Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

The general agreement that this beer is your last welcome to be at the bar, would happen very soon. ‘Trust still counts’ even in real life.. 

I'm not so sure of that.  I've never had that experience in real life.  What I am sure of is that your continual negativity and searching for rabbits down holes and ghosts would be quickly ameliorated around a bar leaner!  Hell some of us still remember you pursuit of the missing $3m and the denial of Mayo and Calder's stuff up.

Actually does anyone know how that Mayo and Calder court case is going?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 17.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's pissing down outside and yes, we are back to Level 3. To all those moaning and bitching about it and calling the PM childish names, get a grip, we are the luckiest people in the world right

Yes, quite light but I didn't see all the afternoon's sailing, can only comment on later in the day, when Britannia 2 was running a #1 jib and foiling around no problem. They look quite quick at times

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I'm not so sure of that.  I've never had that experience in real life.  What I am sure of is that your continual negativity and searching for rabbits down holes and ghosts would be quickly ameliorated around a bar leaner!  Hell some of us still remember you pursuit of the missing $3m and the denial of Mayo and Calder's stuff up.

Actually does anyone know how that Mayo and Calder court case is going?

Better yet, does anyone actually give a rat's arse?

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

Your side agreement language in your previous post is how you could do it (this came up in some earlier thread). You have a large financial penalty that the breaching party has to pay. It's basically a side agreement between the two parties that the all the parties that the winner will choose the loser as the CoR and the parties will consent to use the AC75 in AC38. If the winning party breaches that agreement, then the winner can go ahead and select someone else to be CoR for AC38 and can use any other Deed-compliant boat as the Deed permits,  but would have to pay, well, a boat-load of money to the losing party all the other competitors  But all of that is Deed compliant.

They could even publish this agreement to let other teams know that they should go ahead and start planning for AC75's in AC38 while ETNZ and INEOS get busy with AC37. Problem with that is you would be asking teams to spent millions of dollars with no guarantee that AC38 will actually involve the AC75. Relationships change over time. ETNZ did not select LRPP as CoR again. If there is one thing I have learned in drafting contracts, plan for when the relationship falls apart because it will. So I'm not sure your promise of things that will happen would be enough to encourage teams to take that leap of faith.

The press release seems to suggest that AC37 will be a multi-challenger event, and that agreeing to use the AC75 in AC38 "will be a condition to entry."  If that is the case, there is a theoretical problem with the Deed, as there can be no defender and challenger in AC38 until AC37 is done, and no parties means no mutual consent, means you can't agree on AC75's now. why not? If 2 parties can agree to use AC75 and be deed complaint, why cannot 4 or 5 parties agree to use AC75s?  But here's the thing: if nobody objects, then it doesn't matter. If everyone wants to use AC75s for AC37 and AC38, the NYSC isn't going to do anything about it on its own. I supposed the NY AG could raise a stink but she certainly couldn't care less about the AC.  So if everyone is onboard, you can do pretty much whatever you want.   

Thanks Port

 

It is still kind of murky for me....see my questions in the text.

 

I get that a defender cannot consider a challenge until the present challenge is complete.

But what does "consider" mean? 

How does the deed and the term "consider a challenge" prohibit a group of competitors (who do not know who will become the future defender and do not know who will be the next challenger) sitting around a table and creating a contractual obligation between them in case one of them becomes the future defender.

In this case, they can agree that the expenditure in creating the infrastructure to design and build AC75s is so large that they need to know that two events will be held in the AC75 in order to enter the first event.

The deed effectively say you can only consider one challenge at a time but does it prohibit agreements between potential challengers and potential defenders prior to considering a challenge.

 

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

Not to mention the DoG is governed by the laws of the State of New York.  So dollar for dollar, NY lawyers will be better than NZ lawyers in matters related to the DoG.

Using taxpayers money to pay for lawyers, well...

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

 

Spot on, both of you. The money in the family comes from Matteo’s paternal uncle Oronzio, who was very successful selling electrolysis units for caustic soda and sodium hypochloride - bought a couple for one of my projects. Today, his grandchildren head a very nice mini-multinational

But Matteo doesn’t belong to that branch: in his forties he was given some money to stay out of the way and dabbled in finance. After a car racing accident he decided even that was too much, and started cruising the world.

 

And he doesn't have Billionaire status or pockets. Wealth for sure, but not of the level that can sustain ETNZ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2021 at 8:52 PM, Stingray~ said:

If $B Matteo is forcing GD to strongarm NZ for money, to save from his own poecketbook, well then GD needs to find a much better $B. :) 
 

We wouldn’t be facing all the crap to come had any other team won AC36. The current ETNZ funding model has failed, this game should (and mostly is) still be funded by real $B’s. 

And without unlimited budgets, you can only fund each campaign which ETNZ has done well. It's the follow on investment by all the team principals that's been compromised by the 1 v 1 murmurings which excludes other teams. 

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

Thanks Port

 

It is still kind of murky for me....see my questions in the text.

 

I get that a defender cannot consider a challenge until the present challenge is complete.

But what does "consider" mean? 

How does the deed and the term "consider a challenge" prohibit a group of competitors (who do not know who will become the future defender and do not know who will be the next challenger) sitting around a table and creating a contractual obligation between them in case one of them becomes the future defender.

In this case, they can agree that the expenditure in creating the infrastructure to design and build AC75s is so large that they need to know that two events will be held in the AC75 in order to enter the first event.

The deed effectively say you can only consider one challenge at a time but does it prohibit agreements between potential challengers and potential defenders prior to considering a challenge.

 

If everyone agrees to it, it doesn't really matter what the Deed says.  Everything will work just fine. That's basically what The Framework agreement was -- an agreement between teams as to how to handle future ACs.  The Framework wasn't problematic because it was voluntary. ETNZ didn't sign on, but wasn't precluded from participating so they had no reason to take any legal action.

You only run into a problem if there is a team that ends up unhappy because they are being forced to (via a non-discretionary agreement) do something they don't want to and elects instead to blow the whole thing up in court. That's the GGYC/SNG/CNEV scenario.  That disgruntled team will need to point to something in the arrangement/agreement/etc. that violates the Deed. If that arrangement attempts to dictate boats or other terms of AC38 before AC37 is over, the disgruntled team has something to complain about based on the Deed provisions we have, at this point, discussed ad nauseum (that a current defender cannot limit the challenge rights a club may have in a future cup cycle). The court would probably just say: (1) that the provisions of the protocol or whatever agreement attempting to set terms for AC38 are void; and (2) get out of my courtroom and settle this on the water.

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

I AM NOT A LAWYER.  THIS IS ENTIRELY SPECULATION ON MY PART.

Entry Agreement for AC 37:

"Para 14.2 (iii) paragraph B.

The Defender and Challengers agree that the matches in the 38th Americas Cup shall be held in the AC 75 class.  Each Challenger and the Defender relies upon this paragraph in this agreement to invest in excess of $50 million in developing an AC75 design.  If a party to this agreement is accepted as a challenger for the 38th Americas Cup , they shall consent to the AC 75 as the class of yacht to be used in any challenger series and the match. If a party to this agreement is the Future Defender in the 38th Americas Cup (Future Defender) , they shall consent to the AC75 as the class of yacht to be used in any challenger series and the match. The Future Defender shall give preference to a receiving a challenge from a party to this agreement or a yacht club that has committed to using the AC 75 . If a party to this agreement consents to any other yacht for 38th, they agree that they shall reimburse all of the participants in the 37th Americas Cup the development costs of $50 million per team. The parties agree that this represents true and accurate damages incurred for a breach of this agreement.

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as considering a challenge. The parties have not agreed who shall be the challenger and defender for AC 38."

In short, I am asking the legal wizards on this site whether they could construe a binding commitment to use the AC75 in AC 38, without it constituting a challenge or "considering " a challenge

Good to see it in writing. Hard to say what to make of it.

It is hard to say because neither of the appellate decisions in the MBBC case or the GGYC case interprets the “no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided” clause. I don’t know if an undisturbed part of the lower court decisions addresses it, and I haven’t seen any law review articles that analyse the clause either, but they may be out there.

So, whether a court would invalidate the RYS challenge because of this “no other challenge” clause is speculative. But we do have a rough idea of how a court would approach the analysis, to the extent that the clause is unambiguous: “Because the deed provisions on these issues are unambiguous, we may not look beyond the four corners of the deed in ascertaining the donors' intent and therefore may not consider any extrinsic evidence on the meaning of these provisions” (MBBC, p. 269-270).

The text of the clause is therefore what needs to be analysed, which requires determining what a “challenge” is, what it means to “consider”, among other things such as intent and purpose.

Para 14.2 above does not, at first blush, look like a “challenge”. A “challenge” would seem to be more than a stipulation in an agreement about what each team will do in the event they win, which is what para. 14.2 (iii) para. B above provides. They are mutual promises of the RYS and the RNZYS to favour challenges using the AC75 for AC38. A court may very well conclude that a “challenge” pursuant to the DoG is something more than that, like a statement presented in writing stipulating the terms of the match, including the date, location, etc., by a prospective AC38 challenger. A court could further conclude that to constitute a “challenge” it must contain all the details that would need to be known in order for the match to take place. Knowing the boat to be favoured would not be enough.

Even if a court concludes that the clause above is “a challenge”, it must still conclude that the challenge has been “considered” by the winner of AC37. I have no idea what that term should mean under the DoG. One would think that RNZYS considered RYS’s challenge before AC36 concluded, otherwise that is a very quick turnaround to announce the details of AC37. AC36 ended what 3 days ago?  

I don’t really know about the validity of the RYS challenge; but if I had to bet, I’d say it’s DoG-compliant.  Just my two cents.

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

Good to see it in writing. Hard to say what to make of it.

It is hard to say because neither of the appellate decisions in the MBBC case or the GGYC case interprets the “no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided” clause. I don’t know if an undisturbed part of the lower court decisions addresses it, and I haven’t seen any law review articles that analyse the clause either, but they may be out there.

So, whether a court would invalidate the RYS challenge because of this “no other challenge” clause is speculative. But we do have a rough idea of how a court would approach the analysis, to the extent that the clause is unambiguous: “Because the deed provisions on these issues are unambiguous, we may not look beyond the four corners of the deed in ascertaining the donors' intent and therefore may not consider any extrinsic evidence on the meaning of these provisions” (MBBC, p. 269-270).

The text of the clause is therefore what needs to be analysed, which requires determining what a “challenge” is, what it means to “consider”, among other things such as intent and purpose.

Para 14.2 above does not, at first blush, look like a “challenge”. A “challenge” would seem to be more than a stipulation in an agreement about what each team will do in the event they win, which is what para. 14.2 (iii) para. B above provides. They are mutual promises of the RYS and the RNZYS to favour challenges using the AC75 for AC38. A court may very well conclude that a “challenge” pursuant to the DoG is something more than that, like a statement presented in writing stipulating the terms of the match, including the date, location, etc., by a prospective AC38 challenger. A court could further conclude that to constitute a “challenge” it must contain all the details that would need to be known in order for the match to take place. Knowing the boat to be favoured would not be enough.

Even if a court concludes that the clause above is “a challenge”, it must still conclude that the challenge has been “considered” by the winner of AC37. I have no idea what that term should mean under the DoG. One would think that RNZYS considered RYS’s challenge before AC36 concluded, otherwise that is a very quick turnaround to announce the details of AC37. AC36 ended what 3 days ago?  

I don’t really know about the validity of the RYS challenge; but if I had to bet, I’d say it’s DoG-compliant.  Just my two cents.

I have been giving a lot of thought to whether the condition of agreeing to the AC75 for 2 cycles is in breach of the DoG and my view is:

1.  The material terms of the DoG are: 

     a.  After a Cup cycle has concluded, any suitable yacht club can lodge a challenge provided they are first in; 

     b.  If it comes from a suitable club then the defender has to accept it. 

     c.  The parties then either mutually agree on terms or if they can't agree then the DoG sets out what happens.  The key here is that the Defender doesn't decide.  The Defender and CoR decide mutually.

2.  The only way I think ETNZ/INEOS could bind challengers for the AC38 would be by requiring a challenger, if they won, to only accept a challenge from a club that also wanted the AC75s.  But a Defender cannot require a challenger to agree to anything.  

The above raises 2 issues:

1.  It is arguably in breach of the DoG to require a future defender to only accept a particular challenge when defenders have no such right; and

2.  There is a risk for challengers agreeing to that condition.  If they won the AC37 and none of the AC37 challengers wanted to be the CoR then they may be in a position where they had to accept a challenge from a club that didn't want the AC75s.  They could therefore, through no fault of their own, be in breach of their agreement under the AC37 protocol.  

 

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

Huh?  I have no idea what you are implying.

I was agreeing with you.

I mean that part of the TNZ budget come from Kiwi taxpayers who are very happy to support their team on water, but would less appreciateto see their money spent to pay US lawyers.

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

I was agreeing with you.

I mean that part of the TNZ budget come from Kiwi taxpayers who are very happy to support their team on water, but would less appreciateto see their money spent to pay US lawyers.

It will depend on WHEN this happens.

The further from the glow of victory we get, the less tolerance there will be for this shit.

Of course, any such defence will be met with the normal Dalts charm offensive (i.e. they're all cunts).

However I doubt Dalts would bother trying to defend anything that isn't a relative slam dunk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody seems to be concentrating on having to use the AC75s again for AC38. 

How about the premise that if INEOS win the match out of Cowes, they would defend the cup in Auckland in 2024.  Does anyone really think that would happen.  I guess that's the pitch to the government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Grant Dalton will even wait the 90 Days for the NZ Government to make a Decision if he sees a stalemale coming and no progress being made.

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

I wonder if Grant Dalton will even wait the 90 Days for the NZ Government to make a Decision if he sees a stalemale coming and no progress being made.

Nope he will sign away . But everyone will bitch and moan but in the end his hand will be forced by inactivity 

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

I wonder if Grant Dalton will even wait the 90 Days for the NZ Government to make a Decision if he sees a stalemale coming and no progress being made.

It's a bargaining ploy that he had used before. I would expect the government to fold like a $2 deck chair.

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

It's a bargaining ploy that he had used before. I would expect the government to fold like a $2 deck chair.

Cindy is a bitch and after the four fingers incident where Dalts wanted to ram his dirty dick-skinners up her cooter, she'll most likely be permanently on the blob when it comes to the team. She's fucked anyway and will be out next time and the Greens will be in. 

Politicians are all faggots. 

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

I wonder if Grant Dalton will even wait the 90 Days for the NZ Government to make a Decision if he sees a stalemale coming and no progress being made.

The way our Government is embracing quantitative easing (printing dollars and selling Govt. Bonds) what's another couple of hundred million? Let them at it.

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

Cindy is a bitch and after the four fingers incident where Dalts wanted to ram his dirty dick-skinners up her cooter, she'll most likely be permanently on the blob when it comes to the team. She's fucked anyway and will be out next time and the Greens will be in. 

Politicians are all faggots. 

The Greens? They're only the fourth biggest party in Parliament. Pigs will sprout foils first.

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

The Greens? They're only the fourth biggest party in Parliament. Pigs will sprout foils first.

Salty smells a lot like TRG doesn't he?

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

Salty smells a lot like TRG doesn't he?

I've thought that on occasion too. 

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

It will depend on WHEN this happens.

The further from the glow of victory we get, the less tolerance there will be for this shit.

Of course, any such defence will be met with the normal Dalts charm offensive (i.e. they're all cunts).

However I doubt Dalts would bother trying to defend anything that isn't a relative slam dunk.

I can already see Tina Symmans and ACE claiming that the New York Supreme Court has no honor and does not respect New Zealand

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Will_Co said:

Good to see it in writing. Hard to say what to make of it.

It is hard to say because neither of the appellate decisions in the MBBC case or the GGYC case interprets the “no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided” clause. I don’t know if an undisturbed part of the lower court decisions addresses it, and I haven’t seen any law review articles that analyse the clause either, but they may be out there.

So, whether a court would invalidate the RYS challenge because of this “no other challenge” clause is speculative. But we do have a rough idea of how a court would approach the analysis, to the extent that the clause is unambiguous: “Because the deed provisions on these issues are unambiguous, we may not look beyond the four corners of the deed in ascertaining the donors' intent and therefore may not consider any extrinsic evidence on the meaning of these provisions” (MBBC, p. 269-270).

The text of the clause is therefore what needs to be analysed, which requires determining what a “challenge” is, what it means to “consider”, among other things such as intent and purpose.

Para 14.2 above does not, at first blush, look like a “challenge”. A “challenge” would seem to be more than a stipulation in an agreement about what each team will do in the event they win, which is what para. 14.2 (iii) para. B above provides. They are mutual promises of the RYS and the RNZYS to favour challenges using the AC75 for AC38. A court may very well conclude that a “challenge” pursuant to the DoG is something more than that, like a statement presented in writing stipulating the terms of the match, including the date, location, etc., by a prospective AC38 challenger. A court could further conclude that to constitute a “challenge” it must contain all the details that would need to be known in order for the match to take place. Knowing the boat to be favoured would not be enough.

Even if a court concludes that the clause above is “a challenge”, it must still conclude that the challenge has been “considered” by the winner of AC37. I have no idea what that term should mean under the DoG. One would think that RNZYS considered RYS’s challenge before AC36 concluded, otherwise that is a very quick turnaround to announce the details of AC37. AC36 ended what 3 days ago?  

I don’t really know about the validity of the RYS challenge; but if I had to bet, I’d say it’s DoG-compliant.  Just my two cents.

Just in case there is an agreement between the AC37 participants that they will favor an AC38 challenge by a club that will use the AC75s, could that be in breach of the following Deed provision? 

"Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country,... , shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, ..."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Barnyb said:

 

Interesting observation by Gary Jobson...   for some years now:

  • Challenger Wins  :)
  • Defender Wins    :D
  • Defender Loses  :(

Rinse and repeat!

image.png.4b1f6c3ccd21cb2cd89b7517810133ef.png

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

Just in case there is an agreement between the AC37 participants that they will favor an AC38 challenge by a club that will use the AC75s, could that be in breach of the following Deed provision? 

"Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country,... , shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, ..."

 

I think that if that is not a mandatory request it's not a breach. On the contrary if signing the agreement is a condition...

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

Thanks Port

 

It is still kind of murky for me....see my questions in the text.

 

I get that a defender cannot consider a challenge until the present challenge is complete.

But what does "consider" mean? 

How does the deed and the term "consider a challenge" prohibit a group of competitors (who do not know who will become the future defender and do not know who will be the next challenger) sitting around a table and creating a contractual obligation between them in case one of them becomes the future defender.

In this case, they can agree that the expenditure in creating the infrastructure to design and build AC75s is so large that they need to know that two events will be held in the AC75 in order to enter the first event.

The deed effectively say you can only consider one challenge at a time but does it prohibit agreements between potential challengers and potential defenders prior to considering a challenge.

 

How do you have agreements without consideration? I think you're way off course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, trt131 said:

Everybody seems to be concentrating on having to use the AC75s again for AC38. 

How about the premise that if INEOS win the match out of Cowes, they would defend the cup in Auckland in 2024.  Does anyone really think that would happen.  I guess that's the pitch to the government.

Nope, I think Sir James will say sorry old chap, see you in Cowes again...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2021 at 8:15 AM, cbulger said:

True.  But I don't think Elvstrom was talking about bickering billionaires and Commodores.  DoG was not designed to produce a fair and democratic playing field, how do you think we got a 137 year winning streak?

137 years of useless UK challengers?

(Ducks)

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

Probably a bit too civilized though and not as witty.

TRG is my hero. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Paddywackery said:

And he doesn't have Billionaire status or pockets. Wealth for sure, but not of the level that can sustain ETNZ.

 

Evidently, he chose to be a big fish in a small pond. Had he settled in the US instead, NYYC members would be saying “Matio who?”

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nutta said:

137 years of useless UK challengers?

(Ducks)

You're welcome. Without those hundred years of futile attempts by us pom's no one would care enough down under to try and win it. If there's one thing Australians and Kiwis have in common its enjoying getting one over the Brits :lol:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JonRowe said:

You're welcome. Without those hundred years of futile attempts by us pom's no one would care enough down under to try and win it. If there's one thing Australians and Kiwis have in common its enjoying getting one over the Brits :lol:

Kinda, but we do that is lotsa sports lol

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

Just in case there is an agreement between the AC37 participants that they will favor an AC38 challenge by a club that will use the AC75s, could that be in breach of the following Deed provision? 

"Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country,... , shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, ..."

 

Full text: 
Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty, or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the Challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup.”

This clause would seem to pertain to the qualities of the Challenging Club, which may be one of “any organized Yacht Club” meeting all the other criteria.  

I don’t see how favouring challenges with the AC75 for the purpose of maintaining class stability would be in breach of this clause. 
 

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

Full text: 
Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty, or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the Challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup.”

A literal interpretation of this clause might be that once a challenge has been accepted, anyone can join and race in the AC, not CSS (the absence of the latter is what the rumoured row about the RYS challenge seems to be about). 

But usual rules of interpretation require you to look at the context and intent of the document – both of which speak to a match race between defender and challenger, not a free for all where any club can enter a yacht provided the other criteria are met.  

So, this clause would seem to pertain to the qualities of the Challenging Club, which may be one of “any organized Yacht Club” meeting all the other criteria.  

I don’t see how favouring the AC75 would be in breach of this clause. 
 

Looks like a misunderstanding. 
I deliberately left out all the stuff that is unnecessary for my question, but I will rephrase my question.

This is the Deed provision:

"Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country,... , shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, ..."

This is the situation (just a "what if":
An agreement between the Defender (RNZYS) and possible challengers (RYS, NYYC, CVS,...) says that whoever wins AC37 shall favor a challenger for AC38 that will use the AC75s.

This is the question:
Apart from the clause that AC38 cannot be handled in the AC37 protocol, would above agreement unlawfully exclude (= not favor) prospective challengers that do NOT want to keep the AC75s?

IOW, will this agreement stipulate that the "Rennmaus Yacht Club" (that has somehow circumvented the hip pocket hand-over of the AC38 challenge by RYS) will never have a chance to be accepted as challenger, because it wants TP52s as boats?

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

Looks like a misunderstanding. 
I deliberately left out all the stuff that is unnecessary for my question, but I will rephrase my question.

This is the Deed provision:

"Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country,... , shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, ..."

This is the situation (just a "what if":
An agreement between the Defender (RNZYS) and possible challengers (RYS, NYYC, CVS,...) says that whoever wins AC37 shall favor a challenger for AC38 that will use the AC75s.

This is the question:
Apart from the clause that AC38 cannot be handled in the AC37 protocol, would above agreement unlawfully exclude (= not favor) prospective challengers that do NOT want to keep the AC75s?

IOW, will this agreement stipulate that the "Rennmaus Yacht Club" (that has somehow circumvented the hip pocket hand-over of the AC38 challenge by RYS) will never have a chance to be accepted as challenger, because it wants TP52s as boats?

Right. I thought that I had misunderstood after re-reading my text, which is why I edited it to cut out the other parts. 

So, the question is whether the "favouring AC75" clause is a breach of the "any YC" clause, right? The "favouring AC75" clause might dissuade TP52-inclined challengers or whatever other hypothetical. I could be dead wrong on this, but I'd think you need more restrictive language, such as "no challenges other than those premised on the use of an AC75 shall be considered for AC38." 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

“Favoring” doesn’t mean anything in this context. Monetary penalties are immaterial too. All that matters is timing and validity of the first challenge received following the winning of the cup match. 
 

and the only way you’re gonna beat a hip pocket challenge is with a very slick drone delivery to an unsuspecting commodore on the official RNZYS tender. 

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

“Favoring” doesn’t mean anything in this context. Monetary penalties are immaterial too. All that matters is timing and validity of the first challenge received following the winning of the cup match. 
 

and the only way you’re gonna beat a hip pocket challenge is with a very slick drone delivery to an unsuspecting commodore on the official RNZYS tender. 

Haha, thanks thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png.7cb159e3ed0f1d2c6c5c880ca013dd86.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the board of directors of a yacht club which met the qualifications of a challenger under the Deed of Gift, for themselves and through their agents, put forth commercially reasonable efforts in multiple ways as they attempted to present a legitimate challenge to the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron et al., immediately after Te Rehutai crossed the finish line on March 17, 2021.  If this yacht club were unsuccessful in its efforts to be the first to present such challenge because it was frustrated/thwarted by the actions of Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron et al., in ways that could be well documented, do you think a complaint could be filed in the New York Court of appropriate jurisdiction in the near future.

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

 because it was frustrated/thwarted by the actions of Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron et al., in ways that could be well documented, 

It is well documented and there is nothing to be done about it. In one article a guy from the RNZYS mentioned that they locked the doors, shutdown the email server, and took the phones off the hook.  So what?  Its their private property. You have to right contact them if they don't want to be contacted. 

Then, the commodore sequestered himself on a boat with the RYS commodore.  So what?  You have no right to trespass on their vessel.  

The only valid complaint you could have is if they DIDN'T take these precautions, and you walked up and handed them a challenge and they refused to accept it. In that case, the NYSC would probably consider that they have been "served notice".

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

“Favoring” doesn’t mean anything in this context. Monetary penalties are immaterial too. All that matters is timing and validity of the first challenge received following the winning of the cup match. 
 

and the only way you’re gonna beat a hip pocket challenge is with a very slick drone delivery to an unsuspecting commodore on the official RNZYS tender. 

I think the argument would be that "favouring" affects the validity of the challenge. I don't think that it does, but that's what I understand the gripe to be. 

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

It is well documented and there is nothing to be done about it. In one article a guy from the RNZYS mentioned that they locked the doors, shutdown the email server, and took the phones off the hook.  So what?  Its their private property. You have to right contact them if they don't want to be contacted. 

Then, the commodore sequestered himself on a boat with the RYS commodore.  So what?  You have no right to trespass on their vessel.  

The only valid complaint you could have is if they DIDN'T take these precautions, and you walked up and handed them a challenge and they refused to accept it. In that case, the NYSC would probably consider that they have been "served notice".

All of your examples and more are applicable.  However, because The Deed of Gift is technically administered as a public trust under the laws of the State of New York, the applicable statues are different than the statues private individuals/enterprise must comply with and this has the effect of turning “So what” into a cause of action.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, timmytwinstay said:

All of your examples and more are applicable.  However, because The Deed of Gift is technically administered as a public trust under the laws of the State of New York, the applicable statues are different than the statues private individuals/enterprise must comply with and this has the effect of turning “So what” into a cause of action.

Interesting point!  I have no idea what the NYSC would feel about a trustee purposely making himself unavailable to the beneficiaries of said trust.  I hadn't thought of it like that! 

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

What if the board of directors of a yacht club which met the qualifications of a challenger under the Deed of Gift, for themselves and through their agents, put forth commercially reasonable efforts in multiple ways as they attempted to present a legitimate challenge to the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron et al., immediately after Te Rehutai crossed the finish line on March 17, 2021.  If this yacht club were unsuccessful in its efforts to be the first to present such challenge because it was frustrated/thwarted by the actions of Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron et al., in ways that could be well documented, do you think a complaint could be filed in the New York Court of appropriate jurisdiction in the near future.

Wow, I would like that to be contested at the NYSC! It could be the death of the hip pocket challenge. Unfortunately, it would delay the respective race for the Cup, so another law suit wouldn't do any immediate good.  

53 minutes ago, timmytwinstay said:

All of your examples and more are applicable.  However, because The Deed of Gift is technically administered as a public trust under the laws of the State of New York, the applicable statues are different than the statues private individuals/enterprise must comply with and this has the effect of turning “So what” into a cause of action.

Agreed. As I learned yesterday, all eligible YCs are beneficiaries of the AC trust. So a trustee that is not available for the beneficiaries at the moment one of the most important duties of the trustee is performed... Yes, very interesting.

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

Wow, I would like that to be contested at the NYSC! It could be the death of the hip pocket challenge. Unfortunately, it would delay the respective race for the Cup, so another law suit wouldn't do any immediate good.  

Agreed. As I learned yesterday, all eligible YCs are beneficiaries of the AC trust. So a trustee that is not available for the beneficiaries at the moment one of the most important duties of the trustee is performed... Yes, very interesting.

Easy work around.

No trustee must be available for the beneficiaries 24x7.

So all the YC needs to do is take it's communications systems down for "scheduled maintenance" and have the commodore play cards with the hip pocket challenger somewhere quiet and private.

You can argue till you are blue in the face about the real intent, but I think you'd be well and truly fucked.

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

Easy work around.

No trustee must be available for the beneficiaries 24x7.

So all the YC needs to do is take it's communications systems down for "scheduled maintenance" and have the commodore play cards with the hip pocket challenger somewhere quiet and private.

You can argue till you are blue in the face about the real intent, but I think you'd be well and truly fucked.

That's how it's been done, yes. And never questioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a tactic may work where you practice, however, New York law places unusual standards upon the operations of a public trust.  Therefore, do not be surprised if the court rules against the defender, replaces the challenger of record with the yacht club whose legitimate yet unsuccessful challenge was frustrated/thwarted by the actions of the defender, and imposes a method of accepting challenges upon future defenders so this matter does not come before the court again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ETNZ are being a bit tricky, in the local press;

Quote

In sum, Emirates has made a major commitment to Portsmouth/Isle of Wight as a sailing centre of excellence – and voila, that’s where the next challenger of record is coming from, and where the next Cup contest could well be sailed. Such incredible luck for Emirates, right? Over on the other side of the table, Emirates also retains naming rights for the New Zealand team. Can anyone doubt that the crucial inputs as to the when and where of the next America’s Cup challenge are likely to be made by Emirates, and not by anyone in New Zealand? That process seems already under way. By “accepting” the British Royal Yacht Squad Racing as the challenger of record, the New Zealand holders have enabled Emirates to skip the trouble of bothering themselves with funding another qualifying regatta.

At the time of Emirates’ initial involvement with Portsmouth, Sir Tim Clark, President of Emirates airline, said: “Emirates is proud to expand its commitment to the United Kingdom, which we service with over 130 weekly flights, by bringing world-class sailing boats to the shores of the UK and giving Portsmouth City the chance to host and show its visitors the most sensational event in the sailing calendar.”

Who knew that having a shady Sheik from a pretty repressive country as the main sponsor was a deal with the devil

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

Such a tactic may work where you practice, however, New York law places unusual standards upon the operations of a public trust.  Therefore, do not be surprised if the court rules against the defender, replaces the challenger of record with the yacht club whose legitimate yet unsuccessful challenge was frustrated/thwarted by the actions of the defender, and imposes a method of accepting challenges upon future defenders so this matter does not come before the court again.

This is really interesting and I can see your argument.  If this outcome were to happen, that hip pocket challenges were deemed not defendable - how would courts rule when there were multiple challenges that all met requirements?  It seems that the hip pocket challenge is the most logical way to establish the first to the gate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The New York Supreme Court has a no nonsense tradition that goes back centuries, and the maneuvering that can take place in other jurisdictions is mostly absent.  In a case such as this, the court will look at the evidence, hear testimony, review the four corners of the Deed of Gift, the law, and previous rulings.  If other “challengers” are allowed joinder (which the plaintiff would likely oppose) then their evidence will be heard.  The court will then make a well-reasoned ruling (that uses its typical economy of words) which places public benefit at the forefront of the decision and everything else a distant secondary consideration.  If your case is righteous, no matter how complicated or contentious, you want the New York Supreme Court to hear it. 

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

You have 11 more weeks little SOCIALIST JACINDA!:D

Why do you hate women?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, timmytwinstay said:

The New York Supreme Court has a no nonsense tradition that goes back centuries, and the maneuvering that can take place in other jurisdictions is mostly absent.  In a case such as this, the court will look at the evidence, hear testimony, review the four corners of the Deed of Gift, the law, and previous rulings.  If other “challengers” are allowed joinder (which the plaintiff would likely oppose) then their evidence will be heard.  The court will then make a well-reasoned ruling (that uses its typical economy of words) which places public benefit at the forefront of the decision and everything else a distant secondary consideration.  If your case is righteous, no matter how complicated or contentious, you want the New York Supreme Court to hear it. 

You started strong but ended up hip deep in bullshit and hyperbole. 

The court has very clearly and unanimously explained, most recently in 2009,  that it is not the arbiter of the content, fairness or practicability of any challenge so long as it meets the threshold requirements of the deed.  It’s a checklist, and it doesn’t include any room for some bullshit about commercial practice or someone’s legitimate challenge received second in time. Dem judges don’t care. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, timmytwinstay said:

The New York Supreme Court has a no nonsense tradition that goes back centuries, and the maneuvering that can take place in other jurisdictions is mostly absent.  In a case such as this, the court will look at the evidence, hear testimony, review the four corners of the Deed of Gift, the law, and previous rulings.  If other “challengers” are allowed joinder (which the plaintiff would likely oppose) then their evidence will be heard.  The court will then make a well-reasoned ruling (that uses its typical economy of words) which places public benefit at the forefront of the decision and everything else a distant secondary consideration.  If your case is righteous, no matter how complicated or contentious, you want the New York Supreme Court to hear it. 

Do you know @billy backstay? I think you could be good friends  

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

@timmytwinstay and @billy backstay

I thought you might be friends :)

My kids have 1000 of friends, on facebook.

Freud would have explained the phenomenon if he was still alive today, ah well, maybe his name was Sigmund Elvis...

Disclaimer: Early morning after a fight with one of my kids, because I cut off his internet access. And while sipping my first coffee as usual.

Edited by Fiji Bitter
Disclaimer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

@timmytwinstay and @billy backstay

I thought you might be friends :)

 

I wrote a lengthy post about Tim Stearns and my experiences in the 82 SORC with his gear, but it disappeared into thin air and I can't be arsed to type it over again....

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

 

I wrote a lengthy post about Tim Stearns and my experiences in the 82 SORC with his gear, but it disappeared into thin air and I can't be arsed to type it over again....

No worries mate :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 45Roller said:

No worries mate :)

 

To summarize, Stearns hydraulics were crap, compared to old school, heavy, leaky, unreliable.  Windward Passage would leak water into the wood hull at the keel-hull joint, when the backstay was wanked down good!

'82 SORC Stearns had 2 guys in a van full time, keeping hydros on Evergreen and Passage working, not good!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All the talk of TNZ trying to lever money from the government begs the question, how much money to you think the Gov. should stump up and how much do you think the gov will stump up.  Do you think the Gov should be bailing out private entities and should they do it for all private entities that are having trouble with funding.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, trt131 said:

All the talk of TNZ trying to lever money from the government begs the question, how much money to you think the Gov. should stump up and how much do you think the gov will stump up.  Do you think the Gov should be bailing out private entities and should they do it for all private entities that are having trouble with funding.

 

 

Seems like the Govt and Auk used the AC as an excuse to forward preplanned budget works to improve the waterfront, all good. The TV coverage of NZ enjoying a COVID-free life must have been worth some kinda value too, plus the general Kiwi entertainment.

Once 2024 rolls around? Some of that value will diminish, folks will be rocking their favorite destinations again, instead. Auk surely has the upper hand here against the possible mystery-venue bids, with the area they already provided for hosting a few teams so easily. 

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

Seems like the Govt and Auk used the AC as an excuse to forward preplanned budget works to improve the waterfront, all good. The TV coverage of NZ enjoying a COVID-free life must have been worth some kinda value too, plus the general Kiwi entertainment.

Once 2024 rolls around? Some of that value will diminish, folks will be rocking their favorite destinations again, instead. Auk surely has the upper hand here against the possible mystery-venue bids, with the area they already provided for hosting a few teams so easily. 

Remember that just as it will be easy for Kiwis to travel overseas, it will be easy for peeps to travel here which I'd expect to meet than offset the losses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much Christchurch City Council put up for SailGP, in January 2022?

Maybe the Council will develop an appetite for International Regattas. Could put some additional pressure on Auckland City Council too.

 

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

I wonder how much Christchurch City Council put up for SailGP, in January 2022?

Maybe the Council will develop an appetite for International Regattas. Could put some additional pressure on Auckland City Council too.

 

Good luck sailing AC75s on Lyttelton Harbour!

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

If Lyttleton isn't suitable, they can bring it to Wellington ^_^

Joke always used to be how can you tell if a yacht has been brought down from Auckland to Lyttelton in the last year.

It has a new rig.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

I wonder how much Christchurch City Council put up for SailGP, in January 2022?

Knowing our brilliant local body politicians, the answer will be about 5 times more than they should have.

Retards.

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

Knowing our brilliant local body politicians, the answer will be about 5 times more than they should have.

Retards.

The worst is how they fail as MP's then drop down to local politics. We have John Carter up here. What a useless wanker he while in parliament, now an even bigger wanker as the mayor.

Still at least we don't have Goff. And poor old ChCh has Dalziel. :lol:

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

We have John Carter up here

Didn't he have to leave cos he used the identity of a dead baby to get a passport? Or am I thinking of another useless cunt?

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

Didn't he have to leave cos he used the identity of a dead baby to get a passport? Or am I thinking of another useless cunt?

Forgot about that slimy episode. It was Garrett from ACT under that idiot Hide. He went local politics as well I think. Carter was just a typical useless tosser given a medal for doing bugger all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2021 at 7:51 PM, Sailbydate said:

I've thought that on occasion too. 

 

On 3/24/2021 at 8:01 PM, jaysper said:

Probably a bit too civilized though and not as witty.

But I had to wade through ten pages of you two in a dual monologue..stale

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

The worst is how they fail as MP's then drop down to local politics.

Speaking of local politics....I grew up knowing a kid called Greg Sayers......he went on to become a Councillor with Rodney Council...How did he go? Was he any good?

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

Speaking of local politics....I grew up knowing a kid called Greg Sayers......he went on to become a Councillor with Rodney Council...How did he go? Was he any good?

No idea, Rodney is far to close to Auckland to be of any interest to me. However a quick Google brought up this little gem, he has    'an organisational cultural change company' I would guess he is just a spiv trying to sound good, selling snake oil to the corporations and bullshit to the voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was TRG. I got baptised in the holy spirit and lived again through the forgiveness and love of the internet. Now my sock is older than the hand that was amputated. 

We won the AC. 

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

I was TRG. I got baptised in the holy spirit and lived again through the forgiveness and love of the internet. Now my sock is older than the hand that was amputated. 

We won the AC. 

Nah, sorry  unless you've had a lobotomy I don't buy it.

You are a poor facsimile of the obnoxious yet creative TRG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 5:40 AM, jaysper said:

If Lyttleton isn't suitable, they can bring it to Wellington ^_^

You need to use chains instead of warp to tie to the pontoons.

Link to post
Share on other sites