Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, winchfodder said:

In need of Renne!

As a COR hip pocket challenge can the RYS (INEOS) agree terms of a Match (boats, venue, rules etc) with RNZYS that excludes all other challengers? 

Would such an agreement allow a challenger shut out to appeal to the Arbitration Panel and then NYSC and failing insist on a DoG match. 

As I understand it a DoG match is one on one (Blue Arrow were excluded in 1988 - just one match at a time allowed).

P.S. RNZYS and GD presumably want as many challengers as possible to earn monies in NZ so wouldn't agree to a one on one INEOS match under their COR.

 

The current Arbitration Panel only exists under the Protocol for AC 36. That is done and dusted. Anyone who want to challenge whatever deal has been made or is being made by RNZYS and whoever the new COR is can probably only do it via the NY Supreme Court, as it is now a Deed of Gift issue outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Panel for AC 36.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • 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

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 conf

Posted Images

7 hours ago, The Advocate said:

Read his whole post.

I did. What he proposed -- not that it will ever happen -- could certainly happen within the four corners of the DoG. INEOS/ETNZ could agree to a 1-1 match in 2022, and have an agreement that the winner of that match would immediately accept a challenger from the loser and then hold a subsequent cup with other challengers in 2024.

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

I did. What he proposed -- not that it will ever happen -- could certainly happen within the four corners of the DoG. INEOS/ETNZ could agree to a 1-1 match in 2022, and have an agreement that the winner of that match would immediately accept a challenger from the loser and then hold a subsequent cup with other challengers in 2024.

Right, but the other team is not bound to honor this agreement for the following Cup, at least not by the DoG.

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

Right, but the other team is not bound to honor this agreement for the following Cup, at least not by the DoG.

Correct, but it could be done under the DoG. And there are all kinds of ways to contractually incentivize a party to not breach a prior agreement.

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

Right, but the other team is not bound to honor this agreement for the following Cup, at least not by the DoG.

No, it seems to be reliant on a Gentlemen's agreement, and the Cup has a long history of such agreements unravelling.

That said, it seems to be becoming clearer that the 2022 ETNZ vs Ineos race - if it happens - is probably not intended to be a Cup race, just a one-off in AC75s.

 

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

Correct, but it could be done under the DoG. And there are all kinds of ways to contractually incentivize a party to not breach a prior agreement

Like threatening their kids, that sort of thing right?

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

Correct, but it could be done under the DoG. And there are all kinds of ways to contractually incentivize a party to not breach a prior agreement.

See below.

1 minute ago, Dave S said:

No, it seems to be reliant on a Gentlemen's agreement, and the Cup has a long history of such agreements unravelling.

That said, it seems to be becoming clearer that the 2022 ETNZ vs Ineos race - if it happens - is probably not intended to be a Cup race, just a one-off in AC75s.

 

Why "no"?
Yes, as per the DoG, neither team needs to honor an agreement about the next but one Cup. Don't make things up.

Someone once explained to me like that: You can agree/have a contract to be a slave for someone. But the moment you decide to leave your slave-role, you can do so, because slavery is not allowed. So, whatever you agree can only be voluntarily in that very moment, because the actual law does not cover such an agreement.

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

See below.

Why "no"?
Yes, as per the DoG, neither team needs to honor an agreement about the next but one Cup. Don't make things up.

Someone once explained to me like that: You can agree/have a contract to be a slave for someone. But the moment you decide to leave your slave-role, you can do so, because slavery is not allowed. So, whatever you agree can only be voluntarily in that very moment, because the actual law does not cover such an agreement.

I make a challenge under the DoG. You accept. We enter into another agreement whereunder we both deposit $500,000USD into an escrow account. If the winning party immediately accepts a challenge from the losing party, the escrow funds are released to the winner, or even back to us; if the winner fails to accept a challenge from the loser, all escrowed funds are released to the loser.  It's basically buying a right of first refusal.

All valid under the DoG.

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

No, it seems to be reliant on a Gentlemen's agreement, and the Cup has a long history of such agreements unravelling.

That said, it seems to be becoming clearer that the 2022 ETNZ vs Ineos race - if it happens - is probably not intended to be a Cup race, just a one-off in AC75s.

 

When Alinghi Won AC31 in Auckland 2003 BMW Oracle Racing and Alinghi held the MOET CUP in San Francisco in 2003

2003moetcup2.jpg

https://www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/11105/Moët-Cup-Day-1

And Alinghi held the UBS Trophy in Newport 2004

http://cupinfo.com/en/NewportUBS2004main.php

Something similar could happen between ETNZ and INEOS now that we have the AC75 Class established.

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

See below.

Why "no"?
Yes, as per the DoG, neither team needs to honor an agreement about the next but one Cup. Don't make things up.

You misunderstand me. What I meant (expanding my original statement) was "No, the other team is not bound to honor this agreement for the following Cup, it [the following Cup] seems to be reliant on a gentlenen's agreement..."

I think we're on the same page.

To Porthos' point, even if you did somehow agree a contract, it would be full of holes. Say you're all set up on the winner's support boat, ready to make an official challenge as their boat crosses the line. Suddenly a RIB races up alongside, and as the finisher crosses the line a stone is thrown onto the support boat with a letter of challenge taped to it. Your counterpart announces, "Sorry mate, I really want to honour that contract, but the challenge attached to this stone appears to be DoG compliant; my hands are tied..."

Edit: A financial penalty, even if enforceable, merely sets the price of changing your mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should all consider how difficult it is to keep Teams afload for another two years in Post-COVID Terms when Economies are tanking!

ETNZ & INEOS have to attract some Sponsors, no? Now that PRADA is out as Main Sponsor. That's why they might do 1) a couple of World Series Events or 2) a couple of Exhibition Events.

And I am sure Dalton & Ratcliffe will be doing just that.

The best thing that happened to the AC were the Acts in 2005-2007 and the World Series Events in 2011-12 + 2015/2016.

That's how you get Teams involved.

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

You misunderstand me. What I meant (expanding my original statement) was "No, the other team is not bound to honor this agreement for the following Cup, it [the following Cup] seems to be reliant on a gentlenen's agreement..."

I think we're on the same page.

To Porthos' point, even if you did somehow agree a contract, it would be full of holes. Say you're all set up on the winner's support boat, ready to make an official challenge as their boat crosses the line. Suddenly a RIB races up alongside, and as the finisher crosses the line a stone is thrown onto the support boat with a letter of challenge taped to it. Your counterpart announces, "Sorry mate, I really want to honour that contract, but the challenge attached to this stone appears to be DoG compliant; my hands are tied..."

Edit: A financial penalty, even if enforceable, merely sets the price of changing your mind.

Fun scenario, but I would note that if you can't figure out how to keep your principals sequestered and unavailable to rock-throwing interlopers, you don't deserve to keep the cup.  Are financial penalties ironclad? They aren't. Can they nonetheless be persuasive? They can.

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

You misunderstand me. What I meant (expanding my original statement) was "No, the other team is not bound to honor this agreement for the following Cup, it [the following Cup] seems to be reliant on a gentlenen's agreement..."

I think we're on the same page.

To Porthos' point, even if you did somehow agree a contract, it would be full of holes. Say you're all set up on the winner's support boat, ready to make an official challenge as their boat crosses the line. Suddenly a RIB races up alongside, and as the finisher crosses the line a stone is thrown onto the support boat with a letter of challenge taped to it. Your counterpart announces, "Sorry mate, I really want to honour that contract, but the challenge attached to this stone appears to be DoG compliant; my hands are tied..."

Bold:
I did, apologies.
We are.

6 minutes ago, porthos said:

I make a challenge under the DoG. You accept. We enter into another agreement whereunder we both deposit $500,000USD into an escrow account. If the winning party immediately accepts a challenge from the losing party, the escrow funds are released to the winner, or even back to us; if the winner fails to accept a challenge from the loser, all escrowed funds are released to the loser.  It's basically buying a right of first refusal.

All valid under the DoG.

You can agree whatever you want, but a challenge is not valid until the ongoing challenge is finished.
The $500K contract would be moot (under the DoG), because it is inherently not valid. I wager that it would even be mooted if another possible challenger brings it before the NYSC.

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

Fun scenario, but I would note that if you can't figure out how to keep your principals sequestered and unavailable to rock-throwing interlopers, you don't deserve to keep the cup.  Are financial penalties ironclad? They aren't. Can they nonetheless be persuasive? They can.

It's easy to keep your principals sequestered if both of them want to be sequestered. If one of them is having cold feet and secretly talking to third parties it might be a bit harder.

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

Bold:
I did, apologies.
We are.

You can agree whatever you want, but a challenge is not valid until the ongoing challenge is finished.
The $500K contract would be moot (under the DoG), because it is inherently not valid. I wager that it would even be mooted if another possible challenger brings it before the NYSC.

The agreement would absolutely be valid under New York law. The escrow contract is a separate agreement that does not restrict anyone doing anything pursuant to the DoG.  As DaveS noted, it just sets the price for changing your mind.

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

It's easy to keep your principals sequestered if both of them want to be sequestered. If one of them is having cold feet and secretly talking to third parties it might be a bit harder.

Of course -- anything is possible. At this point, however, we have wandered a bit away from home. My only point at the outset is that so long as both parties agreed, there nothing in the DoG stopping a defender and challenger from agreeing that the winner would accept the next challenge from the loser. 

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

Of course -- anything is possible. At this point, however, we have wandered a bit away from home. My only point at the outset is that so long as both parties agreed, there nothing in the DoG stopping a defender and challenger from agreeing that the winner would accept the next challenge from the loser. 

Right, as long as both agree. But under the DoG you cannot force either team to stick to this agreement. That's all I am saying.

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

 

I think the headline is incorrect due to having "a little bit of knowledge." There was nothing in that audio that confirmed that there is a Challenger of Record, only that a challenge has been received.

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

I think the headline is incorrect due to having "a little bit of knowledge." There was nothing in that audio that confirmed that there is a Challenger of Record, only that a challenge has been received.

yeah true mate, how long was it after Bermuda that we found out it was Luna Rossa?

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

You should all consider how difficult it is to keep Teams afload for another two years in Post-COVID Terms when Economies are tanking!

ETNZ & INEOS have to attract some Sponsors, no? Now that PRADA is out as Main Sponsor. That's why they might do 1) a couple of World Series Events or 2) a couple of Exhibition Events.

And I am sure Dalton & Ratcliffe will be doing just that.

The best thing that happened to the AC were the Acts in 2005-2007 and the World Series Events in 2011-12 + 2015/2016.

That's how you get Teams involved.

That’s how you blow costs through the roof.    If the Cup cycle was challenger/defender series then Cup match you have a Team together for 1-2 years at the most, then move on. 

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

yeah true mate, how long was it after Bermuda that we found out it was Luna Rossa?

Grant Dalton & Matteo de Nora officially disclosed and announced it at the Closing Press Conference that the "Circolo della Vela Sicilia" would be the new "Challenger of Record" for AC36!

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

There will be a budget cap.

Why? It's a fucking open challenge event: the NYSC might have something to say about a Defender trying to impose spending limits on Challengers!! Under your nutty proposal, ETNZ will hold onto the Auld Mug for another 132 years because they can simply restrict the budgets of the Challengers so they can never afford to catch up to ETNZ.

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

Why? It's a fucking open challenge event: the NYSC might have something to say about a Defender trying to impose spending limits on Challengers!! Under your nutty proposal, ETNZ will hold onto the Auld Mug for another 132 years because they can simply restrict the budgets of the Challengers so they can never afford to catch up to ETNZ.

Facepalm.

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

Why? It's a fucking open challenge event: the NYSC might have something to say about a Defender trying to impose spending limits on Challengers!! Under your nutty proposal, ETNZ will hold onto the Auld Mug for another 132 years because they can simply restrict the budgets of the Challengers so they can never afford to catch up to ETNZ.

First they must find a challenger willing to agree on that.

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

First they must find a challenger willing to agree on that.

NYYC/American Magic Skipper Terry Hutchinson talked about "Budget Caps" after he lost in the Semifinals against your Team. Fortunately NYYC did not win this. This would have been a total travesty & disaster if that had happened + they wanted to go back to displacement sailing! I was rooting for the Italians in the Semifinal.

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

Oh NYSC here we come.....

They can go play boats where ever/whenever they like, just cant be linked to AC when it only the 2 of them and the other stakeholders and or potential stakeholders aren't invited, as per a "world championship".

You really should educate yourself about the AC by reading the Deed of Gift!! IF the RYS Challenge has been accepted, that is all that's required for a mano-'a-mano DoG Challenge to take place. There is no provision for multiple Challengers in the Deed: they are only welcome at the pleasure of and by agreement between the Defender and the Challenger who then becomes CoR.

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

You really should educate yourself about the AC by reading the Deed of Gift!! IF the RYS Challenge has been accepted, that is all that's required for a mano-'a-mano DoG Challenge to take place. There is no provision for multiple Challengers in the Deed: they are only welcome at the pleasure of and by agreement between the Defender and the Challenger who then becomes CoR.

You should really read a whole conversation and properly understand it before opening your mouth hole.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, winchfodder said:

In need of Renne!

As a COR hip pocket challenge can the RYS (INEOS) agree terms of a Match (boats, venue, rules etc) with RNZYS that excludes all other challengers?

Yes.

BUT the easiest path to a DoG Match is to disagree terms (ne Protocol, Class Rule, etc) - then it's a 1-on-1 DoG match.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GD’s whole thing is about money. Govt already said they will give them another $5M ‘to keep the team together’ as in previous cycles, but things get interesting from here.

In AC36 Govt also gave $40M (it was supposed to be used for ‘running the event’ but by several accounts as much as possible got intentionally siphoned off into ETNZ instead) and so that’s going to be a wildcard this time too. 
 

The biggest wildcard is how when you ‘follow the money’ as GD does, is if Ratty simply wants to fund a one-off in Portsmouth. He may even (gasp) pay ETNZ (GD making the decision) to make that happen. Which is okay for the two of them but it freezes out everyone else, on any other possible/ potential Challengers. Yes, only one to three of them exist (Prada, AM, AL) but it would put the ruin to them, instantly. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stingray~ said:

GD’s whole thing is about money. Govt already said they will give them another $5M ‘to keep the team together’ as in previous cycles, but things get interesting from here.

In AC36 Govt also gave $40M (it was supposed to be used for ‘running the event’ but by several accounts as much as possible got intentionally siphoned off into ETNZ instead) and so that’s going to be a wildcard this time too. 
 

The biggest wildcard is how when you ‘follow the money’ as GD does, is if Ratty simply wants to fund a one-off in Portsmouth. He may even (gasp) pay ETNZ (GD making the decision) to make that happen. Which is okay for the two of them but it freezes out everyone else, on any other possible/ potential Challengers. Yes, only one to three of them exist (Prada, AM, AL) but it would put the ruin to them, instantly. 

Yep.

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

First they must find a challenger willing to agree on that.

Nope - don't even need an agreeable Challenger.

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

Nope - don't even need an agreeable Challenger.

What I meant is that, if there is no agreement, in a pure DoG Match, there would be no cap on the budget.

In case of mutual consent they could chose to have it. But they both need to agree on that.

Am I wonrg?

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

What I meant is that, if there is no agreement, in a pure DoG Match, there would be no cap on the budget.

In case od mutual consent they could chose to have it. But they both need to agree on that.

Am I wonrg?

No, you're not.

 

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

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

Just like Oracle did they weren't that shit hot before 2010

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NZL4EVER said:

Just like Oracle did they weren't that shit hot before 2010

Oracle tried for months to agree a multi-Chall Prot with Ernesto, before giving up. GD filed a lawsuit against EB too. 

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

Oracle tried for months to agree a multi-Chall Prot with Ernesto, before giving up. GD filed a lawsuit against EB too. 

Come on mate, you know the rules about using facts around here to call out bullshit........

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

Come on mate, you know the rules about using facts around here to call out bullshit........

:D Yes, we do.

Rewriting history and then for-ourselves reasons reposting it over and over and over again is a sign of... Imbecilism? Lol 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

NZ and Ineos would be fools to hold the AC hostage and restrict the challengers just for their own personal gain.  It would destroy the Americas Cup.  Who would watch it?  It would turn both teams into the most hated people in sailing.  This is completely different than the prior DOG matches.  they could try and call it the AC, but it is not.

 

 

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

What I meant is that, if there is no agreement, in a pure DoG Match, there would be no cap on the budget.

In case of mutual consent they could chose to have it. But they both need to agree on that.

Am I wonrg?

Possible, but not probable. If you're the Challenger with a fat wallet, why would you agree to restrict yourself from using your spending power advantage?

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

From a Gtran, ‘strong interest’ could be overstating things, hard to say.

We look forward to hearing about the plans for the future of the America's Cup and we really hope it will be a growing event that brings together teams from around the world.” 

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

Possible, but not probable. If you're the Challenger with a fat wallet, why would you agree to restrict yourself from using your spending power advantage?

Correct. That's exactly my pont. I wouldn't agree. In fact I said that, should the defender want to put a cap, they first have to find a challenger willing to agree on that.

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

Correct. That's exactly my pont. I wouldn't agree. In fact I said that, should the defender want to put a cap, they first have to find a challenger willing to agree on that.

Just to show the idiocy of the cap suggestion...

ETNZ can turn around to Ineos and say: maximum budget of Euro5 million if you want a race next year, knowing they have technological enhancements and mods already matured, tested and ready but not implemented in the AC36 match:

-Ineos would be crazy to agree to it if they need to catch up to ETNZ, so they disagree and have a DoG match with open designs restricted only by the dimensions stipulated in the official Challenge and specs in the Deed;

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Emirates has told ETNZ that the funding has to stop. In the present economic conditions corporate sponsors are going to be hard to find. Yet Ineos and Prada have rich billionaires who can keep the same level of funding. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happens costs do need to be brought down. In the next campaign syndicates need to restricted to one boat each. A maximum of 2 masts and 2 sets of foils. Syndicates can only have 80 staff in total. 

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

Correct. That's exactly my pont. I wouldn't agree. In fact I said that, should the defender want to put a cap, they first have to find a challenger willing to agree on that.

If you want to be COR you agree to this request. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mako23 said:

I wonder if Emirates has told ETNZ that the funding has to stop. In the present economic conditions corporate sponsors are going to be hard to find. Yet Ineos and Prada have rich billionaires who can keep the same level of funding. 

I thought that had already happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mako23 said:

I wonder if Emirates has told ETNZ that the funding has to stop. In the present economic conditions corporate sponsors are going to be hard to find. Yet Ineos and Prada have rich billionaires who can keep the same level of funding. 

Caps are unenforceable. Outcast ‘Lone Wolf’ GD needs to try find a big $B friend. Maybe sucking Ratty’s teet is his latest answer? 
 

Anyone know the status of Emirates’ sponsorship of F1 or other sports, lately? 

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

Caps are unenforceable. Outcast ‘Lone Wolf’ GD needs to try find a big $B friend. Maybe sucking Ratty’s teet is his latest answer? 
 

Anyone know the status of Emirates’ sponsorship of F1 or other sports, lately? 

Each team will have a forensic auditors provided by KPMG, every cent will be tracked and monitored. If F1 can bring in a budget cap I’m sure AC can do the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mako23 said:

If F1 can bring in a budget cap I’m sure AC can do the same. 

F1 tries to do that? 
 

I doubt if the potential $B’s who care about AC yacht racing do, but I guess a few stragglers might. 

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

When Alinghi Won AC31 in Auckland 2003 BMW Oracle Racing and Alinghi held the MOET CUP in San Francisco in 2003

2003moetcup2.jpg

https://www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/11105/Moët-Cup-Day-1

And Alinghi held the UBS Trophy in Newport 2004

http://cupinfo.com/en/NewportUBS2004main.php

Something similar could happen between ETNZ and INEOS now that we have the AC75 Class established.

This was a stunning event BTW - we were training for a national championship and would come in between our AM and PM training session and watch them race.  The tacking duels, the strategy, the use of Alcatraz etc. tack after tack after tack up the shore and gybing duels down the waterfront in 25+ .  I think most sailors have railed against a F1 style circuit culminating in the AC, but the Moet Cup and Louis Vuitton Acts were good for the sport, they got more sailors racing in the class, strong representation from the Americas, Asia, and Europe. I think there are concerns if teams will be able to do 4 years of racing and travel with the new boat given where we still are with COVID and the global economy, this may be what fueling the Ineos-TNZ one-off (and sponsorships).  FWIW there are rumors there is a new/second GRB team in the mix but I can not figure out where they fit in the puzzle with Ineos ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton_Acts

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Each team will have a forensic auditors provided by KPMG, every cent will be tracked and monitored. If F1 can bring in a budget cap I’m sure AC can do the same. 

Good luck.....  Honestly, good luck with this.... How much development will shift to Mercedes proper vs. Mercedes F1, or Redbull Racing vs. Redbull Powertrain....  Those two teams already are phasing in their work arounds. Then how do you pay Lewis under the caps....? "Sorry mate cant pay you the driver over 30 million this year if you want new aero package for Monza". This also does not include salary for the top engineers or executive managers salaries - coughs......

"The original budget cap had been set at $175m but, after discussions, it was reduced drastically to $145m for 2021, and then $140m for 2022 and $135m for 2023. ... Teams can also spend more than $30m on drivers should they wish, but it's been agreed that any excess will be lopped off the team's operational budget cap."

Smoke and mirrors.....

 

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

When Alinghi Won AC31 in Auckland 2003 BMW Oracle Racing and Alinghi held the MOET CUP in San Francisco in 2003

2003moetcup2.jpg

https://www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/11105/Moët-Cup-Day-1

And Alinghi held the UBS Trophy in Newport 2004

http://cupinfo.com/en/NewportUBS2004main.php

Something similar could happen between ETNZ and INEOS now that we have the AC75 Class established.

Thanks for this. Forgot about it. This must be what they have in mind. Exhibition races in the UK - $ for ETNZ. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jimmyuk81 said:

 

Much as I'd love to see AC75s racing in the Solent, I wouldn't want it to happen like that. Even as a Team UK fan, that would be a really shitty move - let's hope it's just a rumour.  

Now, an ACWS event next year would be fantastic!

Then of course we can look forward to Team UK defending on the Solent in 2029 :rolleyes: (Living in hope...)

These boats, as they are, would not survive long in the Solent. They would require a lot of development along lines towards making them more seaworthy. At which point you could send them Round the Island. That would be fun... let a ACWS include a trip around and I'd pay to come over and watch that from a chase boat 

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

Thanks for this. Forgot about it. This must be what they have in mind. Exhibition races in the UK - $ for ETNZ. 

I think so too. Certainly would garner interest no doubt!

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

Caps are unenforceable. Outcast ‘Lone Wolf’ GD needs to try find a big $B friend. Maybe sucking Ratty’s teet is his latest answer? 
 

Anyone know the status of Emirates’ sponsorship of F1 or other sports, lately? 

Gabe Newell.

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

Good luck.....  Honestly, good luck with this.... How much development will shift to Mercedes proper vs. Mercedes F1, or Redbull Racing vs. Redbull Powertrain....  Those two teams already are phasing in their work arounds. Then how do you pay Lewis under the caps....? "Sorry mate cant pay you the driver over 30 million this year if you want new aero package for Monza". This also does not include salary for the top engineers or executive managers salaries - coughs......

"The original budget cap had been set at $175m but, after discussions, it was reduced drastically to $145m for 2021, and then $140m for 2022 and $135m for 2023. ... Teams can also spend more than $30m on drivers should they wish, but it's been agreed that any excess will be lopped off the team's operational budget cap."

Smoke and mirrors.....

 

It’s not all smoke and mirrors, several teams have had to let staff go, so as to fit in the cap. As it is the budget cap has brought massive changes to F1.  By the way Mercedes testing program was a disaster. They were way down on laps completed and quite a bit slower than Red Bull. The Cap is having an effect already

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Each team will have a forensic auditors provided by KPMG, every cent will be tracked and monitored. If F1 can bring in a budget cap I’m sure AC can do the same. 

Impossible even excluding the fact that the home team has far fewer expenses.

I don't like these enormous  urges excluding so many teams, but seriously- look at all the rule work around each team found for  boat design. Imagine the financial loopholes that they'd find.

Bucket of money needs to be less than 90 foot at the waterline? No problems, build a bucket with a knuckle bow.

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

Impossible even excluding the fact that the home team has far fewer expenses.

I don't like these enormous  urges excluding so many teams, but seriously- look at all the rule work around each team found for  boat design. Imagine the financial loopholes that they'd find.

Bucket of money needs to be less than 90 foot at the waterline? No problems, build a bucket with a knuckle bow.

Other sports have budget caps there’s no reason why AC can’t have one 

Also if you have an Auditor embedded into your team, with complete access to all records. It’s going to be very hard to get around them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mako23 said:

Other sports have budget caps there’s no reason why AC can’t have one 

Also if you have an Auditor embedded into your team, with complete access to all records. It’s going to be very hard to get around them. 

Honestly, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Alternatively we follow the traditional SA path of trash talking and trolling each other.

Spindio likes to make racist taunts about my wife, you could start there and move onto my funny hair cut :lol:

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

Other sports have budget caps there’s no reason why AC can’t have one 

If you have an exclusive contract to buy a Carbon 3D layer/printer with the latest technology from Airbus or Mercedes, with $Billions in patents,  how do you factor that in?

The likes of LE, EB, PB, JR, the AM trio, simply don’t care about any of that. They also don’t care about how many people bought cheap beers on the Viaduct on Wednesday night, how few people are following on YT, etc.

edit: but Jaysper’s haircut could be interesting! :D 

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

If you have an exclusive contract to buy a Carbon 3D layer/printer with the latest technology from Airbus or Mercedes, with $Billions in patents,  how do you factor that in?

The likes of LE, EB, PB, JR, the AM trio, simply don’t care about any of that. They also don’t care about how many people bought cheap beers on the Viaduct on Wednesday night, how few people are following on YT, etc.

edit: but Jaysper’s haircut could be interesting! :D 

Plant investment is part of your cost. If it’s going to break your budget rent the object. Also no free gifts allowed. If your donated an object that’s worth 2 million you will have 2 million reduced on your budget. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Other sports have budget caps there’s no reason why AC can’t have one 

Also if you have an Auditor embedded into your team, with complete access to all records. It’s going to be very hard to get around them. 

Don't be so fucking naive!! The AC is an EVENT - not a sport! You've either got the money to participate in it, can raise the money - or you can't and therefore don't.

Next Challenger!!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Other sports have budget caps there’s no reason why AC can’t have one 

Totally. They also have revenue sharing to keep smaller markets afloat and have more teams than a spend-it-till-you-win-it approach would afford. I don’t know if there is any of that in the AC, but to the extent that fewer teams compete because the few billionaires who having a passing interest are worried about their return on investment, there’s a remedy for that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NZL4EVER said:

Rumour CSS to take place in the UK the match NZ. 

That makes completely sense since INEOS Founder & CEO Jim Ratcliffe is by all accounts going to fund the CSS probably named "INEOS CUP".

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

edit: but Jaysper’s haircut could be interesting!

Get your arse to NZ next time Stinger boy and not only can you spot my stylish do, but even enjoy a coffee on me.

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

F1 tries to do that? 
 

I doubt if the potential $B’s who care about AC yacht racing do, but I guess a few stragglers might. 

No, the F1 budget cap is going to be unenforceable as well. They are going to try it in a couple years, but having been saying that for more than 10. Just like saying they are going to fix the aero for better passing for 20. Not going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NZL4EVER said:

Rumour CSS to take place in the UK the match NZ. 

Difficult to optimise a design to win both, not to mention the seasonal implications.

On the other hand, "the weather is not normally like this at this time of year...."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pusslicker said:

No, the F1 budget cap is going to be unenforceable as well. They are going to try it in a couple years, but having been saying that for more than 10. Just like saying they are going to fix the aero for better passing for 20. Not going to happen.

And if it does happen it will only favor the richer teams that are manufacturers who can hide their budgets easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites