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

1 minute ago, mako23 said:

 Ineos must have access to the some best lawyers in the world. 

One assumes EB did too, Sharky. And look where it got him. :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

I have been wondering what NYYC's response to the ETNZ/CoR, AC37 and AC38 announcements might be - apart from that scathing rebuke to the IoW challenge rumour.

Interestingly, the DoG itself provides a clue as to the Club's probable response. 

In the penultimate paragraph, it seems NYYC is honour bound to make sure that ETNZ/CoR do nothing which might contravene DoG terms and conditions. "AND the said party of the second part [NYYC] hereby accepts the said Cup subject to the said trust, terms and conditions, and hereby covenants and agrees to and with said party of the first part [George Schuyler] 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; "

I expect we'll be hearing more from NYYC in the not too distant future.

(Underlining & identity notes, mine)

It's not clear that that is the meaning of the penultimate paragraph.  Arguably, because it says "... during the holding thereof by it" it's obligation to ensure compliance only applies while it is the holder.  Interestingly there are further sentences after the one you quoted which then appear to transfer everything over to the new holder ("and that it will assign transfer and deliver the said Cup to the foreign yacht Club whose representative yacht shall have won the same in accordance with the foregoing terms and conditions, provided the said foreign Club shall by instrument in writing lawfully executed enter with said party of the second part into the like covenants as are herein entered into by it").  So on balance I don't think the NYYC has any special obligations.

Doesn't matter I guess as they can challenge it if they want to...

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 1eyedkiwi said:

It's not clear that that is the meaning of the penultimate paragraph.  Arguably, because it says "... during the holding thereof by it" it's obligation to ensure compliance only applies while it is the holder.  Interestingly there are further sentences after the one you quoted which then appear to transfer everything over to the new holder ("and that it will assign transfer and deliver the said Cup to the foreign yacht Club whose representative yacht shall have won the same in accordance with the foregoing terms and conditions, provided the said foreign Club shall by instrument in writing lawfully executed enter with said party of the second part into the like covenants as are herein entered into by it").  So on balance I don't think the NYYC has any special obligations.

Doesn't matter I guess as they can challenge it if they want to...

Good point, 1EK. So, all care and responsibility for honouring the Deed transferred to the, Defender. What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

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

Good point, 1EK. So, all care and responsibility for honouring the Deed transferred to the, Defender. What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

Not a thing.

image.jpeg.a89a381a96372d492a89f131223abd95.jpeg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Not a thing.

image.jpeg.a89a381a96372d492a89f131223abd95.jpeg

Gladden Fields river-folk. Can't trust the evil little bastards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Good point, 1EK. So, all care and responsibility for honouring the Deed transferred to the, Defender. What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

This is most certainly the case.  The current custodian of the Cup is the trustee. All eligible yacht clubs worldwide are beneficiaries of said trust. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it would be up to any eligible qualifying yacht club (would-be challenger) to take an action against ETNZ/CoR.

Someone like, Circolo della Vela Sicilia perhaps? Or, NYYC.

 

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

So, it would be up to any eligible qualifying yacht club (would-be challenger) to take an action against ETNZ/CoR.

Someone like, Circolo della Vela Sicilia perhaps? Or, NYYC.

 

Yep. Or, probably over 100 other clubs.  Lots and lots of beneficiaries.  

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

Yep. Or, probably over 100 other clubs.  Lots and lots of beneficiaries.  

But not with $100 + million to spend, obviously. ;-)

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

But not with $100 + million to spend, obviously. ;-)

I suspect that this might go unchallenged since there probably isn't any up-side.

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

I suspect that this might go unchallenged since there probably isn't any up-side.

I don't see what can be challenged in court. A qualifying yacht club made a valid challenge against the defender for a 1vs1 match. Its uncouth, but not in violation of the DoG.

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

One assumes EB did too, Sharky. And look where it got him. :D

Yes that court ruling helps define what a defender can and cannot get away with. I’m ETNZ and Ineos will work with that on mind. 

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

I don't see what can be challenged in court. A qualifying yacht club made a valid challenge against the defender for a 1vs1 match. Its uncouth, but not in violation of the DoG.

That’s how I read it as well, when the the NYSC rules against Michael Faye and the big boat challenge, the court stated it’s about what’s legal and not what is moral. 

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

I don't see what can be challenged in court. A qualifying yacht club made a valid challenge against the defender for a 1vs1 match. Its uncouth, but not in violation of the DoG.

Nothing wrong with the IoW DoG challenge bit.

It's the AC37 and AC38 entry criteria restriction which is the questionable bit.

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

Nothing wrong with the IoW DoG challenge bit.

It's the AC37 and AC38 entry criteria restriction which is the questionable bit.

AC37 will not be a problem because both Ineos and ETNZ want AC75 and they are the only competitors in AC37

AC38 will also not be a problem because the defender always decides the boat used 

I think the rule was designed to make sure that both Ineos and ETNZ continued to use the AC75 in AC38 regardless which one of them won AC37

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mako23 said:

AC37 will not be a problem because both Ineos and ETNZ want AC75 and they are the only competitors in AC37

AC38 will also not be a problem because the defender always decides the boat used 

I think the rule was designed to make sure that both Ineos and ETNZ continued to use the AC75 in AC38 regardless which one of them won AC37

Correct. That is definitely the desired outcome. But is it DoG legal?

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

I don't see what can be challenged in court. A qualifying yacht club made a valid challenge against the defender for a 1vs1 match. Its uncouth, but not in violation of the DoG.

I'm referring to the possible attempt to require challengers to commit to the AC 75s for 2 cup cycles.

If that clause is present in the protocol, it is difficult to imagine it is valid which may open the opportunity to overturn the whole protocol.

However since the challenge and protocols are distinct, I'm assuming that INEOS couldn't be removed as challenger.

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

Nah.  NYYC does not have "extra fiduciary" duties. Rather, at any given time there is ONE trustee and a world of eligible beneficiaries. 

That was my understanding too

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mako23 said:

I think the NYYC and NYSC will be doing nothing until something is declared by ETNZ and RYS. When something is released I’m sure it will be made NYSC proof. Ineos must have access to the some best lawyers in the world. 

So did Ernie

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

So, it would be up to any eligible qualifying yacht club (would-be challenger) to take an action against ETNZ/CoR.

Someone like, Circolo della Vela Sicilia perhaps? Or, NYYC.

 

We have other means much more convincing. They'll make Grant Dalton an offer he can't refuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at this image, we just gotta have an AC75 fleet race in the ACWS.

Unknown.jpeg

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

We have other means much more convincing. They'll make Grant Dalton an offer he can't refuse.

+1

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

I'm referring to the possible attempt to require challengers to commit to the AC 75s for 2 cup cycles.

If that clause is present in the protocol, it is difficult to imagine it is valid which may open the opportunity to overturn the whole protocol.

However since the challenge and protocols are distinct, I'm assuming that INEOS couldn't be removed as challenger.

Since the COR apparently never wins the Auld Mug, let's stick with INEOS :D 

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

Looking at this image, we just gotta have an AC75 fleet race in the ACWS.

Unknown.jpeg

That would be awesome!  The VOR had 6-7 yachts racing together in the in-port races, excellent.

But the AC75s might need a slightly larger course! :D

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

Looking at this image, we just gotta have an AC75 fleet race in the ACWS.

Unknown.jpeg

That is my dream! Luna Rossa ahead with a tight margin, and ETNZ behind, not even in sight :D:D :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, strider470 said:

That is my dream! Luna Rossa ahead with a tight margin, and ETNZ behind, not even in sight :D:D :D

Sorry to dissapoint. Te Rehutai is ahead and rounding the leeward gate mark, Strider. :D

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

Sorry to dissapoint. Te Rehutai is ahead and rounding the leeward gate mark, Strider. :D

That is the nightmare, indeed :D

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

Looking at this image, we just gotta have an AC75 fleet race in the ACWS.

Unknown.jpeg

Who the heck will ever want to be in a fleet race at 40+ knots with Ben Ainsle ?!?

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

Who the heck will ever want to be in a fleet race at 40+ knots with Ben Ainsle ?!?

Well, yes. There is that! :)

 

7 minutes ago, Thewas said:

Who the heck will ever want to be in a fleet race at 40+ knots with Ben Ainsle ?!?

+1

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They should put some sort of rotating panoramic seat, with all the possible safety measures in place, at the stern and make it a available for sponsors or wealthy guest willing to pay for the lift. I think a guest was foreseen when they designed the class. Now maybe it's time.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Since the COR apparently never wins the Auld Mug, let's stick with INEOS :D 

Maybe INEOS and ETNZ as joint CoRs?

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

I have been wondering what NYYC's response to the ETNZ/CoR, AC37 and AC38 announcements might be - apart from that scathing rebuke to the IoW challenge rumour.

Interestingly, the DoG itself provides a clue as to the Club's probable response. 

In the penultimate paragraph, it seems NYYC is honour bound to make sure that ETNZ/CoR do nothing which might contravene DoG terms and conditions. "AND the said party of the second part [NYYC] hereby accepts the said Cup subject to the said trust, terms and conditions, and hereby covenants and agrees to and with said party of the first part [George Schuyler] 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; "

I expect we'll be hearing more from NYYC in the not too distant future.

(Underlining & identity notes, mine)

I always thought that "said party of the second part" is the new defender, but I have to reread the paragraph tonight when I'm home again. 

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

They should put some sort of rotating panoramic seat, with all the possible safety measures in place, at the stern and make it a available for sponsors or wealthy guest willing to pay for the lift. I think a guest was foreseen when they designed the class. Now maybe it's time.

But I wouldn't be happy be there, on Ben's boat, when he decides to challenge the starboard port rule, as he usually does  :D

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

So, it would be up to any eligible qualifying yacht club (would-be challenger) to take an action against ETNZ/CoR.

Someone like, Circolo della Vela Sicilia perhaps? Or, NYYC.

 

According to the Mercury Bay case only the challenger is the beneficiary. That means other YCs have no standing. 

Please correct me if I read it in a wrong way. 

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

They should put some sort of rotating panoramic seat, with all the possible safety measures in place, at the stern and make it a available for sponsors or wealthy guest willing to pay for the lift. I think a guest was foreseen when they designed the class. Now maybe it's time.

It would have to come with an FIA approved, 6-point racing harness, or they'd never survive the ordeal, Strider.

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

It would have to come with an FIA approved, 6-point racing harness, or they'd never survive the ordeal, Strider.

But that would be amazing

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

had to go to the laptop to find iggy..

but your mate troll cat; the last time i heard something from him he was quoted as arguing that GA was the helm of ETNZ.

And you sir, betray your ignorance a multitude of times daily with the likes of "what's CIC", or "see you later dude". you should check again the connection from your brain to your fingers, i fear a corroded connection. Disconnect, sand lightly, and use some inhibitor after connection. 

later newbie.

I think you're really really confused. I have never asked what CIC is, I know exactly what it is and have done for years. I seriously doubt I have said see you later dude, just not a phrase I use. Perhaps your feeble mind has got me mixed up with someone else.

Whilst I do talk some shit, I noticed today that a post I made recently was the most liked post on the forums, so I must talk some shit that occasionally a lot of people like.

We all get things muddled from time to time, and I am sure TC is no exception. Must be fucking difficult being as perfect as you are.

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

I always thought that "said party of the second part" is the new defender, but I have to reread the paragraph tonight when I'm home again. 

You are right, Rennie. It was pointed out to me that Trustee rights are automatically transferred to the new Defender. I had it incorrect.

 

Just now, strider470 said:

But that would be amazing

 Indeed it would, mate. Imagine the G forces from a tack or gybe.

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

You are right, Rennie. It was pointed out to me that Trustee rights are automatically transferred to the new Defender. I had it incorrect.

 

 Indeed it would, mate. Imagine the G forces from a tack or gybe.

And what about being there in THAT crossing between INEOS and LR?

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

They should put some sort of rotating panoramic seat, with all the possible safety measures in place, at the stern and make it a available for sponsors or wealthy guest willing to pay for the lift. I think a guest was foreseen when they designed the class. Now maybe it's time.

It would have to come with an FIA approved, 6-point racing harness, or they'd never survive the ordeal, Strider.

....and cupholders lol

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

....and cupholders lol

Ha, ha. I don't think so. 

A motor racing drink delivery system, feeding into his/her helmet would be the go - complete with a bite valve!! A chance of underwear tucked under the seat  would be useful too. :D

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

Petition to ban @strider470because he consistently defends COR36 Actions during the last AC36 Cycle.

Petition for you to explain your bromance with Magnus and how you fell out with each other? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, strider470 said:

So did Ernie

My limited experience of lawyers, and other professions come to that, is that first you ask the question, then you get the answer. Then the invoice. I suspect EB did not ask the correct question.

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

My limited experience of lawyers, and other professions come to that, is that first you ask the question, then you get the answer. Then the invoice. I suspect EB did not ask the correct question.

General practice is you ask the question and you then part with a hefty sum of loot the answer is then subsequently delivered promptly followed by the final invoice amount due for immediate payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Francesco Bruni interview on the NZ Herald

"I really hope the Cup stays in New Zealand, I heard some bad rumours about the Cup going to England and I really hope that doesn't happen."

"It would be such a shame. I really cannot think about another place to come and challenge for the Cup, rather than here. The Cup deserves New Zealand, and New Zealand deserves the Cup."

That's the strong verdict of Luna Rossa co-helmsman Francesco Bruni, in response to speculation that the next America's Cup defence could be hosted overseas.

Bruni also warned that Luna Rossa would be a much stronger adversary the next time round, should they get the chance to compete for the Auld Mug again.

That's because of the huge lessons from this regatta.

"There is a reason why the Kiwis are so strong. They take a lot of heritage of what they have done in past campaigns and there has been a lot of continuity on their team."

"[The best moments were] the races that we won and definitely when we went 3-2 up, that was a special moment, leading the America's Cup was something, really something. It's tough now, but we bring with us a lot of good memories and a great experience here in New Zealand."

"It's a great thing for Italy and for Luna Rossa. A good friend of mine told me that it is the first time in the history of the America's Cup that there is a second. That is a good one and I loved it."

From Max Sirena:

"They had the faster package, their boat was simply faster, I cannot regret anything on the sailing team, they sailed it super well. They probably did less mistakes [than Team New Zealand] but in the end the fastest boat forgives everything."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/americas-cup-2021-new-zealand-deserves-the-cup-luna-rossa-helmsman-francesco-bruni-speaks-out-on-bad-rumours/Y2CEW54WKYK643TVQFI3D4AAAQ/

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, strider470 said:

A good friend of mine told me that it is the first time in the history of the America's Cup that there is a second

My thought too. ^^^ 

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

I'm referring to the possible attempt to require challengers to commit to the AC 75s for 2 cup cycles.

If that clause is present in the protocol, it is difficult to imagine it is valid which may open the opportunity to overturn the whole protocol.

However since the challenge and protocols are distinct, I'm assuming that INEOS couldn't be removed as challenger.

More than likely just that clause would be voided. Severability

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dolphin65 said:

Never got why he did such a stupid move, using a fake Valencian YC as COR

Because Spain is a highly regionalised country and creating a club by-passed the allegiances of existing clubs to regions. Or so it was expressed by some at the time.

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

According to the Mercury Bay case only the challenger is the beneficiary. That means other YCs have no standing. 

Please correct me if I read it in a wrong way. 

Whoa...  that is not my understanding.   Do you have a page number or a source where you reached that conclusion?  I would love to read that myself. 

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

According to the Mercury Bay case only the challenger is the beneficiary. That means other YCs have no standing. 

Please correct me if I read it in a wrong way. 

It's not so cut and dried on my read. 

Because the DoG is a charitable trust, the beneficiaries are the public. That's why the Attorney General of New York appears as a party to the case--to represent the interests of the public (p. 263): "The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts under EPTL 8-1.1 (f), supported San Diego's position in both actions."

However, the majority opinion implicitly accepts the view that a YC may be a beneficiary (p. 270):  "Unlike the trusts in which this strict rule of undivided loyalty was developed, the America's Cup trust promotes a sporting competition in which the donors clearly intended that the trustee compete on equal terms with the trust beneficiaries." That statement really only makes sense if by "beneficiaries" the judge means "YCs". 

There might also be a practical reason why it would not make sense for the challenger to be the sole beneficiary. I'm just spitballing, but any challenger's ultimate goal is to become the trustee (i.e., the defender) and not simply vindicate rights as a beneficiary. (That was MBBC's argument in the litigation that followed the race: that SDYC should be disqualified and that MBBC was the rightful trustee and not simply a harmed beneficiary.) Once a challenger wins and becomes the trustee, then in the absence of another challenge at that moment, there would be no other beneficiary. The successful challenger would be both beneficiary and trustee and the trust relationship would collapse, since one generally cannot be both.  

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

It's not so cut and dried on my read. 

Because the DoG is a charitable trust, the beneficiaries are the public. That's why the Attorney General of New York appears as a party to the case--to represent the interests of the public (p. 263): "The Attorney-General of the State of New York, which represents the beneficiaries of charitable trusts under EPTL 8-1.1 (f), supported San Diego's position in both actions."

However, the majority opinion implicitly accepts the view that a YC may be a beneficiary (p. 270):  "Unlike the trusts in which this strict rule of undivided loyalty was developed, the America's Cup trust promotes a sporting competition in which the donors clearly intended that the trustee compete on equal terms with the trust beneficiaries." That statement really only makes sense if by "beneficiaries" the judge means "YCs". 

There might also be a practical reason why it would not make sense for the challenger to be the sole beneficiary. I'm just spitballing, but any challenger's ultimate goal is to become the trustee (i.e., the defender) and not simply vindicate rights as a beneficiary. (That was MBBC's argument in the litigation that followed the race: that SDYC should be disqualified and that MBBC was the rightful trustee and not simply a harmed beneficiary.) Once a challenger wins and becomes the trustee, then in the absence of another challenge at that moment, there would be no other beneficiary. The successful challenger would be both beneficiary and trustee and the trust relationship would collapse, since one generally cannot be both.  

Thanks for correcting my assumption.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the general public didn't give a shit when there were challengers from three countries, who's going to care about an AC with only one challenger?

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

More than likely just that clause would be voided. Severability

Yep and hence my point about being no real up-side to challenging it.

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

But that would be amazing

And the water splashing around would automatically clean you up as you shit yourself! Awesome!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Yep and hence my point about being no real up-side to challenging it.

Sigh - I see what you mean. Would hope Alessandra Pandarese’s on standby, though

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

Sigh - I see what you mean. Would hope Alessandra Pandarese’s on standby, though

She will undoubtedly be so until the protocol is formally published.

However if the only thing that they CAN challenge is the clause about the AC75s then I suspect she will be quickly stood down for two reasons:

1. I don't think LR necessarily want to change the boat after having the 2nd fastest AC75 in the cup, which represents a HUGE advantage over other challengers.

2. It would, as stated before, be unlikely to affect the 1 vs 1 circle jerk.

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

1. I don't think LR necessarily want to change the boat after having the 2nd fastest AC75 in the cup, which represents a HUGE advantage over other challengers.

According to Matteo de Nora LR was the slowest of the three challengers

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

According to Matteo de Nora LR was the slowest of the three challengers

My bad, I think he is probably correct. 

Thats why they got knocked out in the first round of the Prada Cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting case he makes. There is the possibility he knows more than us. Or that he's having a laugh. Who knows?

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

It's an interesting case he makes. There is the possibility he knows more than us. Or that he's having a laugh. Who knows?

There’s a case to be made for AM that they were fast and maybe they could have developed better without the capsize but not Ineos - Ineos were clearly slower in all conditions.  

The reality is LR made a massive leap in performance after the RRs and it’s a joke and insulting to say they weren’t the best challenger. Were it not for some bad luck and a few mistakes they would have won the AC or at least come extremely close. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, 1eyedkiwi said:

 Ineos were clearly slower in all conditions.  
 

Maybe, however his claim is that they were optimised for windier conditions that never occurred after the RRs (and not much in those). Both the Prada Cup and Match were consistently light-wind affairs.

Or, perhaps, he's simply enjoying being provocative.

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

Maybe, however his claim is that they were optimised for windier conditions that never occurred after the RRs (and not much in those). Both the Prada Cup and Match were consistently light-wind affairs.

Or, perhaps, he's simply enjoying being provocative.

There is zero evidence of the relative speed of any of the boats in heavy air, so INEOS might have been a dog in those breezes. ETNZ too for all we know.

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

My limited experience of lawyers, and other professions come to that, is that first you ask the question, then you get the answer. Then the invoice. I suspect EB did not ask the correct question.

Rich people generally tell their lawyers the outcome they want and pay them to make it happen.

The problem, as Ernesto discovered, is when you come up against someone with more money and better lawyers who wants to fuck with you.

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

There is zero evidence of the relative speed of any of the boats in heavy air, so INEOS might have been a dog in those breezes. ETNZ too for all we know.

Or, too difficult to control for the foils at higher wind speed.

The boats work, on to something else.

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

Rich people generally tell their lawyers the outcome they want and pay them to make it happen.

The problem, as Ernesto discovered, is when you come up against someone with more money and better lawyers who wants to fuck with you.

Here's what I tell all my clients: lawyers are a lot cheaper on the front end than the back end. Paying me at the outset to make sure there isn't a problem is a lot cheaper than paying me to get you out of a court mess. Despite that excellent advice, most clients go off and do something stupid on their own and when they get in trouble only then retain a lawyer to dig them out if possible. 

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

Here's what I tell all my clients: lawyers are a lot cheaper on the front end than the back end. Paying me at the outset to make sure there isn't a problem is a lot cheaper than paying me to get you out of a court mess. Despite that excellent advice, most clients go off and do something stupid on their own and when they get in trouble only then retain a lawyer to dig them out if possible. 

What don't they understand about prevention being the best cure?

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

Here's what I tell all my clients: lawyers are a lot cheaper on the front end than the back end. Paying me at the outset to make sure there isn't a problem is a lot cheaper than paying me to get you out of a court mess. Despite that excellent advice, most clients go off and do something stupid on their own and when they get in trouble only then retain a lawyer to dig them out if possible. 

you thinking about Sidney Powell?

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

What don't they understand about prevention being the best cure?

Don't know, but my kids enjoy the fact that they don't. 

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

There is zero evidence of the relative speed of any of the boats in heavy air, so INEOS might have been a dog in those breezes. ETNZ too for all we know.

Yep. The seagulls know, but they're not telling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2021 at 12:12 PM, antoine said:

Not able to get through the proper challenger series, so Ineos is buying a spot in the cup..

Cheaper than what Larry paid in legal fees.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, crashtack said:

Must be the formula 2 of old, where a good part of the grid is f1 drivers!

Don’t he sees it like that, there’s no prestigious cup for his ego. 

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

I don't see what can be challenged in court. A qualifying yacht club made a valid challenge against the defender for a 1vs1 match. Its uncouth, but not in violation of the DoG.

It’s everything you’d expect to see in the Americas Cup.

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

Petition for you to explain your bromance with Magnus and how you fell out with each other? 

He’s a fucking looney, he was on ignore from the last Cup and then he popped up in the Volvo threads, just ignore him. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites