraising campaign and then burned and humiliated a YC.  They had an outside chance of getting a US made boat, but spent a lot of bandwidth on continually saying " we are the only American American campaign"...  well duh ... good luck with that other american built B1 boat.

 

it is unfortunate, would have been helpful to have 4 boats in the challenger series....

+1 Now can we kill this thread..!  :ph34r::D

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Does it take a specialist to count to four in America?

Depends. This seems to be the clause up for interpretation...

Quote

19. Escalation process
(a) ACE and ETNZ acknowledge and agree that if at any time during the Term:

(ii) it becomes likely that a credible event with no less than four competing Teams
is not going to take place (the Hosts acknowledging that there will only be two
Teams competing in the Match)

Within the context of other language within this HVA - the Emiratis could or could not be considered one of these 4 teams (like you see above where they are separated for the final match - same with bases, etc).

In light of the early Economic Analysis - which obviously also drives a lot of this HVA (essentially as an investment pro-forma from MBIE and NZ)_ - there were originally supposed to be a MINIMUM of 6 challenging teams just to break even.

So, like all things, I think this point is probably being litigated as we speak. Regardless, GD certainly put a lot of chips on the table to try to keep S+S in the mix. If the above didn't apply - why?

It will actually be you Kiwis who have to count tor four. Heh.

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

Favorite exchange of this thread....

Capture11.JPG

Hey they said it not me :) I simply messaged who ever was running their FB page if they would be in Portsmouth for the ACWS. The answer from who ever ran that page was “Yes” don’t shoot the messenger. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, fish7yu said:

Each team has to pay $980 for leaking out details, should they go after TE for reimbursement? :P

IMG_20200805_141350.jpg

Yes they absolutely should. Wonder if he’ll mention that on his show? That’ll surely give Richard Gladwell a little chuckle

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

He also made public confidential information regarding an AP submission.

You make it sound like the America’s Cup is as important as military secrets.

its a fucking sailboat race. 
 

almost no one gives a tiny fuck about some confidential rules bullshit, except those people who get paid.

kiwis need to get over themselves.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Re-reading now, funny/interesting how TE’s SI gets a mention, check out 36:

DCB66D49-6045-4D41-92DE-CD7882EFA4BE.thumb.jpeg.e0490e6d237089a86311142b9a71c580.jpeg

That’s all laughable. Of course someone leaked to Ehman, and he prints it about as fast as he can transfer from his ears to his fingers. And what’s the big deal? He’s not bound by any confidentiality agreement. Everyone knows someone leaked, they just don’t know who. Confidential in the America’s Cup means only tell one person at a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the S&S farce dead and buried or what simply a complete cluster fuck.

Dalton and Co waive away their initial commitments for the defender to deliver some integrity regarding AC36 and all we get is this bullshit.

The S&S approach to the AP was sanctioned by TNZ how embarrassing that cunning plan proved to be.

Just adds to the rich tapestry of the Hungarian Hustle  the whistleblowers not to mention their dodgy human rights violating major sponsor.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well nice to see official paperwork on this, interesting that the panel was obviously not happy with the fact that TE blew the whistle.

To be honest I totally agree with the decision the arbitration panel made, but it's disappointing that unless AM wants to let their B1 go looks like that's the end of S & S for this cycle at least.

Shame they aren't going to make it, I'm a great believer in the more the merrier when it comes to events like this.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Woolfy said:

Shame they aren't going to make it, I'm a great believer in the more the merrier when it comes to events like this.

S&S under Canfield and Co have sullied a great historical sporting team and their achievements so the first port of call apology wise should be to Dennis.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

GD, and ETNZ did the right thing - they kept their powder entirely dry, and let arbitration reach the obvious and correct conclusion.

They did not undermine, pre-empt, or do anything to influence the outcome in either direction.

That some will use their deliberate, appropriate and just silence (even after the leak) as some sort of demonstration of conspiracy, lack of integrity or tacit approval of S+S's request as a scam says so much about those who conjure up such imagery, than it does a team focussed on staying out of the bullshit, giving every comer a fair crack, letting due process fall where it may and instead focussing on what they can control, in good faith, and for a fair result.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

So is the S&S farce dead and buried or what simply a complete cluster fuck.

Dalton and Co waive away their initial commitments for the defender to deliver some integrity regarding AC36 and all we get is this bullshit.

The S&S approach to the AP was sanctioned by TNZ how embarrassing that cunning plan proved to be.

Just adds to the rich tapestry of the Hungarian Hustle  the whistleblowers not to mention their dodgy human rights violating major sponsor.

 

 

 

Link? Or is this another "Yeah right"moment

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rh3000 said:

GD, and ETNZ did the right thing - they kept their powder entirely dry, and let arbitration reach the obvious and correct conclusion.

They did not undermine, pre-empt, or do anything to influence the outcome in either direction.

That some will use their deliberate, appropriate and just silence (even after the leak) as some sort of demonstration of conspiracy, lack of integrity or tacit approval of S+S's request as a scam says so much about those who conjure up such imagery, than it does a team focussed on staying out of the bullshit, giving every comer a fair crack, letting due process fall where it may and instead focussing on what they can control, in good faith, and for a fair result.

Total bullshit.

Canfeilds manoeuvrings along with the complicit efforts from TNZ  were akin to me laying claim to your wife because I don’t have a piece of fluff to bring to the orgy.

Dry powder yeah right.

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

Sorry Four for your loss it must be devastating news ego wise that the smoke and mirrors never delivered.

I don't care. Never did. I want as many teams as possible. Whether its S+S, Malta, The Netherlands or fucking Timbuktoo, the more teams, the better the competition.

The Arb Panel ruled, as it should've according to the Protocol. How anyone can claim any wromng doing from ETNZ is just a joke. They have remained completely neutral in the situation, completely impartial and completely independent.

Its only the crazy conspiracy theorists that look for something, anything to feed their dislike of Dalton or the team that think they can put some hypothetical, and completely baseless theory together with no evidence or facts to support it.

There's no loss in this for Me, because I was never invested in it. Clearly others are/ were because they can somehow relate the S+S situation to ETNZ and some "Fraud"or dirty money situation - again baseless.

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

Dont be holding your breath. 

Get your dick out of that sheep’s arse for a second and think why on earth would Canfield go to the AP seeking support for hiring TNZ B1 not the Frackers or the Handbags nor Amways.

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

Get your dick out of that sheep’s arse for a second and think why on earth would Canfield go to the AP seeking support for hiring TNZ B1 not the Frackers or the Handbags nor Amways.

No one was seeking "support"they were seeking a ruling from the panel on their submission, which was the whole purpose of the Arb Panel as per the protocol. 

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

So is the S&S farce dead and buried or what simply a complete cluster fuck.

Dalton and Co waive away their initial commitments for the defender to deliver some integrity regarding AC36 and all we get is this bullshit.

The S&S approach to the AP was sanctioned by TNZ how embarrassing that cunning plan proved to be.

Just adds to the rich tapestry of the Hungarian Hustle  the whistleblowers not to mention their dodgy human rights violating major sponsor.

 

 

 

Go take a nap...

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

Get your dick out of that sheep’s arse and think why on earth would Canfield go to the AP seeking support for hiring TNZ B1 not the Frackers or the Handbags nor Amway.

Did you read the application and ruling? S+S mentions no specific team nor boat, just a request for determination that "constructed in country" only relates to AC finals and not challenger races.

The only mention of ETNZ comes from the "news" mill, which we now know was part of the leak - clearly not from ETNZ. So who's hand are you playing in to?

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

Get your dick out of that sheep’s arse for a second and think why on earth would Canfield go to the AP seeking support for hiring TNZ B1 not the Frackers or the Handbags nor Amways.

Please tell us...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the reason for the ARB decision...

It is therefore implicit that a Challenger cannot sail a boat in the Challenger Selection Series, which are part of the Events and have the specific purpose of determining the final Challenger, if the yacht used to win such Series is ineligible in terms of the Protocol to sail in the Match.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

I don't care. Never did. I want as many teams as possible. Whether its S+S, Malta, The Netherlands or fucking Timbuktoo, the more teams, the better the competition.

The Arb Panel ruled, as it should've according to the Protocol. How anyone can claim any wromng doing from ETNZ is just a joke. They have remained completely neutral in the situation, completely impartial and completely independent.

Its only the crazy conspiracy theorists that look for something, anything to feed their dislike of Dalton or the team that think they can put some hypothetical, and completely baseless theory together with no evidence or facts to support it.

There's no loss in this for Me, because I was never invested in it. Clearly others are/ were because they can somehow relate the S+S situation to ETNZ and some "Fraud"or dirty money situation - again baseless.

Crikey your petulant mouth is foaming up a storm tonite Four.

Which boat was S&S seeking to use as an obvious option for your much touted no show.

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

Crikey your petulant mouth is foaming up a storm tonite Four.

Which boat was S&S seeking to use as an obvious option for your much touted no show.

You tell us... its your story, if/ when you find that boat in the application, let me know...

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

Sad and disappointing affair Canfield and Co stringing the whole idiocy along to such lengths which have never been seen and such a bizarre episode in AC history.

Thought so, couldn't find the boat in the application huh? so its back to bagging Canfield and co. The guy is more successful in his field than you'll ever be.

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

Sad and disappointing affair Canfield and Co stringing the whole idiocy along to such lengths which have never been seen before and such a bizarre episode in AC history.

What are you enjoying tonight? I'm considering a second large glass of Laphroaig :-)

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

Thought so, couldn't find the boat in the application huh? so its back to bagging Canfield and co. The guy is more successful in his field than you'll ever be.

Certainly won’t be competing in AC36 in TNZ B1 end of sad story.

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

Certainly won’t be competing in AC36 in TNZ B1 end of sad story.

Thanks to clear and concise wording in the protocol, no. Not ETNZs B1, Not INEOS Team UKs B1 or LRs B1. Possibly AMs B1 but who knows. The whole situation unfolded as per the protocol. ETNZ was completely neutral and unbiased during the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 11:40 AM, Stingray~ said:

On today’s Sailing Illustrated, TE said he is still hearing from multiple sources about possible attempts by Buckley and GD to buy/lease/rent/sail/whatever, Te A. To enable ‘S+S’ to garner additional cash from one of their two donors, so they can pay the remaining $4M of the $5M they owe to Dalton. The idea now is to ‘sell’ the idea to the donors as a stepping-stone to the following Cup. 

The concept of S+S wanting to lease or buy ETNZ's B1 came from the same place the leak came from.

Not from S+S, not from ETNZ.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Te is a an Oracle shill, just like you.

Got nothing to do with you or him, the decision was given to the Panel in good faith and they dealt with it.

Only thing bam is your soft as cheese mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weta27 said:

So who is feeding this stuff to TE?

This is a good question. Te and spinbot suck from the same nipple, but the leaks from etnz seem a bit much. Etnz are getting practiced at shutting off the tap, expect them to have fed the goldfish with this minor escapade as well. And turn off the tap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was the only decision it could have been.

Anything else would have entirely discredited the AP.

 

TE doesn't get to take credit for 'predicting' this, its the ONLY decision possible.

Anyone who predicted anything else is clueless/an idiot.

 

The confidentiality part arguably explains ETNZ silence but we still have the issue that somehow S&S had the understanding that use of ETNZ B1 was on the table and for that ETNZ must take blame.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

TE made the observation today in a short AC segment at the end of his live show that ‘Events’ has a Prot definition that defines them as all events, not only the AC Match, and so all events are also covered by the Prot’s defn of CIC. 

Still many posts to catch up, but ref. to what you wrote: Haven't we here, in SAAC, been sure that the CiC is valid for all events (the whole series/whatever you will call the string of regattas ending with the AC proper) after one or two looks into the protocol, already when that story came up?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

TFE never quoted anything, even when interrogated for details by TVNZ reporters. I seriously doubt he knew for certain what the AP ruling was going to be, go listen to the last 15 minutes of his show today. But he for sure nailed it, very precisely on exactly the point the AP ruled it on. 
 

Credit to him, why the hell not? 

Well, he is experienced in reading rules and protocols ffs. Anyone that does, carefully, would glean that result. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, XPRO said:

Having been involved with two failed/sham campaigns I think there are three types of programs that fail:

1. Con-men at the top that want to appear big, travel the world to go the AC meetings and have never been involved with anything at this level. Often they burn sailors, a few sponsors and maybe a YC. Often they are doing it to look big and feel special.

2. Very good sailors that do not have, or fail to bring in the business team to get the money or the resources in line to get them off the ground. often they burn a YC, many sponsors, and sailors. Often they are too busy doing other sailing to manage the program.

3. Programs that  form at a YC and don't realize what will have to go into a program. Often burning sailors some sponsors but generally have their priorities straight.

The problem with S+S is they grabbed a famous name that people knew rather than building a new legacy, tried to get sailors to work for peanuts, did not pay anything that was required  on time, ran a terrible marketing and fundraising campaign and then burned and humiliated a YC.  They had an outside chance of getting a US made boat, but spent a lot of bandwidth on continually saying " we are the only American American campaign"...  well duh ... good luck with that other american built B1 boat.

 

it is unfortunate, would have been helpful to have 4 boats in the challenger series....

Seems to me S+S had #1 (Buckley) and #2 (Canfield) to produce that result.

I would have thought them admirably plucky, Yada yadda if they ever had evidenced any viable funding trajectory and CiC plan using same. But they did not. Embarrassing. Not to them, but to actual would-be fans of a "real American team" as I started out being. It ended a scam. And maybe LBYC. Would love to know why they ignored everything.

I wonder if S+S or someone connected to their "challenge" was the leaker? S+S could have thought it would help garner sympathy (as it did some) or, if a connection,  get some whistleblower sunlight on the mess.

 

 

 

Edited by NeedAClew
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rh3000 said:

GD, and ETNZ did the right thing - they kept their powder entirely dry, and let arbitration reach the obvious and correct conclusion.

They did not undermine, pre-empt, or do anything to influence the outcome in either direction.

That some will use their deliberate, appropriate and just silence (even after the leak) as some sort of demonstration of conspiracy, lack of integrity or tacit approval of S+S's request as a scam says so much about those who conjure up such imagery, than it does a team focussed on staying out of the bullshit, giving every comer a fair crack, letting due process fall where it may and instead focussing on what they can control, in good faith, and for a fair result.

I'm starting to think this "rh3000" is Four's sock. This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in a while. All you need to do is look on GD's approved website to see the complicity, undermining, pre-emption, etc.:

Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 10.26.15 PM.png

Don't worry. Due process is coming.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, weta27 said:

The concept of S+S wanting to lease or buy ETNZ's B1 came from the same place the leak came from.

Not from S+S, not from ETNZ.

Yes - but since there is only 1 US boat - it's obviously down to the other 3 participants. And because it was GD (through is mouthpiece RG) guaranteeing that S+S would be at the line - it's certainly not GBR.

There's not a lot of math here to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, weta27 said:

The concept of S+S wanting to lease or buy ETNZ's B1 came from the same place the leak came from.

Not from S+S, not from ETNZ.

 

57 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

 

I wonder if S+S or someone connected to their "challenge" was the leaker? S+S could have thought it would help garner sympathy (as it did some) or, if a connection,  get some whistleblower sunlight on the mess.

We have seen all along "S+S" is not LBYC. 

What if someone or someones from LBYC decided to stick a fork in it, it's done and leak?

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

What if someone or someones from LBYC decided to stick a fork in it, it's done and leak?

Yep, could easily be that, along a possible chain of people with knowledge, someone from LBYC discussed it with TE. And it may even have been in a ‘hopeful’ way, thinking the application may succeed. 
 

A bigger point than whoeverall leaked was, as mentioned above but only briefly, that the CoR argued to exclude S+S. The implication there is that LR weren’t about to agree Prot changes with ETNZ on it; which may well be why S+S was forced to try this route.
 

Given that LR submission, there’s no chance of a Prot change to address this S+S ‘we have no boat’ matter even after the AP decision. 

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

Yep, could easily be that, along a possible chain of people with knowledge, someone from LBYC discussed it with TE. And it may even have been in a ‘hopeful’ way, thinking the application may succeed. 
 

A bigger point than whoeverall leaked was, as mentioned above but only briefly, that the CoR argued to exclude S+S. The implication there is that LR weren’t about to agree Prot changes with ETNZ on it; which may well be why S+S was forced to try this route.
 

Given that LR submission, there’s no chance of a Prot change to address this S+S ‘we have no boat’ matter even after the AP decision. 

How is it a "Bigger point"? The dispute process is outlined in the protocol. Mutual consent between D and C, if that can not be achieved, mediation and application to the Arb Panel for a resolution.

But you're right, doesn't look like a protocol change is imminent. This is the way it should always be. Mutual consent exists only between D and C. Now we see how corrupt the process was last cycle. And how wrong a lot of people were about LR being ETNZ's "poodle"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeedAClew said:

Seems to me S+S had #1 (Buckley) and #2 (Canfield) to produce that result.

I would have thought them admirably plucky, Yada yadda if they ever had evidenced any viable funding trajectory and CiC plan using same. But they did not. Embarrassing. Not to them, but to actual would-be fans of a "real American team" as I started out being. It ended a scam. And maybe LBYC. Would love to know why they ignored everything.

I wonder if S+S or someone connected to their "challenge" was the leaker? S+S could have thought it would help garner sympathy (as it did some) or, if a connection,  get some whistleblower sunlight on the mess.

 

 

 

Let me be clear, there have been very few campaigns that I have wanted to see fail in the AC....  and this was not one. For every TNZL there is a +39, a UITG or  Mascalzone Latino (great people and team) that have the right to be there and crossed and dotted what needed to be so as to be a proper challenger. If you want to play at a F1 level do it, but don't show up looking like the "Rich Energy" of the F1 paddock and leave people in the lurch and in this case the AC as a whole exposed. Personally, I would have wanted nothing more than 7 bases in NZL  (6 funded challengers) when we rolled in from our pacific crossing to watch the races.   This is my last post in this thread, not much more to talk about. 

 

 

Fun read start to finish (patents, founders, business men, trademarks, lawsuits, contracts, advertising slogan, etc. - all fails):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Energy

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I did not want them to "fail," but when they went into stealth mode, then nothing, then no boatbuilding, then delayed payments....then nothing but assurances...I wanted them to pivot with dignity and prepare for a sound challenge in AC37.  Perhaps they expected AM would win the Cup and this was the only shot...but still, dignity matters as does valor.

If they have failed, they failed themselves first.

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

Let me be clear, there have been very few campaigns that I want to see fail in the AC....  and this was not one. For every TNZL there is a +39, a UITG or  Mascalzone Latino (great people and team) that have the right to be there and crossed and dotted what needed to be so as to be a proper challenger. If you want to play at a F1 level do it, but don't show up looking like the "Rich Energy" of the F1 paddock and leave people in the lurch and in this case the AC as a whole exposed. Personally, I would have wanted nothing more than 7 bases in NZL  (6 funded challengers) when we rolled in from our pacific crossing to watch the races.   This is my last post in this thread, not much more to talk about. 

It's funny you bring that up, I'm just now watching the "F1 - Drive to Survive" series (recommend). Rich Energy dude was all beard - no balls.

This decision was a mercy killing. S+S (and LBYC) would have been mercilessly mocked and shamed by its own country (the "All American" team sponsored by ETNZ) - completely and utterly ruining the brand. And I would have been at the front of that line.

I'm going to keep following this simply because I think there is a link between this campaign and the alleged misappropriation of public funds on the part of ETNZ/ACE. We'll see, But there's no hiding now.

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

 

TE doesn't get to take credit for 'predicting' this, its the ONLY decision possible.

TE is as knowledgeable as they come about the AC but I agree he wasn’t going out on a limb with his prediction.  The court crap after AC32 cleared up mutual consent and what it applies to in regards to the AC. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

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

TE is as knowledgeable as they come about the AC but I agree he wasn’t going out on a limb with his prediction.  The court crap after AC32 cleared up mutual consent and what it applies to in regards to the AC. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

More curious about which moron advised Buckley to blow another pile of cash on an arbitration with no chance of success.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

More curious about which moron advised Buckley to blow another pile of cash on an arbitration with no chance of success.

Yes whoever talked Buckley into this didn’t do Buckley any favors.  It was a really dumb decision to bring this before the AP. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

More curious about which moron advised Buckley to blow another pile of cash on an arbitration with no chance of success.

I’m a touch curious about that too but maybe a larger question is what Buckley and others thought they’d actually gain out of them trying to sail ETNZ’s boat while not eligible to race it in the Cup. There must have been a variety of interests but it’s hard to guess what they were all about.

Curious too, to see if LR does file a case for  S+S’s excusal, maybe so as to avoid further cases filed by them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

More curious about which moron advised Buckley to blow another pile of cash on an arbitration with no chance of success.

Maxed out a credit card, for sure. Hope he got miles or points for it.

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

Curious too, to see if LR does file a case for  S+S’s excusal, maybe so as to avoid further cases filed by them. 

What does GD do about the money still owed to ETNZ by S+S? Will there be a suit? Or a broom and rug?

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

What does GD do about the money still owed to ETNZ by S+S? Will there be a suit? Or a broom and rug?

Maybe MBIE will jump in, eager to cover it? :D 

Perhaps ETNZ can apply to the AP for reimbursement of the outstanding amount... but for only as long as S+S is still a recognized Chall, after which it’d become a civil-suit court matter in whatever jurisdiction, San Diego? 
 

Hopefully the amount owed, if any, is not so large that ETNZ is desperate enough to go after. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

 maybe a larger question is what Buckley and others thought they’d actually gain out of them trying to sail ETNZ’s boat

Not the larger question for the guy paying the bills. 

He'd want to know "What's the chance this arbitration will succeed, and if it fails, how much will it cost?"

Hard to imagine any competent lawyer looking at the rules and telling them anything more than "maybe 1 in a 100"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not the larger question for the guy paying the bills. 

He'd want to know "What's the chance this arbitration will succeed, and if it fails, how much will it cost?"

Hard to imagine any competent lawyer looking at the rules and telling them anything more than "maybe 1 in a 100"

Since the case cost them peanuts, under $20K after all was said and done, then maybe they thought it worth asking the question. But again, where was the gain to be had, why bother? 
 

Thinking ‘conspiratorially’ you’d have to wonder if the host Defender had the biggest possible gain, which would also help explain why the apparent ‘acquiescence’ to the S+S effort all these months. It may even suggest who paid the small-change bill for trying it. 
 

I wish Buckley would come clean and explain everything, since where’s the harm in being transparent? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Buckley thought he had some chance to win if he engaged money.

RG was also writing that a few days ago:

"The Deed of Gift doesn't and has never applied to previous ACWS events. The Deed of Gift has as much relevance as the Rules of Rugby to the ACWS/Christmas Cup."

So, was there one person to tell them that ? Who ?

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

RG was also writing that a few days ago:

"The Deed of Gift doesn't and has never applied to previous ACWS events. The Deed of Gift has as much relevance as the Rules of Rugby to the ACWS/Christmas Cup."

So, was there one person to tell them that ? Who ?

Gawd knows.. Since RG is a home-boy it (maybe subconsciously) colors his opinions.

Maybe RG heard that opinion in a roundabout way via Russell Green, the ETNZ rules advisor. 

Funnily, thinking back now to TE’s show yesterday, someone posted that it was Buckley’s birthday - the decision came out shortly after :) Poor guy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

my poor tea cup

 

so many many storms for it to navigate in here

it just sits there

stoically

uncaring completely about the next vacuous stamp rant

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

So, could  Russell Green also have advised Buckley ? He may talk later unless he had to sign a NDA.

It’s as reasonable a guess as any. RG, the journo not the lawyer, went on TE’s show last Friday and argued some big freaking song and dance about how ‘nobody has read the rules closely enough’ and so somebody must have convinced him of it! 
 

RG posted the decision on SW but without any retraction comment about how ass-backward his strongly-held opinion had been. 

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

RG, the journo not the lawyer, went on TE’s s

you could always do them the honour of not denigrating their names to 2 letters

some may then be sure they know who you are talking about

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

....

The confidentiality part arguably explains ETNZ silence but we still have the issue that somehow S&S had the understanding that use of ETNZ B1 was on the table and for that ETNZ must take blame.

WHy?? ETNZ handled the issue perfectly: any decision required agreement by the CoR which clearly did not happen, so S&S used the mechanism in place to address such issues. ETNZ were perfectly within their rights to answer the query from S&S re. B1availability. For all we know, S&S may well have approached Team NYYC who might have declined and pointed S&S in the direction of the Defender as the appropriate authority. Any approach to any of the 3 Challengers would have received the same short-shift: ETNZ was the only proper authority to ask, and they referred it to the Arbitration Panel.

ETNZ did nothing wrong.

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

you could always do them the honour of not denigrating their names to 2 letters

some may then be sure they know who you are talking about

Frequenters here know who RG refers to, just like a long list of other two-letter acro’s like PB, JS, etc.

Since Russell Green’s name does not come up often, and since I suggested one RG may have been believing another RG’s legal views, well I did actually put the thumb-prints effort in, to differentiate between the two. 
 

It is no disrespect, to anyone. 

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

ETNZ did nothing wrong.

ETNZ’s motivation for their apparent complicity in the proposed scheme is definitely curious. 
 

Yes, they did and said the rights things before and after but it was a pretty bizarre thing! 

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

so you only post for the frequenters of this forum

ok

Most everyone here posts in shortcut. If acro’s like ‘LR’ are confusing to you too then maybe go read another forum, shrug. Or just figure out the local lingo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites