Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

  • 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

2 hours ago, Xlot said:

You nailed it: batteries are not allowed, unless there’s mutual consent

(20nm each up and down, 13nm triang,e)

I remember that the dog v cat event unfortunately had diesels on board to power the hydraulics. not sure what part of the deed prohibits batteries.

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

Interesting also that the NYYC support and in fact proposed a strict nationality clause. 

Perhaps that's because a country with a population of 330 million has a far better chance of finding some sailors with good foiling experience than say... Switzerland? :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The deed only says that the boats must be "propelled by sails only", and using a generator to keep the hydraulics topped up was one of the few things that Alinghi and Oracle agreed on during AC33, so it's never really been tried.

I tend to think batteries or engines that manipulate sails/rig/foils and don't directly contribute to propelling the vessel would pass muster, but it would be an interesting case.

I tend to think that anything that would be fine if done by human power is also fine if done by stored power. Otherwise, human power is also illegal and that's plainly absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the foils are battery powered then the sails can too.

The stern shots showing the grinders working was fucking embarrassing, cringe-worthy even.  Stupid even.

Replace to grinders with the same weight in LiOn and that would do it.

 

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

They could do it in plywood optis by mutual consent!

Don’t think so. The minimum waterline length of the DoG still applies. IIRC the DoG sets out areas that are and are not subject to MC and minimum size is out of scope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Now that UK is the COR

It isn’t. RYS Racing is the CoR. Team Ineos is a private venture, not a national team. 

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

It isn’t. RYS Racing is the CoR. Team Ineos is a private venture, not a national team. 

I didn't say Ineos. I said UK.  As in "a yacht club that legally resides in the United Kingdom"

Regardless, we all know what I meant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, nroose said:

I remember that the dog v cat event unfortunately had diesels on board to power the hydraulics. not sure what part of the deed prohibits batteries.

None, IIRC. The only stipulation about motive power in the DoG is as follows, "vessel propelled by sails".

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

The supreme court will not change a decision of the supreme court. If I understand precedent law correctly (our system is different too), to make Judge Kornreich's decision a precedent, the next case needs to be very similar. Means, if it's not a safety concern, "no engine allowed" might work. But maybe that was the original sin.

Not correct. Precedent is about matters of law, not matters of fact. In others words, how the law should be interpreted, not the facts of a case. And a Supreme Court can change its mind in a common law system. Doesn’t happen often but it happens. In the UK the law on marital rape was changed that way.

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

I didn't say Ineos. I said UK.  As in "a yacht club that legally resides in the United Kingdom"

Regardless, we all know what I meant. 

What you said was wrong and invidious. RYS Racing does not represent the UK. Team Ineos very specifically does not represent the UK. It was not permitted to call itself Team GBR, which would have implied a national team.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

What you said was wrong and invidious. RYS Racing does not represent the UK. Team Ineos very specifically does not represent the UK. It was not permitted to call itself Team GBR, which would have implied a national team.

It's a friendly competition between countries, so what does the RYSR represents, Ireland ? France ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

It was not permitted to call itself Team GBR, which would have implied a national team.

Team GBR was already used and registred by ... Team GBR of the RYA.

So they cleverly called themselves Team UK, now Ineos Team UK.

UK is GB without N-Ireland, isn't it?

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

Nope.

No particular problem with the Isle of Wight. But fucking with the DoG like that is a deal breaker.

No one has “fucked with” the DoG. Infact the Deed allows the Defender and Challenger to pretty much do what ever the fuck they want. That’s the point of winning it! As long as there is mutual consent between Defender and Challenger, the can make what ever rules they want. There is nothing in the deed prohibiting them from doing anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain/Europe get an AC match in home waters.....ETNZ get a decent payout enabling them to stay together and compete in AC38, whether it's in Britain or NZ. The risk reward equation for NZ is pretty compelling - they'd have to be favourites going into the DoG match. Sponsors and the Cup get huge exposure in a huge market......what's not to like? Okay it's going to annoy LR and the NYYC, but they will get a crack in a couple years, and the possibilities of it being in Europe......

The chance of Britain winning the trophy back will be hyped to the heavens, and we all know the Poms love that sort of thing....... 

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

Britain/Europe get an AC match in home waters.....ETNZ get a decent payout enabling them to stay together and compete in AC38, whether it's in Britain or NZ. The risk reward equation for NZ is pretty compelling - they'd have to be favourites going into the DoG match. Sponsors and the Cup get huge exposure in a huge market......what's not to like? Okay it's going to annoy LR and the NYYC, but they will get a crack in a couple years, and the possibilities of it being in Europe......

The chance of Britain winning the trophy back will be hyped to the heavens, and we all know the Poms love that sort of thing....... 

plus one I agree --whats not to like

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, d2ba said:

plus one I agree --whats not to like

And just in the unlikely event that the Kiwi's lose the Old Mug to the original Royal Donor, they will win it back again 2 years later, before an utterly raving home crowd. Imagine that, I'm gone be there!

 

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

No one has “fucked with” the DoG. Infact the Deed allows the Defender and Challenger to pretty much do what ever the fuck they want. That’s the point of winning it! As long as there is mutual consent between Defender and Challenger, the can make what ever rules they want. There is nothing in the deed prohibiting them from doing anything.

It's not the 1 - 1 match the legal problem,  but trying to set conditions on AC38 before AC37 ends is not permitted as per the DoG. Sticking to the 1 - 1 match excluding other competitors is just an ethical aspect about what sport is about and what money can buy.

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

So as a Kiwi you'd be okay with the risk of losing the Cup in a foreign country just over a year after ETNZ won it? And if that happened you'd be okay with hosting an AC in Auckland where ETNZ would be one of several challengers and not guaranteed to be in the match?

The 1:1 "challenge" the ACA muppets are frothing about won't happen. RNZYS, the holders of the Cup, are the only ones who can decide - and they've made their feelings known about the I-of-W 1:1 wet-dream.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not been able to read all the comments in this forum but it seems that the possbility of a 1-to-1 match between New Zealand and Ineos is seriously been considered. For example, De Nora has confirmed to Farevela that it is an option. He says this is in line with the original tradition of the America's Cup.

He may be right and they may have all the legal ground to go that way but I believe today's scenario can's be compared with that of the old time challenges. As for more recent DoG matches, they were the results of contentious disagreements between defender and challeners and the DoG was a last resort. 

Today, there are two or three teams seriously interested in challenging for AC37 and barring them an opportunity in this context would be a disrespectful sign of unsportmanship.

I don't know who would deserves more shame between a COR that buys itself a chance to cut off competition and race in the match (after having failed miserably in all the latest occasionns) and a defender desperate for money accepting the above and acting basically like a pimp ready to prostitute the Cup.  

You can have "royal" printed in your letterhead and people keen to prepend "Sir" every time they write your name but this would not dispel the loss of reputation if this happens.
 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sfigone said:

say he, using an analogy from another antiquated mode of transport!

How about: "that foil has cavitated!" or  "that hull has splashed down!" or "that hydraulic accumulator has insufficient pressure!"

Funny. 

6 hours ago, dogwatch said:

Not correct. Precedent is about matters of law, not matters of fact. In others words, how the law should be interpreted, not the facts of a case. And a Supreme Court can change its mind in a common law system. Doesn’t happen often but it happens. In the UK the law on marital rape was changed that way.

You're right, I stand corrected. Otherwise reversions to the same court for reconsideration wouldn't make much sense. I was thinking about the VLC decision of Judge K. where she explicitly decided that Judge C's decision stands. 

5 hours ago, Forourselves said:

No one has “fucked with” the DoG. Infact the Deed allows the Defender and Challenger to pretty much do what ever the fuck they want. That’s the point of winning it! As long as there is mutual consent between Defender and Challenger, the can make what ever rules they want. There is nothing in the deed prohibiting them from doing anything.

That was my uneducated thinking when I joined this forum 13 years ago. Since then I learned that there are quite a few things that cannot be MCed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Strider’s post in the Italian thread deserves a wider circulation - translation mine:

49 minutes ago, strider470 said:

The name of the Kiwi boat for the next Cup has been revealed As a gesture of esteem, solidarity and encouragement for challengers excluded from the 1:1 match, the new boat will be called Te Nculai, Māori for “don’t get mad, next time maybe”. Or, in Italian, “I sodomized you”

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bortolo said:

.......

I don't know who would deserves more shame between a COR that buys itself a chance to cut off competition and race in the match (after having failed miserably in all the latest occasionns) and a defender desperate for money accepting the above and acting basically like a pimp ready to prostitute the Cup.  

.....

Couldn't agree more on this

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

No one has “fucked with” the DoG. Infact the Deed allows the Defender and Challenger to pretty much do what ever the fuck they want. That’s the point of winning it! As long as there is mutual consent between Defender and Challenger, the can make what ever rules they want. There is nothing in the deed prohibiting them from doing anything.

That was my uneducated thinking when I joined this forum 13 years ago. Since the I learned that there are quite a few things that cannot be MCed.

And trying to impose conditions for AC38, before AC37 is decided, is likely one of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question. Besides the actual protocol release in 6/8 months, will at least the dates of the next AC(s?) be revealed anytime soon?

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

You can have "royal" printed in your letterhead and people keen to prepend "Sir" every time they write your name but this would not dispel the loss of reputation if this happens.

The RYS is not universally loved in British sailing, however I've been their guest a number of times and they have the gift, well-practised among many of the English upper-classes, of making guests feel both welcome and important, even those as unimportant as I was. So I have quite warm feelings about the club and I'm surprised they appear to be involved with this arrangement. Possibly there's some misunderstanding here but I'm afraid, I don't think so. 

As for the RNZYS, they also seem to be the tail wagged by the ETNZ dog.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Just a question. Besides the actual protocol release in 6/8 months, will at least the dates of the next AC(s?) be revealed anytime soon?

Who can tell but it doesn't sound like it. Plenty of time to fume to no effect. I'll personally wondering about taking another SAAC-break. 

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

The 1:1 "challenge" the ACA muppets are frothing about won't happen. RNZYS, the holders of the Cup, are the only ones who can decide - and they've made their feelings known about the I-of-W 1:1 wet-dream.

I agree, I don't think it will happen. I can't see how it makes good sense for ETNZ. I was surprised that some here would accept the idea. Have RNZYS made a statement regarding this?

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

Who can tell but it doesn't sound like it. Plenty of time to fume to no effect. I'll personally wondering about taking another SAAC-break. 

plenty of time for them to develop the rule and test and sail before the rule is published, you cant buy time, you just publish the rule when you want to. I think they learned that from the last go around..

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

 Have RNZYS made a statement regarding this?

Yes. https://www.rnzys.org.nz/rnzys-accept-notice-of-challenge-for-the-37th-americas-cup/

It includes "It has been agreed the AC75 Class shall remain the class of yacht for the next two America’s Cup cycles, and agreement to this is a condition of entry." Now why would you say that unless you were cooking up something funky?

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

Yes. https://www.rnzys.org.nz/rnzys-accept-notice-of-challenge-for-the-37th-americas-cup/

It includes "It has been agreed the AC75 Class shall remain the class of yacht for the next two America’s Cup cycles, and agreement to this is a condition of entry." Now why would you say that unless you were cooking up something funky?

Indio said RNZYS had made their feelings known about the I-of-W 1:1 but I don't see anything in that statement. In fact it says "There are a number of different options but it is intended that the Venue for the Match will be determined within six months ...."  leaving all options open.

I can see keeping the AC75 for more than one further cycle suits both ETNZ and INEOS. So I'm not sure it's connected to a 1:1 match idea.

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

Team GBR was already used and registred by ... Team GBR of the RYA.

So they cleverly called themselves Team UK, now Ineos Team UK.

UK is GB without N-Ireland, isn't it?

They went straight from BAR to Ineos Team GB, then Ineos Team UK. If I remember rightly it had less to do with the RYA and more to do with the trademarked TeamGB being the brand of the UK Olympics organisation, which had to protect it (which is so they can sell merchandise etc which arguably helps fund the athletes)

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

They went straight from BAR to Ineos Team GB, then Ineos Team UK. If I remember rightly it had less to do with the RYA and more to do with the trademarked TeamGB being the brand of the UK Olympics organisation, which had to protect it (which is so they can sell merchandise etc which arguably helps fund the athletes)

Last time I went stright from a bar, I wasn't going exactly that stright. :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

UK is GB without N-Ireland, isn't it?

It's the other way round; UK is short for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Broadly speaking, Great Britain is the big lump of land containing England, Wales and Scotland, plus the islands that are part of those countries.

I'm not sure whether "Team GBR" is a slight on Northern Irish athletes, or reflective of the fact that they can choose to compete for either the UK or the Republic of Ireland in most sports. Given our recent history, it's probably the former. "Team UK" or even "Ineos Team UK" is certainly more inclusive.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

So RNZYS just reposted TNZs statement rather than making their own?

They didn't even bother to rewrite the first sentence: 'RNZYS is proud to announce we have received and accepted a challenge for the 37th AC...'

 

A question:

m4741_0y2a2358.jpg

What is missing from this picture?

 

Edit: while its the case that its missing the answer isn't 'A caption saying who the fuck that guy in the middle is?'

https://rys.org.uk/the-rys/flag-officers

Seems to be Rear Commodore Yachting Robert M Bicket

https://rys.org.uk/assets/staff/robert-bicket-400x400.jpg

But who fucking knows because they didn't bother to put it in the press release.

Too busy putting unprecedented DoG breaches in writing apparently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Horn Rock said:

Britain/Europe get an AC match in home waters.....ETNZ get a decent payout enabling them to stay together and compete in AC38, whether it's in Britain or NZ. The risk reward equation for NZ is pretty compelling - they'd have to be favourites going into the DoG match. Sponsors and the Cup get huge exposure in a huge market......what's not to like? Okay it's going to annoy LR and the NYYC, but they will get a crack in a couple years, and the possibilities of it being in Europe......

The chance of Britain winning the trophy back will be hyped to the heavens, and we all know the Poms love that sort of thing....... 

Most poms have never heard of the AC. I wish it were different.

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

Surely not! The greatest sporting country in the galaxy!

Golly you really got me with that zinger.....

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

I think Strider’s post in the Italian thread deserves a wider circulation - translation mine:

  3 hours ago, strider470 said:

The name of the Kiwi boat for the next Cup has been revealed As a gesture of esteem, solidarity and encouragement for challengers excluded from the 1:1 match, the new boat will be called Te Nculai, Māori for “don’t get mad, next time maybe”. Or, in Italian, “I sodomized you”

Abbiamo la diapositiva! :D

468817584_tenculai.thumb.jpg.8d72db59ed675b79481de22b0a46aff9.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dullers said:

Most poms have never heard of the AC.

I don't think that's true. Few, however, care about it and that includes many sailors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen it mentioned here yet, maybe I overlooked it in the flood of posts, but in case of a 1 on 1 in the UK between Ineos and ETNZ for AC37, there is NOTHING to prevent the winner of that match to tell the other party to FUCK OFF and accept a challenge from someone totally different for AC38...

Some have mentioned a potential side contract with penalty clauses in case that happens, but that runs afoul of the Deed of Gift itself ('no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided'), making it problematic to enforce...

Considering how long Ratcliffe has been involved in this sport, who can guarantee that he is not out to get his hands on the Auld Mug to turn it into his private vision for personal aggrandisement and ego building?

And who knows what that might be?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2021 at 1:57 AM, accnick said:

It's like telling the All Blacks they have to prepare for the Rugby World Cup by climbing Everest while all the other teams play rugby.

It is a virtual guarantee that the Defender will retain the Cup.

Don't get that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, alphafb552 said:

Haven't seen it mentioned here yet, maybe I overlooked it in the flood of posts, but in case of a 1 on 1 in the UK between Ineos and ETNZ for AC37, there is NOTHING to prevent the winner of that match to tell the other party to FUCK OFF and accept a challenge from someone totally different for AC38...

You need to go back a bit; it was covered in this thread, in about every third post from roughly half way down page 1 to somewhere on page 6. By then everyone had got the idea, and we moved on to discussing other stuff...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dave S said:

You need to go back a bit; it was covered in this thread, in about every third post from roughly half way down page 1 to somewhere on page 6. By then everyone had got the idea, and we moved on to discussing other stuff...

Well everyone seems to be ignoring this, talking about Auckland 2024 in AC75's.

 

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

You've been told to catch up, best you do.

Thanks Ad, I've been trying to keep up with this flood of posts most of which is just circular babble. If you and the rest of the posters feel the issue I raised has been dealt with definitively, then I will try to graciously bow out and let you guys ramble on...

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, alphafb552 said:

Haven't seen it mentioned here yet, maybe I overlooked it in the flood of posts, but in case of a 1 on 1 in the UK between Ineos and ETNZ for AC37, there is NOTHING to prevent the winner of that match to tell the other party to FUCK OFF and accept a challenge from someone totally different for AC38...

Some have mentioned a potential side contract with penalty clauses in case that happens, but that runs afoul of the Deed of Gift itself ('no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided'), making it problematic to enforce...

Considering how long Ratcliffe has been involved in this sport, who can guarantee that he is not out to get his hands on the Auld Mug to turn it into his private vision for personal aggrandisement and ego building?

And who knows what that might be?

I believe this is correct - the big risk that ETNZ (or they may be TNZ by then) are running, is that it seems pretty hard for them to mitigate the risk of Ineos/RYSR double crossing them in the event that they won, and tearing up any agreement about AC38. ETNZ would have no recourse to the DOG, NYSC or anyone. They will be well aware of this, and will for sure be relying on more than just their word.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, alphafb552 said:

Well everyone seems to be ignoring this, talking about Auckland 2024 in AC75's.

You really should go back and read the thread, there are some quite interesting points made by quite a lot of people who understand the various subtleties. To summarise, where we seem to have got to (at the high level) is as follows:

  • AC37 definitely in AC75s. This forum is currently divided on whether (1) TNZ really want AC37 to happen in 2024 and are using the threat of a 2022 race in the UK for leverage, or (2) TNZ want to hold an early AC37 in 2022 (possibly in UK), with AC38 back in Auckland.
  • TNZ and Ineos currently both intend AC38 to be held in AC75s. If they hold an early event between the two of them next year and no-one changes their minds or screws up the challenge process, they can ensure that happens.
  • As far as any of us can see, there's no way for anyone to guarantee that AC38 is held in AC75s (because DoG), it appears to depend on the winner of AC37 still wanting to hold AC38 in AC75s at the point they win AC37.

I think that covers the key points; like I said, go back and read the thread for loads more colour, nuance, and some wilder suggestions that still might come true...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DayTripper said:

Don't get that one.

That was 12 pages of discussion ago.

You have to look at those comments in the context of the discussion immediately prior to that, or it makes no sense. We were talking about a CSS being held overseas, which is a totally different discussion than where this thread is now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, alphafb552 said:

Thanks Ad, I've been trying to keep up with this flood of posts most of which is just circular babble. If you and the rest of the posters feel the issue I raised has been dealt with definitively, then I will try to graciously bow out and let you guys ramble on...

Jolly good. No one likes someone late to a party that wanders around complaining that all the hot chicks have been banged already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see we still have Kiwis who think that RNZYS will stand up to Dalts and tell him he can't do what he feels necessary to preserve ETNZ and mount a winning defense.

I suspect strongly that's a fantasy, but would love to be in the room if they tried.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dave S said:

You really should go back and read the thread, there are some quite interesting points made by quite a lot of people who understand the various subtleties. To summarise, where we seem to have got to (at the high level) is as follows:

  • AC37 definitely in AC75s. This forum is currently divided on whether (1) TNZ really want AC37 to happen in 2024 and are using the threat of a 2022 race in the UK for leverage, or (2) TNZ want to hold an early AC37 in 2022 (possibly in UK), with AC38 back in Auckland.
  • TNZ and Ineos currently both intend AC38 to be held in AC75s. If they hold an early event between the two of them next year and no-one changes their minds or screws up the challenge process, they can ensure that happens.
  • As far as any of us can see, there's no way for anyone to guarantee that AC38 is held in AC75s (because DoG), it appears to depend on the winner of AC37 still wanting to hold AC38 in AC75s at the point they win AC37.

I think that covers the key points; like I said, go back and read the thread for loads more colour, nuance, and some wilder suggestions that still might come true...

Not quite but close enough for a cigar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, idontwan2know said:

I see we still have Kiwis who think that RNZYS will stand up to Dalts and tell him he can't do what he feels necessary to preserve ETNZ and mount a winning defense.

I suspect strongly that's a fantasy, but would love to be in the room if they tried.

I don't see them. The kiwis saying what is happening is wrong aren't seperating the club out.

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

Jolly good. No one likes someone late to a party that wanders around complaining that all the hot chicks have been banged already.

Thank you for moderating this thread in such a splendid manner!

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

I don't see them. The kiwis saying what is happening is wrong aren't seperating the club out.

 

5 hours ago, Indio said:

The 1:1 "challenge" the ACA muppets are frothing about won't happen. RNZYS, the holders of the Cup, are the only ones who can decide - and they've made their feelings known about the I-of-W 1:1 wet-dream.

 

3 hours ago, marlowe said:

I agree, I don't think it will happen. I can't see how it makes good sense for ETNZ. I was surprised that some here would accept the idea. Have RNZYS made a statement regarding this?

Here you go.

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

I believe this is correct - the big risk that ETNZ (or they may be TNZ by then) are running, is that it seems pretty hard for them to mitigate the risk of Ineos/RYSR double crossing them in the event that they won, and tearing up any agreement about AC38. ETNZ would have no recourse to the DOG, NYSC or anyone. They will be well aware of this, and will for sure be relying on more than just their word.....

Indeed, impossible for ITNZ to mitigate. There is no guarantee that the 378 deal won't go to shit if ITUK win. In fact, I think ITNZ will be fucked over in the event of an IoW loss to ITUK.

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

Cool, now go ask then for quotes from the club. Indio has been called out for this already.

Or, I could not do that and just point out that it's a nonsense idea. If you've actually been following forum for the last few months, you'll know that the idea that RNZYS is really running the show and wouldn't let ETNZ do things like host the cup outside of New Zealand is a common theme.

You make some good points, but this self-appointed moderator routine is a bit much. I don't need your help deciding when how or if I should address something.

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

Or, I could not do that and just point out that it's a nonsense idea. If you've actually been following forum for the last few months, you'll know that the idea that RNZYS is really running the show and wouldn't let ETNZ do things like host the cup outside of New Zealand is a common theme.

You make some good points, but this self-appointed moderator routine is a bit much. I don't need your help deciding when how or if I should address something.

Me a self appointed moderator lol, get off your fucking high horse designed as a camel.

RNZYS is really running the show....

Funniest thing I read today...

I am not offering my help, I am giving you my opinion, do you not know how forums work?

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

Yes. https://www.rnzys.org.nz/rnzys-accept-notice-of-challenge-for-the-37th-americas-cup/

It includes "It has been agreed the AC75 Class shall remain the class of yacht for the next two America’s Cup cycles, and agreement to this is a condition of entry." Now why would you say that unless you were cooking up something funky?

"and agreement to this is a condition of entry" seems to imply that teams other than the defender and the COR will be able to participate in the 37th cup. 

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

Me a self appointed moderator lol, get off your fucking high horse designed as a camel.

RNZYS is really running the show....

Funniest thing I read today...

I am not offering my help, I am giving you my opinion, do you not know how forums work?

So you agree with the central idea of my original post, thought it was unnecessary because you apparently didn't see the posts in the thread it was in response to and then continued to tell me it was unnecessary and I should have responded differently after I helpfully quoted them for you, and I'm the one on my high horse?

 

Really now.

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

"and agreement to this is a condition of entry" seems to imply that teams other than the defender and the COR will be able to participate in the 37th cup. 

Yes, but under conditions that will likely mean none will. Then it is buttered up by trying to encourage emerging nations with no hope of being competitive to join the party just do they can say, see, others came along.....

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

So you agree with the central idea of my original post, thought it was unnecessary because you apparently didn't see the posts in the thread it was in response to and then continued to tell me it was unnecessary and I should have responded differently after I helpfully quoted them for you, and I'm the one on my high horse?

 

Really now.

Did you read my response at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, idontwan2know said:

Let's just leave it, man. There's no point in an ongoing 1v1 in the thread. And honestly, I can't be bothered anyway.

Have a great day.

And to you, good day sir.

 

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

A promise they can't make, you know that.

They can make the promise. Not sure they can be held to it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

It could also mean that the winner of the 1:1 AC37 cycle promises to run AC38 in AC75s.

more likely

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

A promise they can't make, you know that.

I am not a lawyer.

However, reading the DoG , I dont see why an entrant to AC 37 cannot commit in a side agreement to racing in a certain class of yacht in AC38. They are not "considering a challenge"  (they dont even know if they will be a defender/challenger in AC38), merely agreeing that if they are a future defender or challenger, the match will be in AC75s.

A defender has to accept a DoG challenge but the "hip pocket" process has virtually eliminated this so part of the side agreement can be that the hip pocket challenge can only come from a signatory to the side agreement.

 

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

Magnus' latest 

https://wp.me/scBvtV-momentum

 

 

So basically Magnus thinks the future of the AC is what Wussell and Lazza tried despite the fact that it failed spectacularly?

The issue is the legal framework surrounding the AC is both why its so coveted and impossible for it to be packaged for TV like every other sports product on the market.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Advocate said:

RNZYS is really running the show...

So the RNZYS has pretty clearly already bent over and gone for the soap in the press.

Any suggestion they are running the show is utterly laughable.

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

So basically Magnus thinks the future of the AC is what Wussell and Lazza tried despite the fact that it failed spectacularly?

The issue is the legal framework surrounding the AC is both why its so coveted and impossible for it to be packaged for TV like every other sports product on the market.

yup pretty much lol

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

So basically Magnus thinks the future of the AC is what Wussell and Lazza tried despite the fact that it failed spectacularly?

The issue is the legal framework surrounding the AC is both why its so coveted and impossible for it to be packaged for TV like every other sports product on the market.

Yes, and you have to believe that JR has the same desire to maximize commercial opportunities such that it can pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites