Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So, if we want to sum up we have to answer two questions, right ?

1) is the RYSRL the same entity that the RYS ? if yes it is ligit

2) if not, has the RYSL standing? which implies, that it is an "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"

As a non lawyer I would say that, even though a child of RYS the RYSRL, it is a different  entity, and I don't know the answer about 2).

But what is worth the opinion of an  SA poster ? Is there a law suit ? not that we know. I think dogwatch is right that they were willing to incorportate it for a better protection.

Tempest in a  teaspoon.

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

So, if we want to sum up we have to answer two questions, right ?

1) is the RYSRL the same entity that the RYS ? if yes it is ligit

2) if not, has the RYSL standing? which implies, that it is an "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"

As a non lawyer I would say that, even though a child of RYS the RYSRL, it is a different  entity, and I don't know the answer about 2).

But what is worth the opinion of an  SA poster ? Is there a law suit ? not that we know. I think dogwatch is right that they were willing to incorportate it for a better protection.

Tempest in a  teaspoon.

 

1 hour ago, dogwatch said:

RYSRL is a different legal entity to RYS. That's the point of it.

RYSRL is an RYA Affiliate Club which has been in existence since before 2014 and runs, at least a large part of the RYS racing (regattas etc) It therefore satisfies the DoG

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

RYSRL is a different legal entity to RYS. That's the point of it.

Was the 2017 challenge (Land Rover BAR) from RYS or RYSRL? If it was from RYS why does it need to be different this time?

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

A word document? Anyone could have written or modified it.

oh no, I am certain we can trust this first time poster, who has obtained a 'leaked' document in a conveniently editable format. 
I think we can all agree to take his word at face value, march over to Auckland and kick INEOS straight out of this cup, and give the naughty boys at ETNZ and LR a smack on the wrists at the same time too.

I think you need to stop with your conspiracy theories about the providence of the document Rennmaus and pay attention to the theories of FACT this chap presents! 

Next you will be suggesting he isn't really George Schuyler! 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mozzy Sails said:

oh no, I am certain we can trust this first time poster, who has obtained a 'leaked' document in a conveniently editable format. 
I think we can all agree to take his word at face value, march over to Auckland and kick INEOS straight out of this cup, and give the naughty boys at ETNZ and LR a smack on the wrists at the same time too.

I think you need to stop with your conspiracy theories about the providence of the document Rennmaus and pay attention to the theories of FACT this chap presents! 

Next you will be suggesting he isn't really George Schuyler! 

so you are saying that George might not actually be the person they purport to be? wtf? you mean anyone could join this forum and create a made up account to support their point of view? 

that kind of system could be open to all sorts of abuse!

be that as it may this person says they are George so best get the legal team fired up and reinstate the Malta challenge as the rightful challengers..

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

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. 

Q: Does the RYSRS Club holds its own annual regattas, or does it run those of the RYS Club? 

Something ‘fun’ to debate, not much else happening while waiting for the 13th ☺️

Link to post
Share on other sites

get Tom on it for more insightful and fully informed gossip mongering.. special guest Magnus.. although toms recent shows he has been very quick to row back on dear old Magnus.:lol:

 

Maybe he could track down the mythical George?

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

I suspect the document is genuine. That doesn't mean the argument it makes is valid.

Correct. It is a party pleading, by nature it is one side of the story. Hopefully the organizer will make any associated arbitration ruling public given the interest in it. 

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

get Tom on it for more insightful and fully informed gossip mongering.. special guest Magnus.. although toms recent shows he has been very quick to row back on dear old Magnus.:lol:

 

Maybe he could track down the mythical George?

My guess, and obviously that’s all it is, is that George is a team rules advisor, or has consulted with one. Surely it is LR-related somehow, given they’d be the most interested party. 
 

Magnus? He’s entertainment. 
 

Tom? He doesn’t think this will fly and that in the far-fetched case it came before the NYSC then they’d say ‘Go race your silly boats’ and try again after, if it’s still any issue. 

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

and its only here for clicks for the Ed not some altruistic higher purpose.

That may be the case but when there’s smoke sometimes there really is a potential fire. If nothing else, ‘Palace Intrigue’ is a clever thread title. 

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

Was the 2017 challenge (Land Rover BAR) from RYS or RYSRL? If it was from RYS why does it need to be different this time?

Neither RYS nor any yacht club in their right mind is going to file the challenge in the club's unlimited legal entity.

Ineos "represents" RYS. The legal entity is not RYS.

RNZYC is defending but they are represented by a legal entity that manages ETNZ.

This has gone professional and long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you tell who organises a regatta. Cowes week for example is organised by a number of clubs. Including RYS, or is it RYSRL? Since it's the same officers. Do you go off who they say they were acting for when they planned it? Or a name of convenience on some publicity material?

Because you would have thought they would want the limited caveat for Cowes week too to prevent suits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I participated in a regatta a few years back which was ostensibly run under the flag of the RYS. However the regatta was actually run by RYSRL.

I suspect this is the case with most events run by the Squadron these days.

As someone said up-thread, "storm in a teacup".

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

I participated in a regatta a few years back which was ostensibly run under the flag of the RYS. However the regatta was actually run by RYSRL.

It’s an interesting nuance, given how they are separate YC’s. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Run is not having.

" 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"

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

Run is not having.

" 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"

Well who else is having it. The club that runs and hosts the event or someone else. Nobody in Auckland is splitting hairs or seeking to throw the Brits out.  This has been the Brtish challenge since they showed up in Bermuda.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And one amusing thought. I highly doubt that the MoD has given RYSR a warrant to allow RYSR members to fly the white ensign on their boats. 

(Yes, I know. Not that it matters with RYS membership and all that).

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

Run is not having.

" 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"

Agreed, ‘run’ is not ‘having.’ They are two separate Yacht Clubs and Deed-wise the YC accepted as a Challenger must be a YC with their own annual regattas. Not a YC that runs some other YC entity’s regattas. 
 

What George suggested is that RNZYS turning the Cup over to a non-qualifying Club would breech the Trust.
 

He also suggested there is culpability to RNZYS if they do allow a Match to happen against a non-legit Club. And the Deed proscribes that the Cup returns to the previous Trustee (GGYC in this case) if the current one breaks the Trust. And LE has moved on, and SNG was the previous Trustee and got busted for something similar but did not actually race CNEV for the Cup. And the previous Trustee was the RNZYS who (if it happens) broke the Trust too... 

 

Rabbit hole? :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if any of that shite went down in the NYSC then are there any bets that ‘ETNZ’ might not morph into E-Dubai or E-Qatar for their next Challenge, to try keep the money train rolling in? 

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

And another amusing (I think) observation.

Rita hasn't got a pig stick....

And another amusing observation: Presuming Ed must be suffering from cabin fever under covid lockdown

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can an organisation not involved in this round of cup initiate a legal challenge against those that have been accepted?

I'm pretty sure any such challenge would be pouring money down a drain, but if it were successful I think it would have the potential to destroy the AC

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

Grant doesn't need to lose a challenger, and we all want to see these boats competing together.

George says that GD had to guarantee 4 teams (Defender included) to qualify for the govt’s $225M investment. What happens if he only had 3? 
 

Patrizio could be chomping at the bit here, game on? 

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

And another amusing observation: Presuming Ed must be suffering from cabin fever under covid lockdown

I imagine he is if he's stuck in London.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Can an organisation not involved in this round of cup initiate a legal challenge against those that have been accepted?

I'm pretty sure any such challenge would be pouring money down a drain, but if it were successful I think it would have the potential to destroy the AC

George addressed that too in his post. He suggests it is possible given that all YC’s are potential beneficiaries and so therefore have standing. 

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

Agreed, ‘run’ is not ‘having.’ They are two separate Yacht Clubs and Deed-wise the YC accepted as a Challenger must be a YC with their own annual regattas. Not a YC that runs some other YC entity’s regattas. 
 

What George suggested is that RNZYS turning the Cup over to a non-qualifying Club would breech the Trust.
 

He also suggested there is culpability to RNZYS if they do allow a Match to happen against a non-legit Club. And the Deed proscribes that the Cup returns to the previous Trustee (GGYC in this case) if the current one breaks the Trust. And LE has moved on, and SNG was the previous Trustee and got busted for something similar but did not actually race CNEV for the Cup. And the previous Trustee was the RNZYS who (if it happens) broke the Trust too... 

 

Rabbit hole? :D 

Some here think it's a story made up by the Ed for clicks, nonsense, we are in the AC.

So, who can it benefit,  NYYC because the cup could return to the trustee ? LR to eliminate a challenger before the CSS ?

I am sure that the NYSC would not interrupt a competition, we have precedent for that, they would say: run you Fu... race and w'll see. So, could it be psychological warfare from LR against both ETNZ and Ineos ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Can an organisation not involved in this round of cup initiate a legal challenge against those that have been accepted?

No.

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

So, who can it benefit ...  LR to eliminate a challenger before the CSS ?

My guess.. LR is very close to an AC Match, after 20 years.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

If it were LR, and they won a legal challenge, Ineos would sue their arse off because as COR they accepted the entry.

The NYSC may not care about any of that since the YC qualification is a stipulation fundamental to the Deed, it is not subject to the MC clauses. 

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

I think that LR will take any means for it and that they have some grudge against Grant.

If this gets pursued then I doubt it will be about any grudges. More likely, it’d be because Patrizio has given the go ahead green light to everyone, rules advisors included, to go All In. 
 

It would be very ‘Italian’ if Prada did let Ineos in, with a secretive understanding of the long-game :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if LR as COR accepted the GB bid, then after Ineos had spent lots of money, LR say they have changed their mind, I think LR or the Italian club or both could be sued for a very large sum of money. 

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

If this gets pursued then I doubt it will be about any grudges. More likely, it’d be because Patrizio has given the go ahead green light to everyone, rules advisors included, to go All In. 

Yep, the timing is perfect, it was released 10 days before the CSS, enough divert Grant and Ben from the race itself.

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

Yep, the timing is perfect, it was released 10 days before the CSS, enough divert Grant and Ben from the race itself.

It will hopefully not affect the guys who are key to the coming racing. But if one or both of ETNZ and Ineos are in doubt for violating AC Trustee issues, well then yes, there will be some Palace Intrigue to play out unless or until we hear from the three remaining parties that there is no argument here and so we should just move on. Good chance NZ media will chomp at the bit and start asking questions! 

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

It will hopefully not affect the guys who are key to the coming racing. But if one or both of ETNZ and Ineos are in doubt for violating AC Trustee issues, well then yes, there will be some Palace Intrigue to play out unless or until we hear from the three remaining parties that there is no argument here and so we should just move on. Good chance NZ media will chomp at the bit and start asking questions! 

Only in your closed Q-anon-conspiracy infected alternative universe :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty simple. Yacht Squadron racing ltd is a company set up as the americas cup team/ racing arm of RYS. This is the ed. making a story out of nothing to try and stir the pot. We as users of the forum are bigger idiots to even entertain it. 

Roll on the racing next week. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DJ4374 said:

Pretty simple. Yacht Squadron racing ltd is a company set up as the americas cup team/ racing arm of RYS. This is the ed. making a story out of nothing to try and stir the pot. We as users of the forum are bigger idiots to even entertain it. 

Roll on the racing next week. 

The question being posed is if, since they are registered as separate YC’s, if the YC they did challenge under is legit. Re-read that post by George, it’s pretty interesting. 
 

I too doubt it will go far, but also think there’s a (small) chance of the issue being explosive. 

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

The question being posed is if, since they are registered as separate YC’s, if the YC they did challenge under is legit. Re-read that post by George, it’s pretty interesting. 
 

I too doubt it will go far, but also think there’s a (small) chance of the issue being explosive. 

Apologies Stingray, my comment wasn't clear enough in answering the question posed, while under a very strict interpretation of the rule there is some cause for discussion. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to expel the challenge or to seriously question its validity. It's definitely interesting. I find the protocol and the DOG interpretations to be an incredibly attractive and intriguing part of the cup, provided that the vast majority of the action remains on the water and not in the court room. 

On a slightly separate note, anybody know who represents ITUK?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 11:35 AM, George Schuyler said:

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

And completely overlooking the fact that LandRover BAR entered and were accepted under the same entity in the 2017 America's Cup. Why did GGYC not reject the entry back in the previous Cup cycle? This situation is not new, and has been widely known for many years - but why does it only comes to prominence a week before a Challenger Final in which GBR have to be favorites to win. It is a commercial device to protect the RYS against financial claim which they may be otherwise unable to do under British Commercial law. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robberzdog said:

And completely overlooking the fact that LandRover BAR entered and were accepted under the same entity in the 2017 America's Cup. Why did GGYC not reject the entry back in the previous Cup cycle?

Yes, that is a ‘precedent’ but would a court care? Additionally, the GYYC did not face the (being again argued to be illegal) RYSYR Club in the actual Match. 

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

The page for the 2019 RYSR members’ regatta is here, FWIW: https://www.rys.org.uk/events/event-details/2019-06-14-rysr-members-regatta-2019

(With reference on that page to the 2018 regatta)

Nice find Presuming Ed - that kyboshes that argument then. The RYSRL is an RYA Affiliate club in its own right. Does anyone in their right mind think that an Affiliate club of a club with the stature of the RYS and with 200 years experience (and multiple challenges for the America's Cup behind them) would make such an elementary error as NOT complying with the Deed of Gift or Protocol requirements  especially when the officers, past and present appear to be ranking members of the parent club.

Has any of the doubters on this forum ever competed in a Cowes Week, or better yet also spent time in front of the Squadron when they are running racing? You would be hard pushed with to find a club with more experience and/or professionalism when running a regatta. When i was younger (much much younger) I did a bit of race officering (at my home club) and to watch the Squadron race management team in action was an education. You don't get that good if you haven't run multiple regattas.

9 hours ago, Mozzy Sails said:

I think you need to stop with your conspiracy theories about the providence of the document Rennmaus and pay attention to the theories of FACT this chap presents! 

Love the juxtaposition of "theories" and "FACT". A theory is just an idea. When a theory becomes a FACT, by definition,  it ceases to be a theory. 

If anyone doubts the care and attention the RYS takes with all aspects of their operation it is worth taking a look at their Bicentenary review on Spirit of Yachting,

Whoever is stirring the mud needs to crawl back into their little insignificant hole. 

 

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

The RYSRL is an RYA Affiliate club in its own right. 

So, separate Clubs. Does the RYSRL run it’s own annual regatta’s? 

Maybe they do, am just curious in the aftermath of the CNEV fiasco. 

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

And completely overlooking the fact that LandRover BAR entered and were accepted under the same entity in the 2017 America's Cup. Why did GGYC not reject the entry back in the previous Cup cycle? This situation is not new, and has been widely known for many years

The fact that it happened before means nothing as far as has not been validated in a court.

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

So, separate Clubs. Does the RYSRL run it’s own annual regatta’s? 

Maybe they do, am just curious in the aftermath of the CNEV fiasco. 

Not separate  - Affiliate = officially attached or connected to an organisation. Doesn't exist without the 'parent'. Part of. Also if you read Presuming Ed's post (which I quoted) you will see that they do indeed also run an 'independent' RYSRL regatta. 

As someone up-thread said - "A Storm in a Teacup". Fuck's sake the Squadron ran the original America's Cup race in 1851 and people are still trying to sow doubts on their entitlement to be there.

Let's face it, had it not been for the Royal Yacht Squadron and their racing heritage there WOULD BE NO America's Cup

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have ever participated in regattas run by the RYS and the NYYC, you know what expertise in both race management and the protocols of yacht racing, including complying with governing documents, is all about. There is a sense of history in those two clubs that you are unlikely to find in many other places.

It is quite remarkable for both the NYYC and the RYS (or its affiliate, if you insist) to be Challengers in the same America's Cup. 

Both are class operations with impeccable credentials. And both have good bars, even if you sometimes have to drink on the porch or the lawn at big events.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

After the Alinghi mess with the non compliant COR, I doubt anyone could be such a total idiot to make a challenge that doesn't meet all the requirements. No way.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2021 at 2:27 AM, shanghaisailor said:

wrong, wrong, probably

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

No. It was a dog. 

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

Yes, Someone has already posted a link to the NOR for one of them. 

https://www.rys.org.uk/assets/documents/nor-members-regatta-2019-v10.pdf

So even if you buy the 'separate clubs' bullshit, its over anyway.

Yes. Jesus, some here far prefer the sounds of their own keystrokes to bothering to read that link, posted several times already.

popping-balloon.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Agreed, ‘run’ is not ‘having.’ They are two separate Yacht Clubs and Deed-wise the YC accepted as a Challenger must be a YC with their own annual regattas. Not a YC that runs some other YC entity’s regattas. 
... 

2nd bold: Hasn't SNG's annual regatta in the Med been run by an affiliate club? Or at least together with one? 

I am not sure, maybe someone around here remembers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Main Man said:

Most ridiculous thread on the site at present...

Not sure. Its a close run thing but I think the argument as to whether polynesian canoes or RN ships were better just edges it

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also also also, just because. 

Some other clubs & organisations listed on companies house, commonly but not exclusively in the form of "Private company limited by guarantee without share capital" include: 

The RYA

Aldeburgh Yacht Club
Arun Yacht Club
Barry Yacht Club
Brighton Marina Yacht Club 
Brixham Yacht Club
City Livery Yacht Club 
Colne Yacht Club
Cowes Corinthian Yacht Club 
Deben Yacht Club
Grimsby And Cleethorpes Yacht Club 
Itchenor Yacht Club 
Lough Erne Yacht Club
Royal Air Force Yacht Club
Royal Artillery Yacht Club
Royal Burnham Yacht Club,
Royal Cinque Ports Yacht Club 
Royal Corinthian Yacht Club 
Royal Harwich Yacht Club 
Royal London Yacht Club 
Royal Lymington Yacht Club 
Royal Naval Club And Royal Albert Yacht Club 
Royal Northumberland Yacht Club
Royal Ocean Racing Club 
Royal Plymouth Corinthian Yacht Club 
Royal Solent Yacht Club 
Royal Southern Yacht Club 
Royal Tay Yacht Club 
Royal Temple Yacht Club 
Royal Thames Yacht Club 
Royal Western Yacht Club 
The Royal Engineer Yacht Club
The Royal Southampton Yacht Club
The Royal Western Yacht Club Of England 
Yacht Club (R.Y.Y.C.) 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Presuming Ed said:

Some other clubs & organisations listed on companies house, commonly but not exclusively in the form of "Private company limited by guarantee without share capital" include:

Pretty much every yacht club in the country (including the Island Sailing Club).

This whole thread is a nonsense. And so typical of Scooter to throw out some vague innuendo and then disappear.

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

Pretty much every yacht club in the country (including the Island Sailing Club).

This whole thread is a nonsense. And so typical of Scooter to throw out some vague innuendo and then disappear.

Agreed. Stupid fucking discussion.

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

Agreed. Stupid fucking discussion.

So let's just let it rot.....along with the "white men" thread it's just a click bait load of crap probably designed to try and get the advertising revenue up.

 

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

You say that like it’s a bad thing?!

To be honest he jumped on the band waggon as soon as it started rolling and will ride it till the music stops. Then the return to vitriol And baseless innuendo will ensue. For that, still a cunt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this on the front page initially very confused as to why such a vague piece would have been written, insinuating everything but actually saying nothing. I presumed it was a post Qanon prank to see what rumours would spread. Checked in to see if anyone had posted any facts about anything.

Nope. 

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

I read this on the front page initially very confused as to why such a vague piece would have been written, insinuating everything but actually saying nothing. I presumed it was a post Qanon prank to see what rumours would spread. Checked in to see if anyone had posted any facts about anything.

Nope. 

Could have been posted assuming that the combined knowledge/sleuthing of this forum brings some facts to light. Well, seems it didn't work out this way, because when there's nothing, even the SAAC intelligence cannot produce something (some posters tried tho).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Presuming Ed said:

Also also also, just because. 

Some other clubs & organisations listed on companies house, commonly but not exclusively in the form of "Private company limited by guarantee without share capital" include: 

The RYA

Aldeburgh Yacht Club
Arun Yacht Club
Barry Yacht Club
Brighton Marina Yacht Club 
Brixham Yacht Club
City Livery Yacht Club 
Colne Yacht Club
Cowes Corinthian Yacht Club 
Deben Yacht Club
Grimsby And Cleethorpes Yacht Club 
Itchenor Yacht Club 
Lough Erne Yacht Club
Royal Air Force Yacht Club
Royal Artillery Yacht Club
Royal Burnham Yacht Club,
Royal Cinque Ports Yacht Club 
Royal Corinthian Yacht Club 
Royal Harwich Yacht Club 
Royal London Yacht Club 
Royal Lymington Yacht Club 
Royal Naval Club And Royal Albert Yacht Club 
Royal Northumberland Yacht Club
Royal Ocean Racing Club 
Royal Plymouth Corinthian Yacht Club 
Royal Solent Yacht Club 
Royal Southern Yacht Club 
Royal Tay Yacht Club 
Royal Temple Yacht Club 
Royal Thames Yacht Club 
Royal Western Yacht Club 
The Royal Engineer Yacht Club
The Royal Southampton Yacht Club
The Royal Western Yacht Club Of England 
Yacht Club (R.Y.Y.C.) 
 

If Itchenor is on the list then it's definitely a dodgy bunch ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Editor WTF dude?

https://sailinganarchy.com/2021/02/03/remember-this/

Quote

The current kerfuffle over the legal standing of a challenging club (or is it company?) is just another chapter in the long history of America’s Cup disputes. 

What kerfuffle? There is no kerfuffle only occasional shitposting on the front page (does it really exist?)

Its been investigated & OKayed by the Arb Panel & shown here definitively that RYSR ltd is now the sailing arm of RYS.

The DoG literally includes 'certificate of incorporation' as an acceptable part of the proof of a Club being legitimate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...