Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, idontwan2know said:

And yet there are plenty of posts showing that people still don't understand it.

Doesn't mean it hasn't been covered, just means some people are dumb.

This is SA, there are always going to be people that don't get shit. Those experienced in the ways of this forum just shrug their shoulders and move on. Mental health and all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’m not calling this out for the sake of ostracizing you, nor to play PC police on a forum that is notorious for the opposite of that. I could just hit ignore, delete or whatever. I’m calling this out

Hilarious to watch Kiwis who've been around since AC35 twist themselves into intellectual pretzels to give ETNZ a pass on what they screamed bloody murder about when Oracle did it. Even Oracle di

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet? This must set some new kind of SA record??! (... probably not )

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

Has nothing to do with legalese, the situation was special. Looks like I have to dig out the chronology I describes in that other post again.
The AC33 match was delayed due to the parties going through all instances, therefore  - other than initially planned (10 months) - it took place in the NH winter. There was more to it, but I am to lazy now to explain it again.

 

Here's the longer version: 

 

You edited after I responded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Advocate said:

You seem to know your shit. Who could the other interested parties be?

That's a very good question. Probably prior trustees. When Royal Perth Yacht Club petitioned in 1985 to amend the Deed to allow sailing between certain dates in the southern hemisphere, they included the NYYC in the matter (along with the NY Attorney General). 

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

+1

Americans get do caught up with precedence and their inability to change that they loose sight of that is does happen.

Completely agree that the advance planning will be shit canned.

Firstly, all legal systems in all Western Democracies governed by the rule of law place a great deal of importance on precedence and the written content of laws, contracts and legal deeds. Society is entitled to rely on law consistently applied and contracts etc as written.

That said the US legal system has adapted to new technology and a changing world much better than many other legal systems, which is why the US has remained a nation of innovation.

That said......the donor set up a gift and any requested amendment will likely consider the intent of the donor. 

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

Firstly, all legal systems in all Western Democracies governed by the rule of law place a great deal of importance on precedence and the written content of laws, contracts and legal deeds. Society is entitled to rely on law consistently applied and contracts etc as written.

That said the US legal system has adapted to new technology and a changing world much better than many other legal systems, which is why the US has remained a nation of innovation.

That said......the donor set up a gift and any requested amendment will likely consider the intent of the donor. 

The legal saying for that is "pouring new wine into old bottles." 

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

 

That said the US legal system has adapted to new technology and a changing world much better than many other legal systems, which is why the US has remained a nation of innovation.

Just spat my chips out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Advocate said:

I think I vaguely remember your post. Shows shit can be changed and it isn't as set in stone as people think.

It can be changed, although the Deed allows MC changes of dates and courses (interpreted as season and venue).

If I understood correctly, the Deed can be changed if
- the actual core/meaning/wish/callitwhatyouwant of the trust is not changed
- the change is not to the detriment of any of the trustees
- it meets some other requirements I do not know/forgot 
 

10 minutes ago, porthos said:

I may be confused, Rennmaus, but the Deed was amended by the court in 1985 after mutual agreement of all interested parties that the Deed needed to cover sailing in the southern hemisphere (which it had not before and was never an issue). I don't recall if the issue came up in the AC33 litigation.

Apologies, it was me who misunderstood. You are right, the SH clause was added by the NYSC. The Deed was changed, as well as years earlier deleting the "own bottom" clause.
That very issue was solved in AC33 by perceived MC.
 

6 minutes ago, The Advocate said:

You edited after I responded.

I did, because I found the post. Man, you were fast to respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, strider470 said:

According to my dietician, more than one. :D

When you get here I'll add to the list and stuff a skippy pie in your gob, I don't think your dietician would object lol

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

I did, because I found the post. Man, you were fast to respond.

Thank you for your effort, will reread it in the morning. I have moments of blistering pace followed by long periods of sloth pace lol

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

Thank you for your effort, will reread it in the morning. I have moments of blistering pace followed by long periods of sloth pace lol

Al good, it's not spectacular.
Nice little legal brain acrobatics again... It's interesting how this all will turn out (while there's not sailing competition anyway).

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

Al good, it's not spectacular.
Nice little legal brain acrobatics again... It's interesting how this all will turn out (while there's not sailing competition anyway).

Indeed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Times.UK says being CoR is more a "Curse" than a "Blessing" well sort of for INEOS TEAM UK

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/america-s-cup-being-challenger-of-record-brings-its-own-problems-for-ben-ainslie-and-ineos-dd3twv82w

History is certainly against INEOS & Ben when you are the CoR.

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

That was not a change of the Deed, it was a specialty during the AC33 litigation I explained already in another post. It was based on a presumed MC between SNG and GGYC and is deemed Deed legal:

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived." 

The deed was certainly amended and permanently changed. The current version of the DoG accounts for different hemispheres. NZ doesn't need to keep getting permission or agreeing to dates. 

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

+1

Americans get do caught up with precedence and their inability to change that they loose sight of that is does happen.

Completely agree that the advance planning will be shit canned.

See Korematsu vs. United States.  It is considered the worst adjudication in the history of the USA. (TLDR, in WWII the US Supreme Court ruled that it was legal to round up and imprision anyone that looked Asian).

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Firstly, all legal systems in all Western Democracies governed by the rule of law place a great deal of importance on precedence and the written content of laws, contracts and legal deeds. Society is entitled to rely on law consistently applied and contracts etc as written.

That said the US legal system has adapted to new technology and a changing world much better than many other legal systems, which is why the US has remained a nation of innovation.

That said......the donor set up a gift and any requested amendment will likely consider the intent of the donor. 

Germany's legal system rarely uses precedences, maybe due to the federal state. You can have a completely different decision in Hamburg from one in Munich for the same offense.

8 minutes ago, IPLore said:

What amendments is everyone thinking needs making to the deed?

Good question.
I think the Deed is good as it is; it's just the "users" that mistreat it. If it needs changes at all, things could be specified, e.g. what "having" means, what amount of CiC needs to be applied to the boats, if "courses" also includes "venues", things like that.

I am curious about the replies of Advocat and others. They are probably food for thought.

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

The deed was certainly amended and permanently changed. The current version of the DoG accounts for different hemispheres. NZ doesn't need to keep getting permission or agreeing to dates. 

 

51 minutes ago, porthos said:

That's a very good question. Probably prior trustees. When Royal Perth Yacht Club petitioned in 1985 to amend the Deed to allow sailing between certain dates in the southern hemisphere, they included the NYYC in the matter (along with the NY Attorney General). 

That was an uncontroversial amendment and clearly fit the intent of the original gift.

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

Things are a little more complicated than that. The rules that govern courts when interpreting a trust document are not the same thing as requesting an amendment to a trust. Precedence applies to interpretation of the Deed, but not to amendments.  Because the Deed created a charitable trust, the trust is subject to the laws governing trusts in the State of New York. Under those trust laws, interested parties can petition the courts in NY to amend the trust, which has happened on two occasions. 

Sure, its an amendment and not an alteration...  but the amendment directly contradicts the original DoG.  So, in this instance it has the same effect as altering the original document. 

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

Sure, its an amendment and not an alteration...  but the amendment directly contradicts the original DoG.  So, in this instance it has the same effect as altering the original document. 

An amendment is an alteration.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

Good question.
I think the Deed is good as it is; it's just the "users" that mistreat it. If it needs changes at all, things could be specified, e.g. what "having" means, what amount of CiC needs to be applied to the boats, if "courses" also includes "venues", things like that.

I am curious about the replies of Advocat and others. They are probably food for thought.

There has been surprisingly little litigation involving the Deed given how long it has been around. To me, that evidences a well-written document that pretty much everyone understands. That's good. In other words, nothing in the current records suggests the need to change anything.

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

The deed was certainly amended and permanently changed. The current version of the DoG accounts for different hemispheres. NZ doesn't need to keep getting permission or agreeing to dates. 

My reply to the OP said exactly that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, strider470 said:


It would be like discovering that Santa Claus sexually abused Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen. Christmas will never be the same. ;)

In the absence of sheep, reindeers. Why not!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rennmaus said:

That was not a change of the Deed, it was a specialty during the AC33 litigation I explained already in another post. It was based on a presumed MC between SNG and GGYC and is deemed Deed legal:

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived." 

You mean here, where you said the deed wasn't changed?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

You mean here, where you said the deed wasn't changed?  

You should put me off ignore if you want to read my posts. If not, please don't read any.
Everyone who is here a bit longer and has more than two brain cells knows that the Deed has been changed. It was a fucking misunderstanding.

Here my reply to both, The Advocate and Porthos:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, porthos said:

There has been surprisingly little litigation involving the Deed given how long it has been around. To me, that evidences a well-written document that pretty much everyone understands. That's good. In other words, nothing in the current records suggests the need to change anything.

Hmmm. There has been more litigation surrounding the AC than any other yachting trophy.

Leaving aside the Dunraven episodes , in modern history we had Mercury Bay and then Golden Gate.

  Mercury Bay vs SDYC was long , painful and drawn out all the way to Court of Appeal.

Golden gate vs Allinghis club involved a series of suits that went on for 3 years starting with whether the Challenging club was a legitimate challenger but even after that was decided, they were in court arguing over location (remember it was going to be in some Emirate state) and even whether Allighi could use North sails or not was taken to court.  

However what makes the DoG work when it is working is the mutual consent clause.  The best formula for a successful cup is good relationship between challenger of record and defender.  The less role the DoG has to play, the better.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So after the awful law suits of Mercury Bay and GGYC, I can say that the best thing for the cup is to have a sensible challanger and defender who write clear protocols and keep the whole thing out of court as far as possible.

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

 

Hmmm. There has been more litigation surrounding the AC than any other yachting trophy.

Leaving aside the Dunraven episodes , in modern history we had Mercury Bay and then Golden Gate.

  Mercury Bay vs SDYC was long , painful and drawn out all the way to Court of Appeal.

Golden gate vs Allinghis club involved a series of suits that went on for 3 years starting with whether the Challenging club was a legitimate challenger but even after that was decided, they were in court arguing over location (remember it was going to be in some Emirate state) and even whether Allighi could use North sails or not was taken to court.  

However what makes the DoG work when it is working is the mutual consent clause.  The best formula for a successful cup is good relationship between challenger of record and defender.  The less role the DoG has to play, the better.

 

I can't speak to other yachting trophies, but I am certainly familiar with the amount of litigation you would expect to see over old documents.  Only having a handful of court cases over a contract that is, in parts, over 160 years old and that has formed the basis for 36 events over that time is a small amount of litigation by any legal standard. Mercury Bay and the AC33 litigation are notable as the exception, not the rule.  This has been a remarkably stable process from a legal standpoint.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

You should put me off ignore if you want to read my posts. If not, please don't read any.
Everyone who is here a bit longer and has more than two brain cells knows that the Deed has been changed. It was a fucking misunderstanding.

Here my reply to both, The Advocate and Porthos:

 

I'm not sure why you're getting so upset and I have no idea what you're trying to say about ignoring posts...  or not ignoring posts.  Its confusing. 

Also, you said that the DoG wasn't changed to allow for southern hemisphere sailing in summer. You said it was just MC.  

I said that in fact it was changed and is now a permanent part of the DoG; no MC is required. 

Then you said, "yeah, that's what I said"...  Then I showed you where you said the opposite and you get all pissy. 

I accept your assertion that it was a misunderstanding. Fair enough. But please don't get pissed at me reading what you wrote and responding accordingly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a little bit dubious for me to accept that ETNZ & INEOS need 8 freaking months to set up a Protocol for AC37!

ETNZ won in Bermuda 2017 on 26th June and the Protocol governing AC36 was published September 29th 2017.

Now, for AC37 they need more time than for AC36?

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

I can't speak to other yachting trophies, but I am certainly familiar with the amount of litigation you would expect to see over old documents.  Only having a handful of court cases over a contract that is, in parts, over 160 years old and that has formed the basis for 36 events over that time is a small amount of litigation by any legal standard. Mercury Bay and the AC33 litigation are notable as the exception, not the rule.  This has been a remarkably stable process from a legal standpoint.

True .  The masterstroke was building in the mutual consent clauses .

I was merely observing that the benchmark is probably not family trusts, estates or commercial contracts.  It is after all a gift of a silver cup for friendly yacht racing.  

The deed kind of works, almost because it's terms are so dated that it incentivizes mutual consent.

The angst by some on this forum is caused by the fact that the Deed did not contemplate multiple challengers and thus there is no requirement for the defender and challenger to have a challenger series , which has become a feature of the cup since the 12 meters.

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

It's a little bit dubious for me to accept that ETNZ & INEOS need 8 freaking months to set up a Protocol for AC37!

ETNZ won in Bermuda 2017 on 26th June and the Protocol governing AC36 was published September 29th 2017.

Now, for AC37 they need more time than for AC36?

In 2017 Def and CoR had a different relationship, and CoR wasn't ITUK.;)
My (uneducated) guess is they're coming out in December with the AC38 protocol, not the AC37.

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

I'm not sure why you're getting so upset and I have no idea what you're trying to say about ignoring posts...  or not ignoring posts.  Its confusing. 

Also, you said that the DoG wasn't changed to allow for southern hemisphere sailing in summer. You said it was just MC.  

I said that in fact it was changed and is now a permanent part of the DoG; no MC is required. 

Then you said, "yeah, that's what I said"...  Then I showed you where you said the opposite and you get all pissy. 

I accept your assertion that it was a misunderstanding. Fair enough. But please don't get pissed at me reading what you wrote and responding accordingly. 

I will write very slowly for you. It was a misunderstanding. When Portos and Advocat wrote about the hemi clause, I immediately thought of VLC in Feb during AC33. Which was unusual. But, thinking of this incidence was a    m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g.

When one of those posters clarified what he/she meant, I apologized and corrected my assessment.

Again: Bold: I corrected that misunderstanding. I thought, they were talking about VLC in Feb. Of course there's a SH clause in the DoG that was added later.

Italic: You just have not read my correction, but were still claiming I denied the SH clause in the Deed. As you did again in the bold part above.

Please, can we stop now?
I confess: The Deed was changed, it has an SH clause that was added later.
VLC in Feb was agreed by MC, no Deed change required.

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

In 2017 Def and CoR had a different relationship, and CoR wasn't ITUK.;)
My (uneducated) guess is they're coming out in December with the AC38 protocol, not the AC37.

So you do think that there will be a 1 - 1 around the Isle of Wight in 2022?

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

It's a little bit dubious for me to accept that ETNZ & INEOS need 8 freaking months to set up a Protocol for AC37!

ETNZ won in Bermuda 2017 on 26th June and the Protocol governing AC36 was published September 29th 2017.

Now, for AC37 they need more time than for AC36?

Room to under promise and over deliver?

They could be earlier.  I think the biggest decision will be location.

 

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

It's a little bit dubious for me to accept that ETNZ & INEOS need 8 freaking months to set up a Protocol for AC37!

ETNZ won in Bermuda 2017 on 26th June and the Protocol governing AC36 was published September 29th 2017.

Now, for AC37 they need more time than for AC36?

Mind you, they need to write two protocols, this takes its time ;).

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

In 2017 Def and CoR had a different relationship, and CoR wasn't ITUK.;)
My (uneducated) guess is they're coming out in December with the AC38 protocol, not the AC37.

If that is the case -- if they come out with the Protocol for AC38 before AC37 is done -- I would be very pleasantly surprised if someone doesn't challenge it as violative of the Deed.

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

If that is the case -- if they come out with the Protocol for AC38 before AC37 is done -- I would be very pleasantly surprised if someone doesn't challenge it as violative of the Deed.

Yes, they can't do that! It's prohibited!

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

So you do think that there will be a 1 - 1 around the Isle of Wight in 2022?

The 1 v 1 rumor that came out on day1 was so unbelievable, pointless and absurd that actually ended out being likely.
Or they're just taking 8 months to test the modified AC75 in order to get some advantage before publishing a Protocol that prevent it for everybody else. Who knows.

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

So you do think that there will be a 1 - 1 around the Isle of Wight in 2022?

No that would be daft and a complete waste of the value of the franchise.

My best guess.  An ACWS in AC 75s at several spectacular locations and then an AC final either in Auckland or some extremely wealthy and desirable 3rd location. My bet is that Auckland gets the nod but it will need some big time sponsorship and TV deals.

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

If that is the case -- if they come out with the Protocol for AC38 before AC37 is done -- I would be very pleasantly surprised if someone doesn't challenge it as violative of the Deed.

 

3 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

Yes, they can't do that! It's prohibited!

 

Don't get me wrong: they'll publish an AC37 Protocol but with no other challengers involved it will became, after an eventual 1 v 1, the AC38 protocol. CTRL+C  CTRL+V 

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

I will write very slowly for you. It was a misunderstanding. When Portos and Advocat wrote about the hemi clause, I immediately thought of VLC in Feb during AC33. Which was unusual. But, thinking of this incidence was a    m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g.

When one of those posters clarified what he/she meant, I apologized and corrected my assessment.

Again: Bold: I corrected that misunderstanding. I thought, they were talking about VLC in Feb. Of course there's a SH clause in the DoG that was added later.

Italic: You just have not read my correction, but were still claiming I denied the SH clause in the Deed. As you did again in the bold part above.

Please, can we stop now?
I confess: The Deed was changed, it has an SH clause that was added later.
VLC in Feb was agreed by MC, no Deed change required.

Gotcha. Thanks. Sorry for my confusion.  Also, I probably made my initial comment prior to reading your later comments.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, porthos said:

If that is the case -- if they come out with the Protocol for AC38 before AC37 is done -- I would be very pleasantly surprised if someone doesn't challenge it as violative of the Deed.

How does that violate the DoG?  My and my buddy can write the protocol for AC42 if we want.  That doesn't break any rules.  Rather, its just a meaningless piece of paper.  Any work on the protocol for AC38 (released to the public or not) is just preparatory but has no legal bearing. 

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

 

 

Don't get me wrong: they'll publish an AC37 Protocol but with no other challengers involved it will became, after an eventual 1 v 1, the AC38 protocol. CTRL+C  CTRL+V 

If AC37 is a 1v1 around the Isle of Wright (as rumored), the protocol for AC38 will have to be substantially more involved as it will have to contain stuff for a CSS and would surely have a different court.  So it cant just be ctrl + c, ctrl + v.

But my original point is if this is the order of events -- AC37 protocol published, AC38 protocol published, AC37 event -- I expect someone to challenge that as not permitted by the Deed.  

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

 

But my original point is if this is the order of events -- AC37 protocol published, AC38 protocol published, AC37 event -- I expect someone to challenge that as not permitted by the Deed.  

I think the sailing world would love this.  The protocol for AC38 would have no legal bearing. It would merely be an advanced copy of the probable future protocol. It wouldn't come into effect until the conclusion of AC37.  

So, really it would serve the competition by giving them a head start on their campaigns. Who would (and how can) anyone object to that?

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

If AC37 is a 1v1 around the Isle of Wright (as rumored), the protocol for AC38 will have to be substantially more involved as it will have to contain stuff for a CSS and would surely have a different court.  So it cant just be ctrl + c, ctrl + v.

But my original point is if this is the order of events -- AC37 protocol published, AC38 protocol published, AC37 event -- I expect someone to challenge that as not permitted by the Deed.  

Who could that be, who has the funds?

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

How does that violate the DoG?  My and my buddy can write the protocol for AC42 if we want.  That doesn't break any rules.  Rather, its just a meaningless piece of paper.  Any work on the protocol for AC38 (released to the public or not) is just preparatory but has no legal bearing. 

The argument would be that the Protocol only comes into being via the "mutual consent" clause of the Deed, and "mutual consent" in turn requires a challenger and defender. The Deed also prohibits any new challenge for the Cup to be considered until the current challenge is completed. So until AC37 is done, there is no challenger or defender for AC38, and if there is no challenger or defender for AC38 there can be no mutual consent and no protocol. 

Now, ETNZ and INEOS can certainly publish the AC38 protocol early and say "this is what we intend to use," but they can't bind anyone to it until AC37 is done. From the press release ("agreeing to the AC75 is a condition of entry"), it sounds like ETNZ and INEOS are planning on binding teams to the format of the event in AC38 before AC37 is done. I guess we'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll take some screenshots of people's reaction to the 1 - 1 match hypothesis here and post them in a few years when some new defenders do the same, excluding TNZ and UK from the challengers.  :D

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

I think the sailing world would love this.  The protocol for AC38 would have no legal bearing. It would merely be an advanced copy of the probable future protocol. It wouldn't come into effect until the conclusion of AC37.  

So, really it would serve the competition by giving them a head start on their campaigns. Who would (and how can) anyone object to that?

Could very well be and I hope that is the case.  But here is the potential rub: are you going to invest $75,000,000 on a non-binding promise? That's a gamble.  "Trust us -- I know we are publishing this protocol for AC38 three years in advance, and we are going to hold another AC before that with just us, and until we are done with that this isn't binding, and please ignore that this event has a history of some shitfuckery occurring, so please just send us $1,000,000 and get busy with your team."

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

Could very well be and I hope that is the case.  But here is the potential rub: are you going to invest $75,000,000 on a non-binding promise? That's a gamble.  "Trust us -- I know we are publishing this protocol for AC38 three years in advance, and we are going to hold another AC before that with just us, and until we are done with that this isn't binding, and please ignore that this event has a history of some shitfuckery occurring, so please just get busy with your team."

I totally  agree. It would be almost impossible to find a sponsor until a proper protocol is published and legally valid...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, strider470 said:

I think I'll take some screenshots of people's reaction to the 1 - 1 match hypothesis here and post them in a few years when some new defenders do the same, excluding TNZ and UK from the challengers.  :D

The Italians will never win the Cup just like the Brits will never win it. That's a BOLD Prediction from me.

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

The Italians will never win the Cup just like the Brits will never win it. That's a BOLD Prediction from me.

I disagree. BOLD is in capital letters. This is bold

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

Yes, they can't do that! It's prohibited!

 

Let's look at this carefully.  The Deed says:

 

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent,make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to ... any and all other conditions of the match,

The deed also says :  "no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided."

The press release regarding AC37 says that a condition of entry for AC 38 is agreeing that the AC75 will be the class of yacht for AC 37  and AC38.

The AC75 has been chosen for AC 37, so that part is moot and doesnt transgress any part of the DoG, and falls under the MC clause.

If AC 37 is just a 1 vs 1, then the condition of entry requirement is moot because there will be no other entries.  

Can RYS and RNZYC agree ahead of time that they will use AC75s in AC 38?   They can agree but can they make that agreement binding on each other? One question revolves around "considered". Almost every challenge of the last few decades is contemplated before the end of the prior event, because the challenge is extensively discussed and then presented with seconds of the finish of the event. RNZYC even tells us that they turn off emails and phones so that they only receive the challenge that they have already discussed and got outline heads of agreement on.    Clearly the outline terms issues have been considered.  I think the word considered her is used in its meaning as accepted. A new challenge cannot be accepted until the prior event is finished.   

The challenge for AC 37 specified AC 75s   A challenge for AC38 cannot be accepted until AC 37 is complete.  It is highly likely that outline protocols have been agreed before events are completed. The question is , can the challenger and defender publish those draft protocols, although they are not binding until the challenge is actually accepted.

Lets examine if there is a multi challenger AC37.  Can the entry terms specify that who ever wins, they must only accept a challenge from a YC that will mutually agree to use the AC75s?  Can a bnding contract exist that If LR wins must they only accept a challenge from a club that has previously agreed to use the AC75?  Can such a term be put in an entry and be binding?

In Bermuda when all the teams except NZ agreed to continue using the AC45 before the event was over, was this somehow in breach of the deed?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If both teams agree could they hold this in the Northern Hemisphere after 1st Nov? Or before the 10 month period? Or would that bring into question the validity of the DoG? 

I.e could another team go to the NYSC and say the challenge is void? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, G-Shack said:

If both teams agree could they hold this in the Northern Hemisphere after 1st Nov? Or before the 10 month period? Or would that bring into question the validity of the DoG? 

I.e could another team go to the NYSC and say the challenge is void? 

Here:
DoG.pdf

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

Here:
DoG.pdf

I've read it. Otherwise it would have been a good guess to know about a 10 month notice period and restrictions on dates based on Hemisphere.

The question is, if both CoR and Defender are happy to break it can another team challenge and override the original CoR? I would assume yes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming for a moment that AC37 is a multichallenge event and assuming that RYS , RNZYC and the likely challengers share the laudable goal of providing some certainty/consistency of using AC75s for both AC37 and AC38. This will make the investment in attending 37 more worth while because it is a 2 cycle investment in the technology etc.

How would they go about achieving that goal.

One of the teams will be the defender and as defender they can choose their challenger.  So a team that supports the AC75 will likely ensure that the AC 75 will be selected. How to nake that legally binding is very hard.

All of the entering teams could sign a commitment saying they will seek to achieve mutual consent with a challenger to select the AC75.  Can it be a binding contract?   If the contract did not consider or contemplate a specific challenger, but merely agreed that this would be a term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much is it possible that Ineos won't deliberately find an agreement and go to a DoG match where they can outspend ETNZ ? 

I really don't understand how ETNZ could pick the wealthiest challenger as CoR, especially in this moment when Emirates sponsorship is in jeopardy (or at least, that's the rumor, I hope it won't be the case). 

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

I've read it. Otherwise it would have been a good guess to know about a 10 month notice period and restrictions on dates based on Hemisphere.

The question is, if both CoR and Defender are happy to break it can another team challenge and override the original CoR? I would assume yes. 

From the DoG:
"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived. "

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if/when there is a DoG challenge again, with foiling technology as it is now, what do we think a DoG boat would look like?

The competing yachts or vessels, if of one mast, shall be not less than  forty-four feet nor more than ninety feet on the load water line; if of more than one mast, they shall be not less than eighty feet nor more than one hundred and fifteen feet on the load water line.

I'm not sure that "load water line" is a good determinant of speed any more. 

Put another way, if you wanted to design a boat that could beat an AC75 on an ocean course in undefined weather conditions in a 3 race series, then what would it be? Surely not a 90ft trimaran!

I have no idea really, other than to think it would not be much different from an AC75

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

It's a little bit dubious for me to accept that ETNZ & INEOS need 8 freaking months to set up a Protocol for AC37!

ETNZ won in Bermuda 2017 on 26th June and the Protocol governing AC36 was published September 29th 2017.

Now, for AC37 they need more time than for AC36?

My best guess:

Dalton wants to run the next event in Auckland, multiple challengers, the works, but the money isn't there to do it. So he needs time to go back to the NZ Government, sponsors etc, and ask them for money.

I'm sure the NZ Government would love to have the event back, it's showcased the country very well, especially when most of the rest of the World is still in Covid lockdown. They may not be so keen on spending a load of their taxpayer's money though, so any negotiation with them is going to be tough. Ditto other sponsors.

What Dalton needs is a way to strengthen his negotiating position, and the only way to do that is by threatening to walk away. Anyone with kids knows that there's no point threatening something unless you're willing and able to carry it out, so he needs a viable alternative that everyone can see will actually work. In step Ineos, possibly the only syndicate with enough funding already in place to be able to host an event any time they want. Now Dalton has his leverage; he can threaten to take the event away from Auckland if necessary, and everyone know he has the ability to carry out that threat.

I'm quite sure he doesn't want to hold it elsewhere - AC75s off North Head was always the vision - but his best chance of doing it again, hopefully with more boats, relies on having a viable alternative. Now he has to take that to the negotiating table, which is why he also needs 6-8 months; those negotiations need time to play out.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dave S said:

My best guess:

Dalton wants to run the next event in Auckland, multiple challengers, the works, but the money isn't there to do it. So he needs time to go back to the NZ Government, sponsors etc, and ask them for money.

I'm sure the NZ Government would love to have the event back, it's showcased the country very well, especially when most of the rest of the World is still in Covid lockdown. They may not be so keen on spending a load of their taxpayer's money though, so any negotiation with them is going to be tough. Ditto other sponsors.

What Dalton needs is a way to strengthen his negotiating position, and the only way to do that is by threatening to walk away. Anyone with kids knows that there's no point threatening something unless you're willing and able to carry it out, so he needs a viable alternative that everyone can see will actually work. In step Ineos, possibly the only syndicate with enough funding already in place to be able to host an event any time they want. Now Dalton has his leverage; he can threaten to take the event away from Auckland if necessary, and everyone know he has the ability to carry out that threat.

I'm quite sure he doesn't want to hold it elsewhere - AC75s off North Head was always the vision - but his best chance of doing it again, hopefully with more boats, relies on having a viable alternative. Now he has to take that to the negotiating table, which is why he also needs 6-8 months; those negotiations need time to play out.

It's pretty likely, but I won't underestimate the chance given to the CoR of making a mess out of it. 
I still find incredible that ETNZ have funding issues (pretty sure there's enough money in NZ -private money - to keep the team alive), but that's a different subject.
Just consider that every month of Protocol delay after, let's say, July is one more challenger that loose interest in challenging. It's OK to retain some advantage for CoR and Def, but 8 months will be way too much for new challengers to get seriously in the game.

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

My best guess:

Dalton wants to run the next event in Auckland, multiple challengers, the works, but the money isn't there to do it. So he needs time to go back to the NZ Government, sponsors etc, and ask them for money.

I'm sure the NZ Government would love to have the event back, it's showcased the country very well, especially when most of the rest of the World is still in Covid lockdown. They may not be so keen on spending a load of their taxpayer's money though, so any negotiation with them is going to be tough. Ditto other sponsors.

What Dalton needs is a way to strengthen his negotiating position, and the only way to do that is by threatening to walk away. Anyone with kids knows that there's no point threatening something unless you're willing and able to carry it out, so he needs a viable alternative that everyone can see will actually work. In step Ineos, possibly the only syndicate with enough funding already in place to be able to host an event any time they want. Now Dalton has his leverage; he can threaten to take the event away from Auckland if necessary, and everyone know he has the ability to carry out that threat.

I'm quite sure he doesn't want to hold it elsewhere - AC75s off North Head was always the vision - but his best chance of doing it again, hopefully with more boats, relies on having a viable alternative. Now he has to take that to the negotiating table, which is why he also needs 6-8 months; those negotiations need time to play out.

Uhm, I don't think that could work if Emirates walks away. I mean, yes, he wants to force the NZ Govern to give him more funding. But not with a 1 vs 1 Cup against Ineos where the one paying for everything is.... Ineos. 

The 1 vs 1 match is simply nonsense, especially for a team like ETNZ in search of new benefactors. 

Holding the Cup in another location instead is a much more effective threat. But will Ineos agree with that ? 

That's why, again, Ineos is the worst choice as CoR. ETNZ wants a great Cup, with a lot of Challengers, in Auckland or in a location that can subsidize the team and bring in new sponsors. They want the best event possible, in order to have more money.

Ineos doesn't care about fundings, they  don't need other challengers or sponsors, or a location that offers a lot of money to host the event. And, again, this is the America's Cup. They have more money, they'll want to use this advantage. It's perfectly fine. They simply want to win. I couldn't blame them.

I think the best CoR for ETNZ would be a new team with a medium budget, keen to continue with AC75. A team that shared the same ideas as ETNZ in exchange for technological support.

Of course, I hope the brits and ETNZ will put together a great AC37. 

 

 

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

How much is it possible that Ineos won't deliberately find an agreement and go to a DoG match where they can outspend ETNZ ? 

I really don't understand how ETNZ could pick the wealthiest challenger as CoR, especially in this moment when Emirates sponsorship is in jeopardy (or at least, that's the rumor, I hope it won't be the case). 

Zero possibility.  

The Royal Yacht Squadron is a 200 year old institution,  which places overarching importance on its reputation for integrity.

Their members lost the cup with dignity 150 years ago and they have no interest in winning it back in any other way.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there will be this 1 - 1 match, and I'll have to chose my favourite team... I will root for the Isle of Wight instead :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Zero possibility.  

The Royal Yacht Squadron is a 200 year old institution,  which places overarching importance on its reputation for integrity.

Their members lost the cup with dignity 150 years ago and they have no interest in winning it back in any other way.

From a Defender that does not defend in its home waters. The reputation for integrity can be destroyed by one greedy decision.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Zero possibility.  

The Royal Yacht Squadron is a 200 year old institution,  which places overarching importance on its reputation for integrity.

Their members lost the cup with dignity 150 years ago and they have no interest in winning it back in any other way.

 

 

I hope you are right. However, I didn't want to be disrespectful to an institution in the history of sailing.

I think there would be nothing wrong if they wanted to do such a thing anyway.

It is their right to win in every way, I think this is the true spirit of the America's Cup.

Regarding Ineos, for now I think the same way of Cassandra: I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts. :D

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

Regarding Ineos, for now I think the same way of Cassandra: I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts. :D

Especially deed of gifts

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you all put too much Machiavellian intent to Grant Dalton.

 I dont think he is looking at alternatives as some way of blackmailing  his home country for more government support. 

 Im sure his first choice would be to find substantial sponsors for an event hosted in NZ. Government help would be nice but he knows that the money involved needs more than government subsidy.

But he is also responsibly looking at all the alternatives.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, strider470 said:

Why not a Cup in 1 year but with all the teams involved? This would be good also for the AM that couldn't even be competitive.

What will YOU Do for LBYC ???

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before BerMUDah

DAGO was a Contender spending heeps to put together a Package

Net Result FAKING OUT BerMUDah into out bidding = FAIL

Going to BerMUDah caused a Massive - FUCK larry, FUCK wussel, FUCK GGYC campaigne

Look for a FAKE-OUT to suck NZL Pubic Funds

Or NZL and most the world saying FUCK ALL-DAT

 

I Call a Fake-Out

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DA-WOODY said:

What will YOU Do for LBYC ???

 

Sorry, I don't understand the question. In this hypothesis of 2 cups open to every challenger, if they wish to participate and they have the necessary funds, they could buy a B1 from one of the other challengers and begin their development from there. The first cup to learn and in the second one, they could be competitive.

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

From a Defender that does not defend in its home waters. The reputation for integrity can be destroyed by one greedy decision.

I don’t think it’s greed more so than survival. And I don’t like it as it’s suggested but I have a funny feeling that there will be further turns along this road. 

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

I just hope the Poms win and then tell him to fuck off over the 'agreement' to go back to NZ. Serve Dalts right to be treated like the cunt he is turning into.

Well, honestly, if they do this kind of shit racing, they deserve to loose the cup. But I am sure they won't, they will race using current boats just for the show (and money). If LR trashed the brits 7-1, we all know that NZ will keep the cup, while BA and his "Rat" friend will have a glorious moment to let the Brits smell the mug after 170 years. Forcing other teams to keep development on hold for one year more, with all the costs this entails. 

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

From a Defender that does not defend in its home waters. The reputation for integrity can be destroyed by one greedy decision.

Not sure I follow.  RYS has never had the privilege of defending since they lost the cup for America.

There have been two times when defending clubs have hosted a defense away from their home location.

The first was when the Geneve Yacht Club (Societe Nautique de Geneva) hosted their defense in Valencia, Spain rather than on Lake Geneva. I didnt pay much attention to that event but  I think most people at the time thought Valencia was a very successful event. There were what, 11 or 12 challengers in a custom built facility and some good racing.

The second was when GGYC moved their defense from San Francisco to Bermuda.  Bermuda was also a great location. I actually went out and watched.  I am proud of being American but I had no problem with the event being held in a great vacation spot with good sailing and great spectating. I could still support my American team...and respect the fantastic kiwi challenge and victory. 

I can understand the desire to host in Auckland again because kiwis were denied the tourist dollars by covid, but it is not unwise of NZ to look at other locations.....

 

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

I don’t think it’s greed more so than survival. And I don’t like it as it’s suggested but I have a funny feeling that there will be further turns along this road. 

We were talking about the RYS (not RNZYS), and "greed" could be greed for the Cup or for prestige, not necessarily money.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My best guess is that there will not be a 1:1 challenge.

There will be a multi challenge event. 

I suspect there is a better than 50:50 chance the defense will be hosted in NZ but I recognize that its not the worst thing for a globally prestigious event trying to attract sponsorship in the hundreds of millions, to move around a bit.  The defense is all about the team not the location.

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

We were talking about the RYS (not RNZYS), and "greed" could be greed for the Cup or for prestige, not necessarily money.

Apologies. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites