Jump to content

Stars and Stripes Team USA is gone


Recommended Posts

  • 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

1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

since TE broadcast the existence of this case starting weeks ago, accurately, he likely had the details correct

Or was fed info for spurious purposes ...

1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

What’s your guess, about who S+S had agreement with to race that alternative team’s boat?

There you go again ... it's your assumption (guess?) that there was an agreement before the application to the AP was even made.

If you were S+S asking the question, why would you tell anyone which B1 you hoped to use, knowing that CiC could be an issue?

Yes, I could guess, and I can see a logic in S+S wanting ETNZ's B1, if that was the same package they "purchased" and have been designing with, training/simulating with, or whatever, in the meantime.

But there doesn't seem to be any evidence, and no logical reason that S+S would broadcast their intent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Varan said:

I like conspiracy theories and I still think S&S was a sock for another challenger wanting to get ahold of ETNZ B1. So there you have it.

This is a great theory, we should be able to run with this for a while yet. 

So who was the sock owner? Conspiracy nuts want to know. 

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

Why would any challenger want another challenger? To make the events better? Bwahahaha! 

Quite frankly, I wouldn't give a fuck whether we had 4 or just 1 Challenger! The fact that S&S found it necessary to ask another AC team about the availability of their B1 seemed ill-advised given they could have settled the issue of CIC by asking another Amerikan team..

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

This is a great theory, we should be able to run with this for a while yet. 

So who was the sock owner? Conspiracy nuts want to know. 

Larry Ellison. He wanted to copy the control system from Te Aihe for his second-rate cats...:P

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

Logic points to TNZ. It cant have been AM or there was no need for the CIC challenge. The other challengers are very unlikely to either need the cash or want the possibility of damage racing against a dickwad team.

It is extremelyunlikely that they would bother without a positive indication from someone that a boat was available if  they could get the idea legalised. That only leaves TNZ as a possibility.

Plus this is SA and rumours and innuendos is what we are best at.

Thanks for the great media you post here by the way.

Maybe they wanted clarification regarding the CiC rule before approaching anyone? Would make sense. There’s no use asking for someone’s boat if you know the rules don’t allow it. Get your clarification, then ask the teams.

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

Logic points to TNZ. It cant have been AM or there was no need for the CIC challenge. The other challengers are very unlikely to either need the cash or want the possibility of damage racing against a dickwad team.

It is extremelyunlikely that they would bother without a positive indication from someone that a boat was available if  they could get the idea legalised. That only leaves TNZ as a possibility.

Plus this is SA and rumours and innuendos is what we are best at.

Thanks for the great media you post here by the way.

^^^Exactly right - as I said above.

9 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Maybe they wanted clarification regarding the CiC rule before approaching anyone? Would make sense. There’s no use asking for someone’s boat if you know the rules don’t allow it. Get your clarification, then ask the teams.

^^^^Ridiculously stupid - as usual.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

If its "stupid"Prove me wrong... Oh thats right, you don't do proof. 

Proof you're stupid? Look at all your posts.

Proof that last post of yours I quoted was more proof that you're stupid? Follow the money...and lack thereof. Think about it, how is S+S even allowed to approach the AP since they apparently have yet to adhere to the protocol you hold so precious and immutable? They haven't paid to play. Yet "someone" has deemed them a competitor despite that breach. You really should stop here Four. You're not up to the task. You'll just be embarrassed again.

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

Proof you're stupid? Look at all your posts.

Proof that last post of yours I quoted was more proof that you're stupid? Follow the money...and lack thereof. Think about it, how is S+S even allowed to approach the AP since they apparently have yet to adhere to the protocol you hold so precious and immutable? They haven't paid to play. Yet "someone" has deemed them a competitor despite that breach. You really should stop here Four. You're not up to the task. You'll just be embarrassed again.

See, what did I tell you. No proof. None, zero, zilch. You're full of shit. You say stupid things that have no truth, or fact to them, because you crave attention, then you call everyone else stupid because you can't find any proof to support your own stupid comments. You're the dumbass.

PROVE ME WRONG. I'm waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, like I said - per the sacred protocol you've been preaching about above I think it's your job to first show how S+S is included as a participating team since they've not followed the rules of that same protocol you've been preaching about.

Who exactly makes the decision on that? It's certainly not American Magic or INEOS.

Sorry, my friend, you lose. Again.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

pretty sure the jury found them to be a participating team in the decision, though I just scanned it.  The deciding factor was the boat.

Which begs the question: why not ask Team NYYC? S&S must have looked at the pre-AC35 ACWS series in the AC45s as a precedent for their application..

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

Well, like I said - per the sacred protocol you've been preaching about above I think it's your job to first show how S+S is included as a participating team since they've not followed the rules of that same protocol you've been preaching about.

Who exactly makes the decision on that? It's certainly not American Magic or INEOS.

Sorry, my friend, you lose. Again.

 

RNZYS decided they were when they accepted their entry when they met the entry criteria. You want proof of that too? I can easily show you the acceptance of the LBYC Challenge. 
https://www.rnzys.org.nz/rnzys-confirms-stars-stripes-team-usa-as-5th-accepted-challenger-of-the-36th-americas-cup/

See, that’s how proof works. Factual evidence to support your comment... now, your turn. I’m still waiting.

 

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

RNZYS decided they were when they accepted their entry when they met the entry criteria. You want proof of that too? I can easily show you the acceptance of the LBYC Challenge. 
https://www.rnzys.org.nz/rnzys-confirms-stars-stripes-team-usa-as-5th-accepted-challenger-of-the-36th-americas-cup/

See, that’s how proof works. Factual evidence to support your comment... now, your turn. I’m still waiting.

 

Hey Four Don the Smack windmill will continue to rotate the more you tout don’t you get it.

7969C38F-E1FC-4E3A-8975-35ECD86D991B.jpeg.ece077cd87d9874d48888cd8915ed861.jpeg

 

 

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

Hey Four Don the Smack windmill will continue to rotate the more you tout don’t you get it.

7969C38F-E1FC-4E3A-8975-35ECD86D991B.jpeg.ece077cd87d9874d48888cd8915ed861.jpeg

 

 

So whats your deal? One minute you're bagging Dalton and the team management, their acceptance and use of taxpayer/ government money, while at the same time supporting the team like a loyal supporter? 

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

So whats your deal? One minute you're bagging Dalton and the team management, their acceptance and use of taxpayer/ government money, while at the same time supporting the team like a loyal supporter? 

Just telling it how it is without wearing the rose coloured spectacles.

Your petulant diatribes aside we most probably have a lot in common ie the AC one of the best Cup memories I have is a post 1995 TNZ win celebration in the RNZYS getting plastered with of all people Paul Holmes and Ed Hillary.

Was in Fremantle 87 best Cup ever but so was 95 2000 fuck all Cups are great.

Been a life long Cup fan that will never change but 2003 left a bitter taste in my mouth with Wussell and Co and whilst I am in full support of Ashby Pete Blair and TNZ in general the ongoing sponsorship with the baby hospital bombing Emirates coupled with the idiocy of the AC75 along side the gouging of the public purse and the ongoing S&S debacle etc has clouded my perspective.

Have a break from engaging with the village idiot and it’s obvious you have a deep interest and knowledge of Cup related matters stick to your knitting as they say and rock on Christmas and then the Prada Cup yippee.

 

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

Which begs the question: why not ask Team NYYC?

 

 

S&S must have looked at the pre-AC35 ACWS series in the AC45s as a precedent for their application..

They would not ask team NYYC for anything.  That is a bridge too far.

Pre-Ac35 ACWS? instead of the definitions in the current protocol?  That's some bad reading.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Forourselves said:

RNZYS decided they were when they accepted their entry when they met the entry criteria. You want proof of that too? I can easily show you the acceptance of the LBYC Challenge. 
https://www.rnzys.org.nz/rnzys-confirms-stars-stripes-team-usa-as-5th-accepted-challenger-of-the-36th-americas-cup/

See, that’s how proof works. Factual evidence to support your comment... now, your turn. I’m still waiting.

Ah, an article from 2018. That's some "proof" right there. I think that's when there were still going to be 7-11 teams including Malta or something? Okay, let's take it from there and look at your beloved protocol....

243222804_ScreenShot2020-08-06at3_15_22AM.png.664a2269d73c879580f2f30b637e5186.png

So did S+S get that all taken care of? Doesn't seem so...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12305511

Quote

2021 America's Cup: Stars and Stripes Team USA fail to pay entry fee to contest opening World Series event

What about the performance bond? I'm sure you've got proof of that too?

No?

So if the above didn't happen, how are S+S still deemed valid challengers per the protocol (and per the AP as I mentioned above)? Who is pushing that through? Remember your oft thrown out reminder to the world that ETNZ is in charge of everything AC36? What they say goes and everyone else can pound sand if they don't like it? Hmm. Or is S+S just that powerful?

Oh, and to your earlier spin about ETNZ not being complicit in all this regarding which B1 was in play? You have this from the decision...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12354129

Quote

In the application, Stars+Stripes pointed out the query over using Team New Zealand's boat was "not a hypothetical question" 

You do understand what that means?

So basically nothing you've been saying is right - as proven by the above. As I said, you're not very good at this Four. You really should just go back to cheerleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation with the events is completely new for this circle as it is the first time that the boats for the events are identical with the boats for the match. 

In AC32 the acts were sailed with old IACC yachts which gave teams like UITG the possibility to obtain an old IACC and sail with it. So no CIC applied. 

For AC 34 and 35 the ACWS were sailed in AC45s, again no CIC applied. 

So RG might be right to claim that in previous ACWS there never was the necessity for CIC, but these ACWS were not sailed in the boats that apply to the match or the CSS as this time.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, smackdaddy said:

as proven by the above.

BaggyDaks, you are hilarious.

Read "the above" - it is made up of NINE questions.

Proof of nothing, except that you enjoy shouting at the wind.

 

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

Which begs the question: why not ask Team NYYC? S&S must have looked at the pre-AC35 ACWS series in the AC45s as a precedent for their application..

It is strange to see how you try to point NYYC while you use Gladwell exact same argument (article from July 28) :

" 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. In the lead up to the 2013 and 2017 America's Cup many of the AC45's used in the America's Cup World Series were constructed at Core Builders Composite facility, in New Zealand."

Link to post
Share on other sites

100% sure on that? That test boat Ac45 looked very familiar, dome mounted on the front beam etc, 

but I am sure you are right and they took all the toys off it before they gave it to TNZ, the draper interview with Shirley hits otherwise.

anyway the max comment was In jest At the idea that Larry didn’t already have a winning system from San Fran 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

"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."

This has only been an issue because fools have tried to tie ACWS directly into the AC via Protocol.

If you write it into the rules then yes, when you get busted cheating you wind up -1 in the actual AC and yes you have to fucking have CIC compatible Challenger boats in the ACWS.

If you keep ACWS separate as it should be then you don't get these self-inflicted problems.

 

13 hours ago, Indio said:

WHy?? <bunch of bollocks>

Because 'somehow' S&S got the impression that TNZ B1 was available to hire.

Because the usual TNZ shills were pushing this as the only logical thing.

Because it was so obviously doomed to unmitigated failure.

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

BaggyDaks, you are hilarious.

Read "the above" - it is made up of NINE questions.

Proof of nothing, except that you enjoy shouting at the wind.

 

I don't know what you're referring to on the 9 questions - but each point that Four has tried to mak fails to stand up to what's being reported.

What are you seeing that's different?

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

I don't know what you're referring to on the 9 questions - but each point that Four has tried to mak fails to stand up to what's being reported.

What are you seeing that's different?

I have to admit I love how you can get a normally rational, but thin skinned Kiwis like weta to spout gibberish like that. Thank you for your service.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just feel a deep calling to help educate the country of New Zealand. I admire their spunk. I think they have potential.

And I just don't think Australia is willing to do anymore for them.

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

This is a great theory, we should be able to run with this for a while yet. 

So who was the sock owner? Conspiracy nuts want to know. 

 

11 hours ago, Indio said:

Which begs the question: why not ask Team NYYC? S&S must have looked at the pre-AC35 ACWS series in the AC45s as a precedent for their application..

I don't actually believe S+S was acting as a sock for Amway Magic....

BUT....

It could be a way for AM to get boat testing info through patriotic pay for play help from the "other" white meat, er Amurrican team.       

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

This has only been an issue because fools have tried to tie ACWS directly into the AC via Protocol.

If you write it into the rules then yes, when you get busted cheating you wind up -1 in the actual AC and yes you have to fucking have CIC compatible Challenger boats in the ACWS.

If you keep ACWS separate as it should be then you don't get these self-inflicted problems.

 

Yes because : "Only the yachts complying with the AC75 Class Rule are eligible to compete in the Preliminary Regattas, the CSS and the Match."

However in favour of the ETNZ reasoning (because it's pretty clear they are the ones who advised S&S), the ACWS is tied to the CSS, it has to be an AC75, but there is no requirement to use the same yacht for the CSS and thus the Match.

Basically TNZ could chose B1 for the ACWS and B2 for the match, S&S could use the B1 of their choice for the ACWS and their (hypothetic) B2 for the CSS and the match.

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

I don't know what you're referring to on the 9 questions - but each point that Four has tried to mak fails to stand up to what's being reported.

What are you seeing that's different?

There you go again, making shit up. Just spouting what ever comes into that little idiot head of yours. I'm still waiting for your proof that ETNZ is somehow involved in this. Still waiting for your proof of what you said... that Defiant, 6 months ago, was doing what Te Aihe was doing on July 15th, ON VIDEO, in terms of the same sharp, quick, clean tacks, because they can't even do it now! 

You asked for proof from Me, i posted the proof you wanted. So far, nothing from you. Because you have nothing. Because you're full of shit.

 

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

Maybe they wanted clarification regarding the CiC rule before approaching anyone? Would make sense. There’s no use asking for someone’s boat if you know the rules don’t allow it. Get your clarification, then ask the teams.

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 7:19 PM, sunseeker said:

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.

@Forourselves is from New Zealand.  If you put our Americas Cup Team next to our military, it'd be a pretty close run thing in terms of secrets.

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

You asked for proof from Me, i posted the proof you wanted. So far, nothing from you. Because you have nothing. Because you're full of shit.

Well, except for the proof I posted.

See ya later Four.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just curious; does anyone actually think that the "loaner" boat source would be anyone but NZ? I have no idea why they would go to such lengths to prop up S&S, could be honorable ones like genuinely wanting more races but I think it's more likely that somehow the financial well being of the event is tied to having another challenger.  

Anyone arguing that SS was going to borrow another non-US-made boat, what possible reason would another challenger have for doing that? 

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

I'm just curious; does anyone actually think that the "loaner" boat source would be anyone but NZ? I have no idea why they would go to such lengths to prop up S&S, could be honorable ones like genuinely wanting more races but I think it's more likely that somehow the financial well being of the event is tied to having another challenger.  

Anyone arguing that SS was going to borrow another non-US-made boat, what possible reason would another challenger have for doing that? 

I’m just curious, if the kiwis are so keen on the idea, and the ones who benefit most, why would they leak it, putting the idea (and themselves) in jeopardy?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am genuinely confused as to what's in it for them, I wish I knew.  But thinking about who would benefit the least, it's probably AM, Ineos and LR. They only have to race more, take more chances of breaking, or worst yet lose to their own boat. It doesn't make sense. To be frank, neither does the NZ rental, but it makes less less sense than the other boats!

I hope I'm making my point clear here.

As to why leak it, I have no idea.  The most promising info on the S&S campaign has also come from him, saying he's in talks with them daily, and they'll be there. Again, I genuinely don't understand this, just trying to figure out likely rationales. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting since TE first broke the story some weeks ago he’s had the full scoop on it. And starting since he broke it, he’s been very specific on the point that it was definitely about ETNZ’s B1. 
 

The ruling came down a couple hours after his Tuesday show concluded, it’s a guarantee he’ll address it on Friday. He already suggested that, at some time in the future, he will also share who it is that paid for the S+S submission to the panel. 

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

My point of view is that I don't get why NZ would want S&S propped up, but I DOUBLE DON'T GET why anyone else would. No agenda, just some genuine puzzlement. 

Nobody supported the S+S case except for one team: ETNZ 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, RMac said:

I'm just curious.... but I think it's more likely that somehow the financial well being of the event is tied to having another challenger. 

Nonsense!! All funding contracts under the HCA and with our government are based on 4 competitors - count them yourself:

1: ETNZ

2: Prada-LR

3: Team NYYC - AM

4: Team UK - Ineos

You'll just have to come up with another conspiracy

Quote

Anyone arguing that SS was going to borrow another non-US-made boat, what possible reason would another challenger have for doing that? 

I'm sure you can come up with one or two Blackadderishly cunning reasons ;)

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

Is it? Based on what? your opinion? lol 

Because RG is a kiwi and published this the same argument before the judgement

Because only TNZ supported the S&S

Because TNZ needs S&S to make up the numbers

Because @smackdaddy could tell you more about the Hosting agreement

Because it's evidence

Because TE will tell soon.

And mainly because when you claim something won't happen... it does :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no proof that any team supported S+S in their application for arbitration...

 

However, teams that could benefit from S+S being in the CIC, in order of my personal opinion of probability.

ETNZ: Cash, testing a known dataset against the challengers.

INEOS: Cash.

AM: Cash, but this is offset by the "cost" of facing your countrymen.

LR: Cash, offset by their questioning S+S legitimacy.

 

Teams that are the likely source of the leak:

LR: See questioning their legitimacy.

AM: Has people on the ground in NZ, rumoured to be no love lost against their fellow countrymen.

INEOS: No significant weighting either way.

ETNZ: Embarrassing to the team if leaked, hence least likely.

 

Whats the AC without some grumbles hey?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wolkenzug said:

...So RG might be right to claim that in previous ACWS there never was the necessity for CIC, but these ACWS were not sailed in the boats that apply to the match or the CSS as this time.

S&S must have skipped over this part of the Protocol:

but did not read the second part properly

8. ELIGIBILITY OF YACHTS.
Only the yachts complying with the AC75 Class Rule are eligible to compete in the Preliminary Regattas, the CSS and the Match. However, COR/D may introduce alternative arrangements for one or more of the ACWS events depending upon the number of Competitors and the then number of AC 75 yachts available to compete at the time of the event.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Indio said:

Nonsense!! All funding contracts under the HCA and with our government are based on 4 competitors - count them yourself:

1: ETNZ

2: Prada-LR

3: Team NYYC - AM

4: Team UK - Ineos

You'll just have to come up with another conspiracy

I'm sure you can come up with one or two Blackadderishly cunning reasons ;)

That's definitely squishy. The HVA does indeed specify a minimum of 4 competing/participating teams in various clauses. But it also separates out ETNZ from these teams in other areas - which would make sense from a financial perspective (which is what is driving a lot of this agreement). So it is arguable to a large degree what exactly that number means. More importantly 6.b more clearly specifies a number of participants as of 31 March 2019, which would certainly appear to include S+S since they are STILL listed on the freakin' website! So if they go, that specific number goes.

So, I'm sure there are all kinds of rules, incentives, penalties, whatever flowing under this top-level, redacted version of the HVA. But there is absolutely no question that AC36 is a financial disaster for everyone that has touched it on the NZ side...especially MBIE who is the prime partner getting utterly shafted by ETNZ/ACE in this agreement.

My guess is that 5 total teams was some kind of financial penalty threshold for ETNZ/ACE and they were doing everything they possibly could dream up (like propping up S+S) to not lose even more millions than they already have. Remember, 6 CHALLENGERS was the break-even in the Economic Assessment. Additionally, my guess is that anything less than 4 total teams (3 Challengers) was grounds for MBIE to take over the event and/or cancel it. Any way you slice it - ETNZ/ACE are essentially sailing into Receivership. Not a great place to be going into a competition that requires geysers of cash.

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

Starting since TE first broke the story some weeks ago he’s had the full scoop on it. And starting since he broke it, he’s been very specific on the point that it was definitely about ETNZ’s B1. 

He's hardly independent though is he... for all we know he continues to be agent provocateur for a challenger or third party...

Need we all need reminding of a dubious track record to put it mildly... and to think you use him as an arbiter for what makes for good conduct in AC

From Sefton's Exposed - The Dark Side Of The America's Cup

1223971692_ScreenShot2020-08-07at7_41_34AM.png.c7a7cfc99c3e61dde5cfe64a28cf9e70.png1940786576_ScreenShot2020-08-07at7_41_47AM.thumb.png.87ac3d2fbb4997977d5153f3f61933bd.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Again... says who?

TE has said it and, as even the decision points out, SI has broadcast ‘specific details’ of the matter. It’s also made pretty clear by the ETNZ quoted response to Newsbuzz, when Newsbuzz asked them about the situation that Newsbuzz understood to involve Te A. 

from the decision

 ... Sailing Illustrated, giving quite specific details of the Application, and then in the New Zealand media.

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

does anyone actually think that the "loaner" boat source would be anyone but NZ?

We know that LR opposed not just this but tried to get S&S officially kicked out so I think its safe to say it wasn't them.

If it was AM then there would have been no need to ask a CIC question, instead it'd be something like 'is it ok to use a boat built by another team as long as that team is from the same country'.

Could be Ineos but no obvious reason why they would.

ETNZ as Defender & who promised a large number of teams has the motivation to 'make it happen'.

 

I guess it is possible that S&S did submit on their own before asking anyone if their B1 would be available but its the sort of thing that seems unlikely to ask out of the blue without first securing an agreement in principle.

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

We know that LR opposed not just this but tried to get S&S officially kicked out so I think its safe to say it wasn't them.

If it was AM then there would have been no need to ask a CIC question, instead it'd be something like 'is it ok to use a boat built by another team as long as that team is from the same country'.

Could be Ineos but no obvious reason why they would.

ETNZ as Defender & who promised a large number of teams has the motivation to 'make it happen'.

 

I guess it is possible that S&S did submit on their own before asking anyone if their B1 would be available but its the sort of thing that seems unlikely to ask out of the blue without first securing an agreement in principle.

Nailed it! 
 

It’s not like there’s any real ‘crime’ here by anyone, it’s also little wonder that word spread, including to TE’s friends and acquaintances. They aren’t feeling ‘guilty’ about anything! 

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

Teams that are the likely source of the leak:

LR: See questioning their legitimacy.

 

Agree. The CoR would have had to agree with the Defender to any dispensation for S&S. That the issue ended up with the Arbitration Panel means there was no D/COR agreement.

LR clearly opposed the potential advantages ETNZ may have gained from S&S participation so a tactical leak (on top of the Mayo&Calder kerfuffle) was par for the course. Besides, even the Germans didn't entrust any secrets to the Italians in WWII:P

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

TE has said it and, as even the decision points out, SI has broadcast ‘specific details’ of the matter. It’s also made pretty clear by the ETNZ quoted response to Newsbuzz, when Newsbuzz asked them about the situation that Newsbuzz understood to involve Te A. 

from the decision

 ... Sailing Illustrated, giving quite specific details of the Application, and then in the New Zealand media.

See above... TE saying anything isn't worth the single-ply he wipes his orifices with...

Newsbuzz? Please show me the quote from ETNZ.

The decision states details from the application - the application had plenty of details, but nothing about ETNZ.

You are trying to building a bridge to fact off inferences and rumors.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

See above... TE saying anything isn't worth the single-ply he wipes his orifices with...

Newsbuzz? Please show me the quote from ETNZ.

The decision states details from the application - the application had plenty of details, but nothing about ETNZ.

You are trying to building a bridge to fact off inferences and rumors.

Whatever! :D

A question for you and 4 and a few others who’ve got their panties in a bunch:

Why do you question if ETNZ was a party to this plan? 

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

Whatever! :D

Sorry - so despite your assertions that there are quotes from ETNZ in the media, you now can't produce any?

Shucks... that bridge didn't get very far

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

Sorry - so despite your assertions that there are quotes from ETNZ in the media, you now can't produce any?

Shucks...

Stingers is supposed to be out on another BLM march..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, smackdaddy said:

I just feel a deep calling to help educate the country of New Zealand. I admire their spunk. I think they have potential.

And I just don't think Australia is willing to do anymore for them.

Now you really are talking shit, Smack.The only things Aussie is good for is shark bait... and stealing our stuff! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Sorry - so despite your assertions that there are quotes from ETNZ in the media, you now can't produce any?

Shucks... that bridge didn't get very far

Yes there are. Direct quotes. I may have the publication name wrong but I posted a link the day they were published and I think TC reposted them more recently. 
 

If the plan was to use, say, the Ineos boat, then they’d have looked to get a response from Ineos instead. 

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

We know that LR opposed not just this but tried to get S&S officially kicked out so I think its safe to say it wasn't them.

If it was AM then there would have been no need to ask a CIC question, instead it'd be something like 'is it ok to use a boat built by another team as long as that team is from the same country'.

Could be Ineos but no obvious reason why they would.

ETNZ as Defender & who promised a large number of teams has the motivation to 'make it happen'.

 

I guess it is possible that S&S did submit on their own before asking anyone if their B1 would be available but its the sort of thing that seems unlikely to ask out of the blue without first securing an agreement in principle.

Exactly what I laid out earlier. Just do the math. Plus you have the NZ press reporting that it was Te Ahmed as well. So that "Who me?" defense is dead.

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

Yes there are. Direct quotes. I may have the publication name wrong but I posted a link the day they were published and I think TC reposted them more recently. 
 

If the plan was to use, say, the Ineos boat, then they’d have looked to get a response from Ineos instead. 

Both statements are nonsense...

There was no direct quote from ETNZ saying it was about their boat - I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Depending on who is asking the question - it will effect who they ask. Defender and writer of the rules is a great candidate, certainly if you are an NZ based journo.

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

We know that LR opposed not just this but tried to get S&S officially kicked out so I think its safe to say it wasn't them.

If it was AM then there would have been no need to ask a CIC question, instead it'd be something like 'is it ok to use a boat built by another team as long as that team is from the same country'.

Could be Ineos but no obvious reason why they would.

ETNZ as Defender & who promised a large number of teams has the motivation to 'make it happen'.

 

I guess it is possible that S&S did submit on their own before asking anyone if their B1 would be available but its the sort of thing that seems unlikely to ask out of the blue without first securing an agreement in principle.

Yeah, that's the nail on the head there.

No one is accusing anyone of anything nefarious here, but it doesn't make sense for S&S to just randomly decide to ask a question if they can use a non CIC boat, if they didn't have very good reason to think they could rent a boat. That's NUTS to suggest otherwise. NZ is the only team that has any good reason to offer their boat up to get more challengers for some reason.

As to any of the other boats (AM already eliminated) wouldn't you spend a whole bunch of money to eliminate a team before you race them? It's more races so more chances to break. They're likely not going to be fast, so you're not going to learn what you'd learn facing LR or AM.  

I don't even understand the arguments here that act like they're defending NZ from something that isn't even underhanded, just odd. It makes no sense for it to be a blind "hey can we change the rules", and no sense for it not to be NZ. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rh3000 said:

Both statements are nonsense...

There was no direct quote from ETNZ saying it was about their boat - I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Depending on who is asking the question - it will effect who they ask. Defender and writer of the rules is a great candidate, certainly if you are an NZ based journo.

Who cares about the quotes?  There are lots of leaks, and again, do you really think it would be any other team? 

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

Sorry - so despite your assertions that there are quotes from ETNZ in the media, you now can't produce any?

Shucks...

Dude, please try to be a bit less dense...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12354129

Quote

In the application, Stars+Stripes pointed out the query over using Team New Zealand's boat was "not a hypothetical question" 

You do understand what that means?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quoted response from ETNZ that I’m remembering was just two short sentences, but they basically said the case “is up to the challengers” to decide. It was far more an acknowledgement than a denial. 

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

The quoted response from ETNZ that I’m remembering was just two short sentences, but they basically said the case “is up to the challengers” to decide. It was far more an acknowledgement than a denial. 

100% - but acknowledgement of the application, not of the boat in question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hoom said:

I guess it is possible that S&S did submit on their own before asking anyone if their B1 would be available but its the sort of thing that seems unlikely to ask out of the blue without first securing an agreement in principle.

I'd certainly want to have the permission to sale a non CiC boat before negotiating with available parties...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

100% - but acknowledgement of the application, not of the boat in question.

True, but it’s very possible they were answering a question about if it was Te A at issue, as the publication already understood to be the case. 
 

Again, why are you finding this so problematic? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Because RG is a kiwi and published this the same argument before the judgement

Because only TNZ supported the S&S

Because TNZ needs S&S to make up the numbers

Because @smackdaddy could tell you more about the Hosting agreement

Because it's evidence

Because TE will tell soon.

And mainly because when you claim something won't happen... it does :)

 

In other words... because none of this is proven, and because you don’t know.

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

Yes there are. Direct quotes. I may have the publication name wrong but I posted a link the day they were published and I think TC reposted them more recently. 
 

If the plan was to use, say, the Ineos boat, then they’d have looked to get a response from Ineos instead. 

It was not coming from ETNZ directly but from Gladwell.

But how did Gladwell get this point of view ? hasard ? what was he doing, giving a personnal opinion ? trying to influence a decision he knew was discussed ?

https://www.sail-worldcruising.com/news/230401/Americas-Cup-David-versus-three-Goliaths

"Which boat for the Christmas Cup?

Turning to the America's Cup World Series Regatta/ Christmas Cup, Stars + Stripes USA could sail Te Aihe, or any other AC75 they can acquire to comply with the Protocol requirements in Articles 2.2 and 2.3 - which only requires that a Competitor participates - but not a particular AC75 yacht, or one they intend to use in the Prada Cup a month later.

The teams can make various plays. A team could race their first AC75 in the ACWS regatta and using the time to effect repairs/modifications to their second AC75. Or they may want to avoid damaging their race boat in a series which is exhibition sailing and a chance for the Defender to get their first and only contest with the Challengers before the 36th Match - where they will meet the winner of the Prada Cup.

Of course, the Challengers as a group could also decide that they will race on their first-generation boats in the ACWS/Christmas Cup - and completely deny Emirates Team New Zealand any opportunity to benchmark their race boat against the Challengers second-generation AC75's.

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. In the lead up to the 2013 and 2017 America's Cup many of the AC45's used in the America's Cup World Series were constructed at Core Builders Composite facility, in New Zealand."

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, if you were a challenger would you want another one in a boat that was pretty good when it got borrowed and might even have been improved in mysterious ways?  Sailed by a team with much less on water time in an AC75?

Wouldn't that be yet another boat to beat?  Why would you want that?  Because it would be an easy rr win? But for others too...

Only ACE/ETNZ would be at worst indifferent. After all, they only face one challenger forvtge Cup match. And if it had benefits making the loan or whatever, all to the goid.

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

Only ACE/ETNZ would be at worst indifferent.

My general take on it too. Wish we had seen ETNZ’s case submission in support of S+S, so am just guessing, but it may well have been soft support, ‘indifferent.’ 

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

My general take on it too. Wish we had seen ETNZ’s case submission in support of S+S, so am just guessing, but it may well have been soft support, ‘indifferent.’ 

What makes you think ETNZ submitted anything in support of their application?

Link to post
Share on other sites