Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If there’s one thing we know about the America’s Cup it is that there is always some level of palace intrigue. Most often the subterfuge surfaces fairly early with a good deal of noise. This Cup though is different. Never before has there been so little news from either the teams or the event.

When promoting the event ambition did not match reality and subsequently fewer teams are competing than desired. Multiple factors in play there starting with a new boat that, obviously, most people couldn’t see how to fund. Toss in a global pandemic and it’s a prescription for a less than optimum event outcome.

One wonders about the pressures faced within the event organizers to try and make sure their ability matched projections. While there is a good deal of public information from the event side of things, there is precious little about the actual challengers and arbitration outcomes.

How do we know that all the teams are actually entered legally? Is it possible one of the teams was entered as a corporate entity rather than as a club entry, as is required by the Deed of Gift? If a team entered as, essentially, a corporation there are multiple questions. Why did they not enter as a club? Why were they allowed to enter under the auspices of anything but a club? Does the mutual consent clause in the Deed of Gift allow the Defender and Challenger to waive entry requirements stated in the Deed?

Even if a team is sailing in the Prada Cup without the benefit of being entered via a club, is there anyone who can do anything about it?  Food for thought...

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

If there’s one thing we know about the America’s Cup it is that there is always some level of palace intrigue. Most often the subterfuge surfaces fairly early with a good deal of noise. This Cup though is different. Never before has there been so little news from either the teams or the event.

When promoting the event ambition did not match reality and subsequently fewer teams are competing than desired. Multiple factors in play there starting with a new boat that, obviously, most people couldn’t see how to fund. Toss in a global pandemic and it’s a prescription for a less than optimum event outcome.

One wonders about the pressures faced within the event organizers to try and make sure their ability matched projections. While there is a good deal of public information from the event side of things, there is precious little about the actual challengers and arbitration outcomes.

How do we know that all the teams are actually entered legally? Is it possible one of the teams was entered as a corporate entity rather than as a club entry, as is required by the Deed of Gift? If a team entered as, essentially, a corporation there are multiple questions. Why did they not enter as a club? Why were they allowed to enter under the auspices of anything but a club? Does the mutual consent clause in the Deed of Gift allow the Defender and Challenger to waive entry requirements stated in the Deed?

Even if a team is sailing in the Prada Cup without the benefit of being entered via a club, is there anyone who can do anything about it?  Food for thought...

What are the teams that did not enter under a club ? why would RNZYS have allowed it ?

Yes, we could ask some questions:

1) was a "deemed" enter at the same time by all challengers legal ?

2) were the requirements more selctive than the deed legal as they might have prevented other to enter ?

3) as there is no CoR succession plan, if another team than Prada wins the CSS how can they race the match as they are not the CoR, are they even challengers ?

But this is not serious at this stage of the competition, too much magic mushrooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t tell if he’s questioning the validity of Luna Rossa (the most established challenger), the Royal Yacht Squadron (the most established yacht club) or NYYC (the club with the greatest AC history).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And if it was the Americans, would this be a point for discussion now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The template notice of challenge attached to the Protocol is very explicit and requires the Commodore of the challenging yacht club to fill in their name and sign it - I don't see how any of the three challengers from credible yacht clubs would get that wrong.

Also, the arbitration decisions are published here so it's a bit of a stretch to say there's no visibility.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Editor its not been super obvious where it is but http://noticeboard.acofficials.org/home

knock yourself out.

 

As previously noted above the Protocol Appendix 4 is a template for Notice of Challenge which explicitly requires to be signed by the Commodore of the Challenging club.

image.thumb.png.4857b6bddee5002fb9cb931e1f5ea551.pngimage.thumb.png.f6c8b25cb65f75560829e9e083220c3c.png

 

Also see Section 6.

 

There was an early Arbitration case about the validity of several of the accepted entries including over one entry being 2 clubs.

https://docs.google.com/a/acofficials.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNvZmZpY2lhbHMub3JnfGFjMzYtb2ZmaWNpYWwtbm90aWNlYm9hcmR8Z3g6YjMwMDJlMTVjMDgxNjY2

The AP required that one of the 2 clubs be nominated as The challenging club but found the others to be valid.

 

I maybe missed it but there doesn't appear to be a public posting of the accepted Notices of Challenge but the context of the above Arbitration indicates that the other Challengers saw their Notices & that Arbitration case covers the ones there were questions about.

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

What are the teams that did not enter under a club ? why would RNZYS have allowed it ?

Yes, we could ask some questions:

1) was a "deemed" enter at the same time by all challengers legal ?

2) were the requirements more selctive than the deed legal as they might have prevented other to enter ?

3) as there is no CoR succession plan, if another team than Prada wins the CSS how can they race the match as they are not the CoR, are they even challengers ?

But this is not serious at this stage of the competition, too much magic mushrooms.

Your questions are more interesting. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed thinks there is a team that has entered illegally.

doesnt have the balls or knowledge to say which one. 
 

end of story, truly Magnus levels of insinuation and bollocks. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

And in all cases we know the name of the sponsor club. So whilst it may be (as it is for NZ and generally is for the AC nowadays) little more than  fig-leaf, it surely is a legal fig leaf.

Can't see anyone caring except the Italian lawyers, unless of course it is Italy.

 

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

Ed thinks there is a team that has entered illegally.

doesnt have the balls or knowledge to say which one. 
 

end of story, truly Magnus levels of insinuation and bollocks. 

wrong, wrong, probably

EDIT: Sometimes Rule 69 blog hits the nail on the head - got the INEOS is a dog a bit wrong though

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which bit is wrong?

if he knew he would / should say, if he doesn't then it’s just tittle tattle 

Magnus,  A bit wrong?... wtf? If he actually had the balls to admit and formally retract the shit he spewed at them then at least there would be a bit of integrity.

instead when called out on it he just deletes any negative reference to his previous statements. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone seen the settlement agreement from case 02/03? there’s a reason it was intentionally hidden from the public. 
 

 

”This decision will be publicly notified. The Applications and all other documents filed on ECAF or
otherwise and provided in discovery in respect of these cases are not to be published and remain
confidential between the Parties”

Link to post
Share on other sites

is Team American Magic fully a yacht club entity? I can imagine with the amounts of money going round, and the chance of legal repercussions, that any team is a separate legal entity? In The Netherlands, the major events are separate entities to ensure that mismanagement of an event, means that a club will stay financially out.

 

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

Anyone seen the settlement agreement from case 02/03? there’s a reason it was intentionally hidden from the public. 
 

 

”This decision will be publicly notified. The Applications and all other documents filed on ECAF or
otherwise and provided in discovery in respect of these cases are not to be published and remain
confidential between the Parties”

At the moment it appears to me you are making a conspiracy out of a molehill

The decision was published. You can find it at the link below. Its only the supporting evidence that was submitted that was kept confidential. 

https://docs.google.com/a/acofficials.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNvZmZpY2lhbHMub3JnfGFjMzYtb2ZmaWNpYWwtbm90aWNlYm9hcmR8Z3g6YjMwMDJlMTVjMDgxNjY2

And its about 3 late challengers, none of who are racing.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t work in sailing, Jaime.  I do however have the fortune of being part of a group of lawyers and rules advisors who like to talk about cases and arbs.

And no, the list of arbs you see published does not include the confidential cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot you are not a sailing Journo either..so spit it out, what terrible misdeeds have the naughty people done and what is the end game of breaking this huge story?

just general shit house behavior or a more Devine purpose? either way AM aint getting reinstated.

its a great way to taint the narrative though, you remember that INEOS team? yeah they weren't even a yacht club those mother fuckers..

 

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

 

And no, the list of arbs you see published does not include the confidential cases.

But the link I gave is publish, does give the arb result, has the same number as you identified and even has the text that you quoted (apart from one word change). 

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

I forgot you are not a sailing Journo either..so spit it out, what terrible misdeeds have the naughty people done and what is the end game of breaking this huge story?

just general shit house behavior or a more Devine purpose? either way AM aint getting reinstated.

its a great way to taint the narrative though, you remember that INEOS team? yeah they weren't even a yacht club those mother fuckers..

 

I broke no story nor did I have anything to do with the Ed’s post. I have not claimed anyone was naughty. I just posted some public info.  There’s plenty more floating around out there, but it ain’t published by the arb panel. 
 

Getting booted from other sites seems to have made you more paranoid. 

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

And if it was the Americans, would this be a point for discussion now?

Of all the teams. AM was very forthright in noting their association with the NYYC.  Also, can't see NYYC letting anyone use them as a shell game, they wrote the original rules.

Which team is the least forward about their affiliation with the home yacht club.  It would have to be either UK or LR.

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

I broke no story nor did I have anything to do with the Ed’s post. I have not claimed anyone was naughty. I just posted some public info.  There’s plenty more floating around out there, but it ain’t published by the arb panel. 
 

Getting booted from other sites seems to have made you more paranoid. 

oh really which sites have I been booted from? I think you are getting me confused with someone else.

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

Of all the teams. AM was very forthright in noting their association with the NYYC.  Also, can't see NYYC letting anyone use them as a shell game, they wrote the original rules.

Which team is the least forward about their affiliation with the home yacht club.  It would have to be either UK or LR.

WRONG! There is a link to Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Limited on the INEOS website and their photo of the cup in its Prada case is taken on the almost legendary Squadron lawn which for a long time was the only part of the squadron where ladies were allowed. Somehow I don't see the UK's premier yacht club which is over 200 years old and boasts the Queen's husband as Admiral would allow an interloper to use their grounds for a spurious photo-shoot. 

BTW the NYYC did not write the original rules, is was one of their members. Just a little different.

The Ed throws some pebbles in the pond but to educate our non UK cousins a little, a large number (many would say most) UK clubs are structured as "a company limited by guarantee". My old club in the UK was such and should the club be would up each member (or someone wo had left within the year before the club was wound up) would be liable for the princely sum of (a maximum) One Pound Sterling. Add one layer - if the club (or a group of clubs) was funding a team, a new clubhouse or a large regatta a company within a company in effect would be set up. A good example of the is Cowes Week, which is actually run by the Cowes Combined Clubs under the company "Cowes Week Limited".

I this manner Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Limited (RYSRL) is the part of Royal Yacht Squadron (RYS) which runs the racing within the RYS.

If you click on the link to Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Limited on the INEOS website it rakes you to the Royal Yacht Squadron's racing page which, for the avoidance of doubt is on the Royal Yacht Squadron's website.

the challenge, to be legitimate would have had to been signed by the Commodore of the RYS to be accepted by the RNZYS in any case.

The UK team is far from being "least forward" There is a link to the RYS racing section on the INEOS website and the RYS website is peppered with photos, news, links etc to INEOS, you are just not looking.

Regarding Clean's Hmmmm. I doubt very much that the RYS would allow a corporation to use their name if they weren't the challenging club and they most certainly would not allow a company to use their club as a mailing address. They are not exactly a poor club, their 'club house' is a castle for god's sake with parts of it dating back to before anyone had found America, never mind New York (apologies to the First Nations)

2 hours ago, NeedAClew said:

So it what ed is saying is that Ineos represents Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Limited and that is not a Yacht Club?

Actually that would be like buying an iPhone from an Apple store and Apple saying the warranty isn't valid because you bought it from a subsidiary and not Apple direct

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Why would that make you go hmmm? "Private company limited by guarantee"  is a perfectly normal way in the UK to form what in the USA might be called a "not for profit" e.g. a club.  Such companies don't issue a dividend (evidently, since there are no shares). Incorporating as a limited company protects the personal assets of the club officers from actions against the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I'm siding with holding company for the sailing part of the club.

This one is presumably for the Hospitality/other non-sailing part https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09138930

 

Quote

 

Registered office address    

The Castle, The Isle Of Wight, Cowes

 

List of Officers fits the list of flag officers of RYS

Ineos website links to 'Royal Yacht Squadron Racing' point to rys.org.uk and use the RYS Burgee.

 

If thats somehow not the legitimate representative organisation of the sailing part of RYS I'm pretty sure Ben may be needing to apply for asylum in a non-Commonwealth embassy & there should have been howls of protest from RYS long before now.

 

I do think the accepted entry forms should have been posted on the noticeboard, as I recall they have been in recent cups.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2021 at 4:18 PM, Editor said:

If there’s one thing we know about the America’s Cup it is that there is always some level of palace intrigue. Most often the subterfuge surfaces fairly early with a good deal of noise. This Cup though is different. Never before has there been so little news from either the teams or the event.

When promoting the event ambition did not match reality and subsequently fewer teams are competing than desired. Multiple factors in play there starting with a new boat that, obviously, most people couldn’t see how to fund. Toss in a global pandemic and it’s a prescription for a less than optimum event outcome.

One wonders about the pressures faced within the event organizers to try and make sure their ability matched projections. While there is a good deal of public information from the event side of things, there is precious little about the actual challengers and arbitration outcomes.

How do we know that all the teams are actually entered legally? Is it possible one of the teams was entered as a corporate entity rather than as a club entry, as is required by the Deed of Gift? If a team entered as, essentially, a corporation there are multiple questions. Why did they not enter as a club? Why were they allowed to enter under the auspices of anything but a club? Does the mutual consent clause in the Deed of Gift allow the Defender and Challenger to waive entry requirements stated in the Deed?

Even if a team is sailing in the Prada Cup without the benefit of being entered via a club, is there anyone who can do anything about it?  Food for thought...

Crawl back under your rock and stop embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JMOD said:

is Team American Magic fully a yacht club entity? I can imagine with the amounts of money going round, and the chance of legal repercussions, that any team is a separate legal entity? In The Netherlands, the major events are separate entities to ensure that mismanagement of an event, means that a club will stay financially out.

 

That's not how it works. The entry is from a bona fide recognised yacht club - has to be to comply with all aspects of the Deed of Gift - that in itself involves some hoops to jump through to prove compliance. The yacht club then selects a team to represent them.

Sometimes it is the other way around however. For example, Shanghai Boat & Yacht Club was approached by a team 'One Ocean' which was headed by an expat Shanghainese business man living in the USA. They requested that they could be a team representing SBYC should the club be willing to enter the America's Cup.

The challenge still had to come from the club (SBYC not One Ocean) signed off by the Club Commodore who happened to be me.

As the Deed of Gift has NOT been amended since AC32 then the process for clubs to challenge for AC36 would have been identical. 

As a point of interest the defending club cannot refuse a challenge as the America's Cup is a challenger's trophy, not a defender's trophy.

The challenge was accepted as fully DoG compliant although sadly had to be withdrawn at the 11th hour (literally 15 minutes before entry cut off - 1545 Swiss time) due to the non arrival of expected/hoped for sponsorship. The entry money and all the up front finance was in place but the team and the club were not 100% confident of doing the team, the club and most of all The Cup justice.

The team being separate is no different than any yacht entering any regatta under a yacht club's burgee. The owner may be a member of a club but the yacht is an independent entity.

The America's Cup in some ways is just more formal than any other regatta largely due to the DoG conditions but in so many other ways it is no different to any other regatta. 

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

I'm siding with holding company for the sailing part of the club.

This one is presumably for the Hospitality/other non-sailing part https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09138930

 

List of Officers fits the list of flag officers of RYS

Ineos website links to 'Royal Yacht Squadron Racing' point to rys.org.uk and use the RYS Burgee.

 

If thats somehow not the legitimate representative organisation of the sailing part of RYS I'm pretty sure Ben may be needing to apply for asylum in a non-Commonwealth embassy & there should have been howls of protest from RYS long before now.

 

I do think the accepted entry forms should have been posted on the noticeboard, as I recall they have been in recent cups.

This is RYSRL's second consecutive entry in the America's Cup. The first one was AC35 in Bermuda and was represented by Ben's BAR Racing. RYSRL is an RYA affiliate club and therefore complies with the DoG. A large number of UK clubs are companies "limited by guarantee" to protect individual members. Noting strange in that structure. 

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

Plus, the DoG is not specific in which way the challenging YC needs to be registered, incorporated etc. shall be. 

100% correct Rennmaus. Incorporated, patented or licenced includes clubs that are set up as a company

By legislature, admiralty or other executive department has always been taken to included clubs that are authorised or members of a country's sailing association which i would assume would be taken to include the country's Member National Association (MNA) of World Sailing. Basically my read would be is that as long as SOMEONE official recognises the club as a club they're in.

Rather than being restrictive as some people would report it is just to ensure that the challenge is coming from an actual sailing or yacht club and not a body 'invented' for the sake of a challenge. The CNEV case springs to mind where the organisation was set up, made the challenge and had at that point not even held a regatta which is one of those elements that could be used (shall be used) to determine if a club is an actual club.

What had already slipped under the radar was in the previous Cup, Qingdao International Yacht Club (QIYC) , which was incorporated/founded 5 days before their challenge and had, at the time of their challenge, no members, no boats and never held a race, let alone a regatta. Their team 'China Team by le Defi' went on to perform dismally in AC32.

Ado Stead (of Mascalzone Latino) stated at the start of one of the Round Robins that the only way they would score a point was if the other team had a catastrophic breakdown and sure enough the only point they did score was when Oracle blew their headfoil.

So up to now there has not yet been a completed legitimate (DoG compliant) Chinese entry in the America's Cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2021 at 11:18 AM, Editor said:

If there’s one thing we know about the America’s Cup it is that there is always some level of palace intrigue. Most often the subterfuge surfaces fairly early with a good deal of noise. This Cup though is different. Never before has there been so little news from either the teams or the event.

When promoting the event ambition did not match reality and subsequently fewer teams are competing than desired. Multiple factors in play there starting with a new boat that, obviously, most people couldn’t see how to fund. Toss in a global pandemic and it’s a prescription for a less than optimum event outcome.

One wonders about the pressures faced within the event organizers to try and make sure their ability matched projections. While there is a good deal of public information from the event side of things, there is precious little about the actual challengers and arbitration outcomes.

How do we know that all the teams are actually entered legally? Is it possible one of the teams was entered as a corporate entity rather than as a club entry, as is required by the Deed of Gift? If a team entered as, essentially, a corporation there are multiple questions. Why did they not enter as a club? Why were they allowed to enter under the auspices of anything but a club? Does the mutual consent clause in the Deed of Gift allow the Defender and Challenger to waive entry requirements stated in the Deed?

Even if a team is sailing in the Prada Cup without the benefit of being entered via a club, is there anyone who can do anything about it?  Food for thought...

My understanding of the deed of gift is that what defines a club comes before what two clubs (defender and challenger) agree by mutual consent so a challenge has to be from a club as defined by the Deed of Gift. A challenger cannot legitimately be a "Non- Club".

A challenge from a "non-club" violates the Deed of Gift which is the crux of Oracle's action against CNEV which the New York Supreme Court agreed with  

The mutual consent element of the Deed of Gift and what is allowed under mutual consent is clearly defined in that paragraph of the deed which has of course led to the modern day Protocol which is mutually agreed between the defender and the Challenger of Record.

Sheesh - it is complicated and political

I might be wrong but I am pretty sure of the jist of it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternative dictionary...shit stirrer, some one that grabs on to something they don't really understand throws out a hand grenade to garner attention for his site : Ed from Sailing Anarchy or doing a  Magnus Wheatly

 

mr shanghi that has been involved in an actual challenge application or a group of lawyer friends having a chat about 'undisclosed documents' hmm who to believe..

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

A challenge from a "non-club" violates the Deed of Gift which is the crux of Oracle's action against CNEV which the New York Supreme Court agreed with  

I sort of understood the issue was the yearly Club regatta - that the CoR must have already been having before challenging, while other challengers only need to do that before they win the CSS and become CoR in their turn

 

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

I sort of understood the issue was the yearly Club regatta - that the CoR must have already been having before challenging, while other challengers only need to do that before they win the CSS and become CoR in their turn

 

And which club is it suggested does not have an annual regatta?

 

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

I sort of understood the issue was the yearly Club regatta - that the CoR must have already been having before challenging, while other challengers only need to do that before they win the CSS and become CoR in their turn

 

CNEV was founded by the Spanish sailing federation, and was no real club. You're right, witness to that was the lack of the annual regatta that was supposed to be held after the challenge was lodged.
Since then "having" is a trigger word in SAAC, mostly triggering hysterical laughter.

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

CNEV was founded by the Spanish sailing federation, and was no real club. You're right, witness to that was the lack of the annual regatta that was supposed to be held after the challenge was lodged.
Since then "having" is a trigger word in SAAC, mostly triggering hysterical laughter.

When they got some kids in Optis together to hold an "annual regatta" after the court challenge had been filed was pretty amusing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite apart from the Deed's precise language defining qualification as a Yacht Club, there is also the specific compliance spelled out in the AC36 Protocol:

6.2. RNZYS shall not accept a challenge from a Yacht Club that does not meet the requirements of the Deed of Gift such as it is incorporated and has its annual regatta and meets each of the following criteria by the Final Race 2017:

a) it must have been in existence for a minimum of three years; See Protocol Amendment 01.

b) it must maintain a membership of at least 200 members;

c) it must be financially supported by a majority of its membership on a pro-rata basis;

d) it must operate as a yacht club and have objectives consistent with the furtherance of yachting activities; and

e) it must be a member of the National Sailing Authority of its country.

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

Quite apart from the Deed's precise language defining qualification as a Yacht Club, there is also the specific compliance spelled out in the AC36 Protocol:

6.2. RNZYS shall not accept a challenge from a Yacht Club that does not meet the requirements of the Deed of Gift such as it is incorporated and has its annual regatta and meets each of the following criteria by the Final Race 2017:

a) it must have been in existence for a minimum of three years; See Protocol Amendment 01.

b) it must maintain a membership of at least 200 members;

c) it must be financially supported by a majority of its membership on a pro-rata basis;

d) it must operate as a yacht club and have objectives consistent with the furtherance of yachting activities; and

e) it must be a member of the National Sailing Authority of its country.

^^ Requirements above the Deed, possibly preventing a Deed compliant club to challenge do not help in that case. :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ARBITRATION PANEL HIDE TRUTH OF INEOS PROBLEM.

I am only interested in facts when debating this or any other issue. As such , I attach a copy of response submissions filed before the America's Cup Arbitration Panel by Royal Malta Yacht Club, in cases 02,03 and 04 (Note those cases can be found on the internet by searching "America's Cup Arbitration Panel Decisions).

I direct you to ACAP decision dated 14 March 2019. There are 2 clauses of that decision that need careful consideration.

Cl 6 Settlement " ... The Protocol changes have now been published.COR36 agreed it would raise no further dispute as to the validity of acceptance of the Notice of Challenge of any of the presently accepted Challengers..."

Cl 28 Publication. "This decision will be publicly notified.The Applications and all other documents filed on ECAF or otherwise and provided in discovery in respect of these cases are not to be published and remain confidential between the parties."

 

Cl6 therefore is a clear acknowledgment by ACAP that ETNZ, PRADA and American Magic all entered into a settlement agreement which is hidden from the public and media, whereby they all agreed not to dispute the validity of acceptance of any Notice of Challenge of any presently accepted challengers. In short they knew that the Notice of Challenge filed by Royal Yacht Squadron Racing  Limited was non compliant with the clear provisions of the 3rd and current Deed of Gift dated 1887, as not being a bone fide yacht club, and used the settlement agreement and the process of the ACAP to ensure the issue never became public knowledge.

If any of the parties to this settlement agreement disagrees with me, I invite them to disprove my allegations.

 

Cl 28 Publication. Following on from my above statements, the ACAP gave specific directions to all of the teams involved in these cases, that all Applications and other documents filed in support or opposition in those cases be kept confidential between the parties. In other words the ACAP worked in concert with the teams to ensure that the media and general sailing public never would have the chance to read those documents. One of those documents is that attached to this post. 

 

Confidentiality does not apply to non parties therefore I am sure that you will all enjoy seeing  real evidence of the efforts teams and the ACAP go to to keep their dirty secrets well hidden.

 

 THE INEOS ISSUE.

I direct you all to paragraphs 64- 69 of the Royal Malta yacht Club submissions attached.

These para go right to the heart of the issue and directly assert that the Royal yacht Squadron Limited entry is irregular in terms of the Deed of Gift. That, is an understatement and a polite way of saying it is non compliant with the Deed of Gift.

Please also note the references to the foot notes .In particular an email from Pradas rules adviser Allisandra Panderasi to Russell Green ( ETNZs rules adviser) and copied to Laurant Esquire CEO of the COR discussing this Issue. A copy of those emails were presented as annexes to the Royal Malta submissions.

This is evidence that all of the teams knew that there was a serious issue with the Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Limited Notice of Challenge  from the very early stages in this event.

QUESTIONS:

1. Why did Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron(RNZYS) as the current trustee accept such a challenge?

2. Para 11 of the Deed of Gift places a clear duty of fidelity on the trustee and says "...,that it will faithfully and fully see that the foregoing conditions are fully observed and complied with by any contestant for the said Cup during the holding thereof by it ,...". If RNZYS have permitted a non yachtt club entity to challenge for the Cup, any yacht club around the world as a beneficiary of the trust deed could apply to the New York Supreme Court seeking orders that such breach had occurred and trusteeship be removed.

3. Para 6.1 (b) (i) of the Protocol requires the trustee to be ".. satisfied the Deed of Gift has been complied with ...". Is RNZYS in violation of this provision?

4.If the RYSRLtd challenge is illegal under the Deed of Gift, it can never become successor trustee of the charitable trust of which the Deed of Gift is.

5. As such, if INEOS (RYSR Ltd) win the Cup, after being allowed to compete under these circumstances, RNZYS would be prohibited from turning the Cup over to it.

6. The mutual consent provision in the Deed of Gift do not permit the Defender and the Challenger from agreeing rules that are in effect amendments to core provisions of the deed.One such cornerstone provision is the yacht club entry provision. The intention of my name sake when he drafted all three Deeds of Gift was to create a perpetual challenge trophy for organized yacht clubs of foreign countries. Not Individuals ,partnerships, corporations, joint ventures etc of foreign countries. That is why the Deed says very clearly that " it is distinctly understood that the Cup is to be the property of the club, subject to the provisions of this deed, and not the property of the owner or owners of any vessels winning a match."

It appears that the teams and the ACAP  have attempted to usurp the powers of the New York Supreme Court by agreeing between themselves to effectively amend one of the most critical provisions of the Deed (yacht club entry) .Only the Court has legal power to amend the deed . This has only occurred twice in the entire history of the Cup , the first in 1956 and again in 1985 . (To reduce waterline length to permit 12 meters, stern hemisphere amendment etc).

Again in doing this, I believe RNZYS is in serious violation of its  fiduciary duties as trustee and could have its trusteeship reminded by the New York Supreme Court. Courts do not take kindly to imposters!

7. Why have the other challengers not filed a protest against INEOS ? I can only imagine that the rules adviser for American Magic does not want to explain to Messers Faith, Penski and DeVoss that they could still be racing in the Prada Cup if they had had INEOS disqualified from the  outset.

8. And could Prada still protest INEOS before the Prada finals next week, notwithstanding they being an active participant in the settlement agreement? They could always say they made a big mistake and never intended to usurp the authority of the New York Supreme Court and a protest should rightfully be filed.

9. Did ETNZ disclose the legality or otherwise to the NZ government before declaring INEOS as a legitimate entry to accept  NZD$40,000,000  of taxpayers money under the Host Venues Agreement. That agreement placed a deliverables obligation on ETNZ/ACE to deliver a minimum of 4 participating teams. As Stars & Stripes withdrew before the Prada Cup commenced, and if INEOS is non compliant, that leaves only 2 challengers, American Magic and Prada. 

CONCLUSION:

The trustee of the Cup throughout history has an absolute duty to act in accordance with its legal duties. A trustee must never act in a way that could call into question the integrity of the event.

I believe the evidence I have produced here combined with all of the evidence that was produced to the ACAP relating to the eligibility of the INEOS entry needs to be made public as a matter of urgency to ensure such integrity and  that the event warrants the allocation of millions of dollars of taxpayers money.

George Schuyler

 

 

RMYC MAC Response 26 Feb 2019.docx

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some ones village is missing a cunt.. 

I mean George, are you one of cleans special lawyer Chums or a sock for the Ed? The single post in a topic like this, nope not a coincidence at all.. 

these confidential agreements you reference, you decided to make them no longer confidential? You obtained them how? 
you had permission to make them public more is this your Snowdon moment? 

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

Soooooo... can someone say why RYS inst compliant? 

Their entry was accepted for the 35th cup? What has changed?

Not forgetting the 6 times they were the challenger up to 1958

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no requirement in the deed of gift about which (if any) corporate entity is the challenger. If the leadership of a duly constituted and qualified yacht club presents the challenge and signs off on it, it's kosher as far as the deed is concerned.

Any quibbles about the corporate entities would be a protocol issue because the deed has nothing to say about those. If it's a protocol issue, then the teams can handle those as laid out in the protocol, as they evidently did.

I know shit stirring when I see it. Used to be my specialty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A possible link to to Royal Malta application above, is that one of the people initially signed on by them was Hamish Ross. We have actually been around the block before on the RYSRS entity and Ross addressed the subject once during a TE Live show. (can’t remember their take, but it definitely did happen) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Well there is the issue: has the RYS been in existence for more than 3 years?

ha ha - considering they have celebrated their bi-centenary - doubtful there is an issue. Presumably you are being sarcastic

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

Well why doesn't somebody Tweet Ineos and ask if their challenge is legit and if they win do they actually win the Cup?

Feel free to!

Thinking back, when we went around the block on this before the discussion was about if the Racing Squadron YC actually holds annual regattas. Some folks argued that because of their association with the RYS they do; others argued that the association does not matter, that they are challenging as an independent YC under RYSRC, not RYS. 
 

And having thought about the TE/Hamish discussion some more, am pretty sure TE was of the opinion that if everyone was fine with it and signed to it, then nobody would bother trying to challenge it legally. There are only 3 Challs, everyone including ETNZ was desperately trying to make an event out of AC36 even before FCS problems and then C19 wrecked most of what was left of the already-minimal curriculum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. If ITUK beat LRPP on the water, only to lose on a protest (either this nonsense, or possibly a Red Card play) ETNZ would surely welcome such an outcome? 

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

Interesting. If ITUK beat LRPP on the water, only to lose on a protest (either this nonsense, or possibly a Red Card play) ETNZ would surely welcome such an outcome? 

Unless ETNZ/RNZYS was found culpable too.. Then what? 
 

Interesting enough Deed subject but I very much doubt the speculation will amount to anything. 

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

Unless ETNZ/RNZYS was found culpable too.. Then what? 
 

Interesting enough Deed subject but I very much doubt the speculation will amount to anything. 

On that score, I'm more concerned about the race course being DoG compliant. Did anyone check out the definition of headland?

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

On that score, I'm more concerned about the race course being DoG compliant. Did anyone check out the definition of headland?

That part is MC-able. 

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

Well why doesn't somebody Tweet Ineos and ask if their challenge is legit and if they win do they actually win the Cup?

Way ahead of you NeedAClew

Firstly though a bit of clarification. A point often missed (and clearly here too) INEOS is NOT the challenger. They are the team representing the challenger. The challenger is the 'Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Limited (RYSRL) and it is the RYSRL that needs to be 'legit'.

And I did ask!

The Racing Rules of Sailing Rule 4 states "The responsibility for a boat's decision to race etc etc". Sadly in our 'modern' litigious society it is always someone else's fault and to protect their membership against claims and other financial risks many clubs, certainly in the UK, are set up as a company with the members liability limited. Some clubs set up subsidiaries to effectively run their racing and/or other activities.

The Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Limited is a Royal Yachting Association (RYA) affiliate club and therefor is "recognised by National Sailing Association of that country"

That didn't take much digging.

A visit to the the UK's Companies House website showed that many of the officers of RYSRL are recognisable as members of the RYS with some standing down from their duties as far back as 2014 (presumably having completed their term as a committee member or such) 

If they stood down from their duties in 2014 it is fairly obvious that RYSRL existed way beyond the 3 years requirement of the current protocol.

AS RYSRL handles the RYS racing and they are a prime mover in one of the world's largest 'annual regattas' they might just qualify on count also.

Cowes Week traces its roots back to 1826 so is even older than The Cup itself and around half the daily starts in this regatta of up to 900 boats are from the Squadron line. 

And number of members? Well they are large enough to need a castle as a clubhouse.

I think perhaps the additional conditions for entry in the Protocol are to prevent (or at least discourage) less than 100% Deed of Gift qualified entities or from those who had no real hope of getting to the start line. To administer them costs as much to the budget as a legitimate entry. 

The original George Schuyler did a good job with the Deed of Gift.

To put together such a comprehensive document when he was the sole surviving member of the original syndicate of six New York Yacht Club members who commissioned the Yacht America shows how much The Cup meant to him.

The quote from JALhazmat (nice find by the way) also proves that he was just as keen to use the rules to benefit the defender as any modern holder of The Cup with the NYYC at times choosing the defending yacht on the morning of the race depending on conditions or the challenger facing a whole fleet of NYYC yachts.

Could you imagine ETNZ or RNZYS having 3 or 4 defending boats and racing them all against a challenger at the same time?

Anyway  - back to the thread. From all that I have discovered, the Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Limited challenge for the 36th America's Cup is a compliant challenge and suggestions by some that it is otherwise shows inadequate research on their part.

Pebble thrown in the pond.

SS

RYS Castle.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shanghaisailor said:

The original George Schuyler did a good job with the Deed of Gift.

To put together such a comprehensive document when he was the sole surviving member of the original syndicate of six New York Yacht Club members who commissioned the Yacht America shows how much The Cup meant to him.

The quote from JALhazmat (nice find by the way) also proves that he was just as keen to use the rules to benefit the defender as any modern holder of The Cup with the NYYC at times choosing the defending yacht on the morning of the race depending on conditions or the challenger facing a whole fleet of NYYC yachts.

Could you imagine ETNZ or RNZYS having 3 or 4 defending boats and racing them all against a challenger at the same time?

I think it's important to understand the context of those events.

The first few defenses of the cup were set up to require the challenger to do what the America did...namely, sail across the ocean on her own bottom and defeat an entire fleet of inshore craft from the host club. They were not intended to be fair 1 on 1 fights, they were designed to require the challenger to duplicate the America's feat.

These things seem outrageous from the modern perspective of cup matches being an even 1v1 fight but the reality is that the odds have tilted dramatically towards the challengers over the course of history. It's not a coincidence that no one has defended the cup more than once (consecutively) since 83.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, idontwan2know said:

I think it's important to understand the context of those events.

The first few defenses of the cup were set up to require the challenger to do what the America did...namely, sail across the ocean on her own bottom and defeat an entire fleet of inshore craft from the host club. They were not intended to be fair 1 on 1 fights, they were designed to require the challenger to duplicate the America's feat.

These things seem outrageous from the modern perspective of cup matches being an even 1v1 fight but the reality is that the odds have tilted dramatically towards the challengers over the course of history. It's not a coincidence that no one has defended the cup more than once (consecutively) since 83.

I understand that and had The Cup NOT evolved it probably wouldn't be quite such a draw to challengers or to the mere mortals who find it so fascinating.

I firmly believe the low number of actual challengers on the water is nothing to do with a lack of desire to be there but rather a lack of cash to be able to afford to go the whole road. S & S is an example but thre were approaching double figures of other clubs which expressed interest in AC36 but fell by the wayside pretty early on.

I remember Bob Fisher being interviewed back in about 2017 saying that perhaps a J Class might be less expensive than the modern 'pond skaters' as he called them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most NZ sports clubs are Incorporated Societies which provide them with some tax benefits, as non-profit entities. The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron Inc. is such an entity, but they also operate the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron Nominees Limited, which I would suggest was set up for precisely the same reasons as the RYSRL. Most NZ sports clubs/incorporated societies also operate Limited Liability entities, for obvious reasons.

Nothing to see here - just a wanker of an editor with nothing to do....move along!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, idontwan2know said:

.It's not a coincidence that no one has defended the cup more than once (consecutively) since 83.

No coincidence by being beaten by the better Challenger even with all the advantages (some illegal!!) Defenders since '83 have enjoyed.

Try harder...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites