Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, strider470 said:

Why are you against Ineos as COR?

I am not against INEOS but I want them challenge with a proper YC and not with a croutonic Pivate Company!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • 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

The hypocrisy extends back to AC32 but I get your point.  The claim that the Kiwi’s care about sportsmanship and fairness was exposed as BS long ago.  WetHog  

Posted Images

19 minutes ago, strider470 said:

1) true, but AM and LR are not less in reputation.

2) LR participated in the last 20 years of AC with the notable exception of 2017 where they withdraw in protest. And everybody knows the history of NYYC

3) name another of the current challengers that doesn't

4) LR stated they would continue with the AC75 as well. Two rounds of AC cannot be decided (DoG).

5) Being in amicable relationship with GD, today, does not mean much, unfortunately. We have examples. And as soon as Ineos become a little more competitive than today... we will see. And this is very concerning if they plan more than a cycle of relationship.

That said,  I don't dislike Ineos, as long as they are not going to buy a ticket to the Match without CSS.

1) AM and LR are not yacht clubs but yes, the clubs they represent are fine reputation. So are many other clubs. But the poster said that there was something wrong with RYS. 

4) Ultimately choice of boat depends on the Challenger and defender , but at least we know that if Ineos was a challenger/defender they would support continuity with AC75 at this time.

5) Hopefully it remains amicable, but you are right one never knows.  LR started amicably with Oracle and started amicably with TNZ but these things change. You dont get selected as CoR unless you at least start amicably.

I dont dislike Ineos either and I happen to think they were the best fit at the time for RNZYS.  The edges had started to fray with LR after a long and beneficial relationship. Ah well, these things happen.  I dont think NYYC stood much of a chance . They presented their case to TNZ and it was rejected.

However the claim that they are wrong CoR at wrong time has to be substantiated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

No one hates ETNZ.

what people  find a total joke is the way they get to the end of a campaign with fuck all plan for continuation other than forcing peoples hand, do this or we fuck off. 
 

They admit the money runs out as the last race finishes, that they are vulnerable to poaching as they don’t have the budget. 
 

with everything else they do do well, that shit show is NOT at their normal standard, why? 
 

Its how the AC works. Every cycle should exhaust all resource, if winning the AC is what the goal is. If you get to the end of the campaign, and you lost, yet you have a few million left, why did you not spend that money on the campaign? Its a cliche in the AC, but one that rings true, and Grant Simmer and Grant Dalton - 2 successful CEO's - have both said it multiple times, "if you manage your campaign well, you should run out of money at the same time you run out of time. Every cent should be allocated to the campaign, otherwise you've mis managed your campaign. 

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

INEOS did not challenge with a proper Yacht Club. Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Ltd is a private Company, not a YC. I hope this gets challenged!

I'm afraid "Yacht Club" is not a registered legal status in the UK, you need a registered legal entity to hold assets, like say, a rather large castle in cowes, or get a bank account to fund, say, an AC campaign. They could be a charity, but that holds a heap of legislation around what you can or can't do. Thus you instead register a company.

 

If it helps ease your mind, the registered name is now ROYAL YACHT SQUADRON LTD

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

I am not against INEOS but I want them challenge with a proper YC and not with a croutonic Pivate Company!

Oh, my apologies then. I thought you were opposed to RYS and Ineos as challengers on principle because there was something wrong with them.

I would not worry about Royal Yacht Squadron racing Ltd.   That is the RYS. It is using a limited company as its legal subsidiary in order to provide limited liability protection for the members of the club.  It is (or should be) SOP for clubs to protect members with a corporate entity.  The corporate entity is the entity that runs the annual regatta (Deed of Gift requirement) so that the members cannot be sued by the competitors.  

In effect and legally, RYSR ltd is the correct entity to challenge on behalf of RYS.  It really has no detrimental impact on the event.

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

I'm afraid "Yacht Club" is not a registered legal status in the UK, you need a registered legal entity to hold assets, like say, a rather large castle in cowes, or get a bank account to fund, say, an AC campaign. They could be a charity, but that holds a heap of legislation around what you can or can't do. Thus you instead register a company.

Looks so, indeed. Even political parties can be Ltd.s in GB. Absolutely unthinkable in other countries, but each to their own. In this light, nothing is special about a YC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you check the RNYZS page you'll see them listed as RNYZS Inc, and their clubhouse (or at least the land) is owned by Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron Nominees Ltd (as in the nominated holding company for the asset). All of which is public record.

I'd imagine if the US has similar tools you'll find the various NYYC properties are owned by holding companies.

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

Looks so, indeed. Even political parties can be Ltd.s in GB. Absolutely unthinkable in other countries, but each to their own. In this light, nothing is special about a YC.

But in accepting RYSR Ltd ETNZ/RNZYS have opened up themselves to a possible Legal Challenge.

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

I'm afraid "Yacht Club" is not a registered legal status in the UK, you need a registered legal entity to hold assets, like say, a rather large castle in cowes, or get a bank account to fund, say, an AC campaign. They could be a charity, but that holds a heap of legislation around what you can or can't do. Thus you instead register a company.

 

If it helps ease your mind, the registered name is now ROYAL YACHT SQUADRON LTD

Cross posted....Jon has described it pefectly

Im not sure that RYS would have great success establishing itself as a charity.  Yes, a club can establish itself as an unincorporated  organization in the UK. This would mean that the members would be jointly and severally responsible for all the debts of the club.  This would be foolish for a club which owned the real estate assets, staff and revenue of a club like RYS.....it would be downright dangerous for a club which challenged for the AC. 

There you are as an ordinary member of the club, sitting on the lawn enjoying a nice cup of tea and totally disinterested in what is going on in Auckland, when the waiter comes up and presents you with the chit for your tea and a $50,000 invoice for your share of legal fees. Members are entitled to limited liability.

 

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

But in accepting RYSR Ltd ETNZ/RNZYS have opened up themselves to a possible Legal Challenge.

What would be the basis of the challenge?

I do not think there is one.  A club can have limited liability and be an incorporated organization (Most of them are)

This was all started by @Editor as a diversion.  Dont believe everything you read

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

Its how the AC works. Every cycle should exhaust all resource, if winning the AC is what the goal is. If you get to the end of the campaign, and you lost, yet you have a few million left, why did you not spend that money on the campaign? Its a cliche in the AC, but one that rings true, and Grant Simmer and Grant Dalton - 2 successful CEO's - have both said it multiple times, "if you manage your campaign well, you should run out of money at the same time you run out of time. Every cent should be allocated to the campaign, otherwise you've mis managed your campaign. 

Indeed of the budget you are allocated that makes perfect sense. 
 

failing to secure support that clicks in from those loyal sponsors immediately after successful defence is not good management however. 

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

Indeed of the budget you are allocated that makes perfect sense. 
 

failing to secure support that clicks in from those loyal sponsors immediately after successful defence is not good management however. 

It always happens. Dalton always manages to secure sponsorship money every time, or at least a Government contribution to retain key members, as he has this time.

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

For the good of the Cup INEOS should withdraw as CoR. Wrong CoR at the wrong time. I hope the New York Yacht Club takes this to the Court because the Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Ltd. is inegible to Challenge.

Alinghi is also out (and most likely any nation with icy winters if the AC36 rules are maintained).

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

 

This was all started by @Editor as a diversion.  Dont believe everything you read

Careful, IPL. Every bad opinion started as a bad assumption. 

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

What would be the basis of the challenge?

I do not think there is one.  A club can have limited liability and be an incorporated organization (Most of them are)

This was all started by @Editor as a diversion.  Dont believe everything you read


Even the DoG asks for incorporation among other means to prove legitimacy:

Quote

Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty, or other executive department, having (...) , shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, (...)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Careful, IPL. Every bad opinion started as a bad assumption. 

?   

I merely meant that Scooter started a thread somewhere where someone suggested that the limited liability structure was not valid as a challenger. As I recall (on an unreliable memory) it wasnt scoot's own thesis but he republished it.

Bottom line is that most clubs of repute in the US and elsewhere are incorporated entities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Relationship with Matteo de Nora/Sir Jim Ratcliffe could end up very bad. Two Power Hungry Individuals!

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


Even the DoG asks for incorporation among other means to prove legitimacy:

 

Good spot Renny.  You gotta love the historic language when clubs could be established by "Letters patent" .  I believe that not for profit organizations in Canada can still be established this way (but not sure ).  I expect RYS was probably established under letters patent when it first became a "Royal" club. But it is now certainly an incorporated entity.

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

I think the Relationship with Matteo de Nora/Sir Jim Ratcliffe could end up very bad. Two Power Hungry Individuals!

Is Matteo hard to get along with?

By all accounts Jim is easy to get along with .

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

Is Matteo hard to get along with?

By all accounts Jim is easy to get along with .

Well, INEOS & ETNZ also have Ben & Grant and these two have long standing Relationship dating back to ETNZ's 2007 Cup Challenge. If it gets too heated between Matteo & Jim Ben/Grant will probably speak some common sense to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big sidetrack but I intend to cancel (for now) my NZ Herald subscription. I realize that NZ’s country code is 64 but how, from on a mobile in the US, do you dial this number correctly, please? 
 

Thank you for your request to cancel your subscription to Digital Entitlement,  however we are unable to process cancellations received via email so please call our administration team on 0800 111 500.

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

Well, INEOS & ETNZ also have Ben & Grant and these two have long standing Relationship dating back to ETNZ's 2007 Cup Challenge. If it gets too heated between Matteo & Jim Ben/Grant will probably speak some common sense to them.

I really have no idea what interaction you are suggesting between Jim and Matteo. 

  Jim will approve his AC leadership team and delegate the drafting of the protocol and is most unlikely to get involved.  

If there is friction during the drafting of the protocol, Ben would not necessarily be your first choice as a a mediator.

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

Big sidetrack but I intend to cancel (for now) my NZ Herald subscription. I realize that NZ’s country code is 64 but how, from on a mobile in the US, do you dial this number correctly, please? 
 

Thank you for your request to cancel your subscription to Digital Entitlement,  however we are unable to process cancellations received via email so please call our administration team on 0800 111 500.

*I think* +64 0800 111 500

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

What would be the basis of the challenge?

I do not think there is one.  A club can have limited liability and be an incorporated organization (Most of them are)

This was all started by @Editor as a diversion.  Dont believe everything you read

Diversion? Are you high?

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

Big sidetrack but I intend to cancel (for now) my NZ Herald subscription. I realize that NZ’s country code is 64 but how, from on a mobile in the US, do you dial this number correctly, please? 
 

Thank you for your request to cancel your subscription to Digital Entitlement,  however we are unable to process cancellations received via email so please call our administration team on 0800 111 500.

I've had the same problem!!!! Eventually, I asked a Kiwi friend to call them on the phone and he had to try many times! That's absurd. I wrote them a letter of complaint on the subject. Unsubscribing should be doable with a mouse click!!

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

If you check the RNYZS page you'll see them listed as RNYZS Inc, and their clubhouse (or at least the land) is owned by Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron Nominees Ltd (as in the nominated holding company for the asset). All of which is public record.

From memory the RNZYS only owns their clubhouse building but leases the land as it is secured in perpetual public ownership after the Westhaven Marina was sold to the Government and ownership then passed to the Auckland City Council in 2004.

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

I've had the same problem!!!! Eventually, I asked a Kiwi friend to call them on the phone and he had to try many times! That's absurd. I wrote them a letter of complaint on the subject. Unsubscribing should be doable with a mouse click!!

If I had downloaded the NZ Herald app and then subscribed through there (Apple in my case) it would have been simple. Instead I had subscribed via their web site using a Visa card, apparently requiring a phone call to NZ to do the unsubscribe instead of simply via the Apple->Settings->Subscriptions on the phone. 

The service rep was friendly and all, they also offered a deal for just $1.50/wk, almost took it. 

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

If I had downloaded the NZ Herald app and then subscribed through there (Apple in my case) it would have been simple. Instead I had subscribed via their web site using a Visa card, apparently requiring a phone call to NZ to do the unsubscribe instead simply via the Apple->Settings->Subscriptions on the phone. 

The service rep was friendly and all, they also offered a deal for just $1.50/wk, almost took it. 

same here

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

Diversion? Are you high?

Sadly I have not been high for about 3 years.  Its a long story.

As I tried to clarify.....and others have as well......a challenger can be an incorporated yacht club, so the challenge from Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Ltd.....or Royal Yacht Squadron Ltd is a valid challenge .  Somewhere on SA there was a thread or article suggesting that RYSR Ltd might not meet DoG definition of a properly qualified challenger.  Sorry if I attributed it to you....I think you highlighted it as a controversial topic to discuss without either giving it credit or discredit.

Anyway...hope you are well and getting high as often as you like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JonRowe said:

I'm afraid "Yacht Club" is not a registered legal status in the UK, you need a registered legal entity to hold assets, like say, a rather large castle in cowes, or get a bank account to fund, say, an AC campaign. They could be a charity, but that holds a heap of legislation around what you can or can't do. Thus you instead register a company.

 

If it helps ease your mind, the registered name is now ROYAL YACHT SQUADRON LTD

A yacht club cannot be a charity in the UK because there is a defined list in law of charitable objectives which a yacht club does not fit. However they can certainly be a limited company and there are good reasons to go that route. We’ve been through all this.

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

It always happens. Dalton always manages to secure sponsorship money every time, or at least a Government contribution to retain key members, as he has this time.

Just not quite enough to ensure the Defence is in NZ... I fail to see how that is a job well done. 

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

I think the Relationship with Matteo de Nora/Sir Jim Ratcliffe could end up very bad. Two Power Hungry Individuals!

You know both of them do you? 

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

INEOS did not challenge with a proper Yacht Club. Royal Yacht Squadron Racing Ltd is a private Company, not a YC. I hope this gets challenged!

Idiot

Link to post
Share on other sites

God this whole thing about ETNZ selling out is a yawn fest!

I remember when Dalton first made mention of a "back up plan" to hold the Cup in Italy if something happened that meant Auckland couldn't host the Cup, and all the crazies came out then and said "Dalton is shipping the Cup off to Italy" and "Dalton is selling NZ out to his poodle Bertelli by holding the Cup in Italy" even then, even way back then, they said "Dalton was putting a gun to the Governments head by forcing them to hold it in NZ or else" And look what happened. You were all wrong then, you're wrong now, and you'll be wrong when the next defence is in Auckland (again) FFS, calm the fuck down. It will be in NZ just like it was before. 

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

I am not against INEOS but I want them challenge with a proper YC and not with a croutonic Pivate Company!

Someone is a fan of TFE Live. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RYS Racing stuff has got hold of people's brains and they will not let it go. RYS Racing can either be viewed as:

  • A corporate entity that represents the RYS proper
  • A club of its own

EITHER WAY, it's a valid challenger under the deed. It's a non-issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, idontwan2know said:

The RYS Racing stuff has got hold of people's brains and they will not let it go. RYS Racing can either be viewed as:

  • A corporate entity that represents the RYS proper
  • A club of its own

EITHER WAY, it's a valid challenger under the deed. It's a non-issue.

I agree the  whole thing got silly, of course it’s a valid challenge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, WetHog said:

Someone is a fan of TFE Live. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Yes it was TFE who started this absurd theory that RYSR ltd was not a valid challenge. Apologies to Scooter @Editor.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2021 at 2:25 PM, dg_sailingfan said:

But in accepting RYSR Ltd ETNZ/RNZYS have opened up themselves to a possible Legal Challenge.

Only from somebody with money to burn in a losing cause. 

Only promoted by people looking to regain faded relevance.

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

Yes it was TFE who started this absurd theory that RYSR ltd was not a valid challenge. Apologies to Scooter @Editor.   

No, TFE argues that RYSR is perfectly legit but has brought up the ‘controversy’ with Hamish Ross - a sometimes guest on his show, who literally has a ‘PhD in America’s Cup.’

Me, I think it’s a reasonable question to ask and am not convinced either way about if it’d survive a court challenge. Hopefully nobody will bother. 
 

If it is so important to ‘protect’ a real Yacht Club like RYS then why did both AM’s NYYC and LR’s CVS YC’s  not do the same weird thing? edit: RNZYS too.. 

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

No, TFE argues that RYSR is perfectly legit but has brought up the ‘controversy’ with Hamish Ross - a sometimes guest on his show, who literally has a ‘PhD in America’s Cup.’

Me, I think it’s a reasonable question to ask and am not convinced either way about if it’d survive a court challenge. Hopefully nobody will bother. 
 

If it is so important to ‘protect’ a real Yacht Club like RYS then why did both AM’s NYYC and LR’s CVS YC’s  not do the same weird thing? edit: RNZYS too.. 

Maybe the laws in the other countries are different. As I wrote above somewhere, in GB it's even possible to have a political party as a Ltd. Which would be impossible in Germany for example. Also in Germany, YCs are usually nonprofit clubs and profit from tax exemption, but the board is liable.

And as for Hamish Ross, well you know my opinion...

http://www.bymnews.com/america's-cup-33/court-case.php
(The last paragraph is of special beauty.)

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

No, TFE argues that RYSR is perfectly legit but has brought up the ‘controversy’ with Hamish Ross - a sometimes guest on his show, who literally has a ‘PhD in America’s Cup.’

Me, I think it’s a reasonable question to ask and am not convinced either way about if it’d survive a court challenge. Hopefully nobody will bother. 
 

If it is so important to ‘protect’ a real Yacht Club like RYS then why did both AM’s NYYC and LR’s CVS YC’s  not do the same weird thing? edit: RNZYS too.. 

RNZYS has done something similar, NYYC is a US "Domestic Not-For-Profit Corporation", CVS is a "Amateur Sports Association" with a vat and tax code. So in short, they all have a legal entity behind them of some form. RYS is not unusual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2021 at 9:09 AM, Stingray~ said:

If I had downloaded the NZ Herald app and then subscribed through there (Apple in my case) it would have been simple. Instead I had subscribed via their web site using a Visa card, apparently requiring a phone call to NZ to do the unsubscribe instead of simply via the Apple->Settings->Subscriptions on the phone. 

The service rep was friendly and all, they also offered a deal for just $1.50/wk, almost took it. 

I cancelled my subscription to the Horrid 15 years ago when they went hard left woke. It was still mostly dead tree stuff in those days. No smart phone apps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2021 at 2:29 AM, JALhazmat said:

Indeed of the budget you are allocated that makes perfect sense. 
 

failing to secure support that clicks in from those loyal sponsors immediately after successful defence is not good management however. 

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 12:17 PM, Stingray~ said:

No, TFE argues that RYSR is perfectly legit but has brought up the ‘controversy’ with Hamish Ross - a sometimes guest on his show, who literally has a ‘PhD in America’s Cup.’

Me, I think it’s a reasonable question to ask and am not convinced either way about if it’d survive a court challenge. Hopefully nobody will bother. 
 

If it is so important to ‘protect’ a real Yacht Club like RYS then why did both AM’s NYYC and LR’s CVS YC’s  not do the same weird thing? edit: RNZYS too.. 

I'm looking forward to the discussion after TFE suggests that the AC75 v2.0 class rules will allow ship-borne artillery, to bring back an even more historic element.

Who needs the electronic virtual diamond boundaries? Get too close, and prepare to be sunk!

That will be a fun discussion.

Make way for Team Northrop Grumman American Magic!

(Which, after having already held "big hole in boat" drills, will have a leg up on everyone else)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 4:47 PM, southseasbill said:

I cancelled my subscription to the Horrid 15 years ago when they went hard left woke. It was still mostly dead tree stuff in those days. No smart phone apps.

Horrid, definitely - but hard left?

Did you really say hard left?

La la land, much?

  • Like 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like if you think "woke" is a bad thing, you are by definition asleep. Sweet dreams, Bill!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 1:08 AM, Tornado-Cat said:

So who is the Royal Yacht Squadron Racing a real YC or a part of a YC, then.... not a YC ?

It is an incorporated entity (aka Yacht Club) based in Cowes in a castle ,  which runs an annual regatta called "Cowes Week" on an arm of the sea called the Solent.  Its direct predecessor, an unincorporated club with letters patent , ran a regatta in and around 1851 in which a Yacht from the New york Yacht Club called America won and took away a rather large cup.  They are trying to win it back!  and have been trying unsuccessfully for close to 150 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that is incorrect. Firstly, Cowes Week is run by Cowes Combined Clubs (CCC), not RYSL. The Royal Yacht Squadron (RYS) is one member of CCC but far from the only one.

Secondly, RYSL is not a successor of the Royal Yacht Squadron (RYS). It is a club, whose members all members of the RYS and whose rules are the rules of the RYS. It is incorporated as company limited by guarantee, which is a common form of incorporation in the UK for what in some other parts of the world would be called a "not for profit". It is a clearly a vehicle to protect the assets of the RYS itself, and potentially the personal assets of its officers, from possible legal attacks during involvement with the AC. Very sensible.

There is no dichotomy between being a club and being  incorporated as company limited by guarantee and those suggesting otherwise are simply ill-informed on UK company law.

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

I'm afraid that is incorrect. Firstly, Cowes Week is run by Cowes Combined Clubs (CCC), not RYSL. The Royal Yacht Squadron (RYS) is one member of CCC but far from the only one.

Secondly, RYSL is not a successor of the Royal Yacht Squadron (RYS). It is a club, whose members all members of the RYS and whose rules are the rules of the RYS. It is incorporated as company limited by guarantee, which is a common form of incorporation in the UK for what in some other parts of the world would be called a "not for profit". It is a clearly a vehicle to protect the assets of the RYS itself, and potentially the personal assets of its officers, from possible legal attacks during involvement with the AC. Very sensible.

There is no dichotomy between being a club and being  incorporated as company limited by guarantee and those suggesting otherwise are simply ill-informed on UK company law.

Sorry Dog.....I had the gist but no time to look up. Thank you for your precise detail.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Each of the four teams tried to bring technological innovation onto their boat. Some teams were more successful than others. Which technology from each team might be copied for AC37

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 1:27 AM, mako23 said:

Each of the four teams tried to bring technological innovation onto their boat. Some teams were more successful than others. Which technology from each team might be copied for AC37

Regarding Luna Rossa: The under-the-deck boom is interesting, if the loophole in the rules that permitted ETNZ to have extra mainsail area is no longer allowed. Also, the rig without runners for light winds was a good idea but unfortunately was ruled out. The double helmsman configuration was quite succesfull as well, but I don't know if it is easily replicable.

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

Regarding Luna Rossa: The under-the-deck boom is interesting, if the loophole in the rules that permitted ETNZ to have extra mainsail area is no longer allowed. Also, the rig without runners for light winds was a good idea but unfortunately was ruled out. The double helmsman configuration was quite succesfull as well, but I don't know if it is easily replicable.

The same rule allowed the under deck boom, you'd have to write a rule specifying deck height to get around that. The double helmsman configuration is just training, all the teams swapped helms at various points, luna rossa just did it consistently. Easy enough for any of the teams to replicate for the next cup.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JonRowe said:

The same rule allowed the under deck boom, you'd have to write a rule specifying deck height to get around that. The double helmsman configuration is just training, all the teams swapped helms at various points, luna rossa just did it consistently. Easy enough for any of the teams to replicate for the next cup.

The hidden boom is not quite the same thing as having extra square meters of mainsail as ETNZ had. If they'll decide to better specify the exact sail area, they would close this loophole and maybe the batwings as well. We will have to wait until the new class rules will be published. The dual helmsman is not so easy to replicate. Not for lack of helmsmen or sailing skills, but it is a risky move. You have to be sure that the two helmsmen go along well because, if something starts to go wrong and they blame each other, it's the end! And you can't easily swap back to a different configuration. IMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, strider470 said:

The hidden boom is not quite the same thing as having extra square meters of mainsail as ETNZ had. If they'll decide to better specify the exact sail area, they would close this loophole and maybe the batwings as well.

They could do that, and that could also rule out a hidden boom with a rule change. The loophole that allow both techniques was the specifying of the mast dimension and fixing location of the mast and keeping the rest open, the "extra square meters of mainsail" was just a lower deck...

If they made the rule more restrictive all sorts of things could be ruled out but I don't think that will be an advantage to a challenger...

13 minutes ago, strider470 said:

The dual helmsman is not so easy to replicate. Not for lack of helmsmen or sailing skills, but it is a risky move. You have to be sure that the two helmsmen go along well because, if something starts to go wrong and they blame each other, it's the end! And you can't easily swap back to a different configuration. IMHO

I disagree there, it is just training and team selection, all the teams have enough time now to try it out and decide if its worth doing in a race, there is nothing preventing people training either way, or both, and then picking the strategy on the day either.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JonRowe said:

 

They could do that, and that could also rule out a hidden boom with a rule change. The loophole that allow both techniques was the specifying of the mast dimension and fixing location of the mast and keeping the rest open, the "extra square meters of mainsail" was just a lower deck...

If they made the rule more restrictive all sorts of things could be ruled out but I don't think that will be an advantage to a challenger...

I disagree there, it is just training and team selection, all the teams have enough time now to try it out and decide if its worth doing in a race, there is nothing preventing people training either way, or both, and then picking the strategy on the day either.

I don't think that a co-helmsman alongside someone like Ben Ainslie would be easy to adapt, James Spithill also has a similar strong personality, but his position inside the LR team forced him to adapt to whatever Max decided him to do.

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

I don't think that a co-helmsman along side someone like Ben Ainslie would be easy to adapt, James Spithill also has a similar strong personality, but his position inside the LR team forced him to adapt to whatever Max decided him to do.

Maybe there are some specific examples of people who wouldn't work well with the technique, but that doesn't rule it out for teams. Imagine, in your example, if Ben stepped up to tactician / skipper ala THutch, and got two younger helms to just drive where he told them to? 

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

Maybe there are some specific examples of people who wouldn't work well with the technique, but that doesn't rule it out for teams. Imagine, in your example, if Ben stepped up to tactician / skipper ala THutch, and got two younger helms to just drive where he told them to? 

yes yes, of course it is doable. But if I were a team principal, I would not be so confident in trying that kind of solution. Mybe I would try something hybrid for the starting box only. I think LR were lucky that it worked so well for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ehman said in his Show on Friday that besides Portsmouth Valencia & Qatar (presumably Doha) are also bidding to host AC37!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2021 at 7:39 PM, strider470 said:

The hidden boom is not quite the same thing as having extra square meters of mainsail as ETNZ had. If they'll decide to better specify the exact sail area, they would close this loophole and maybe the batwings as well.

Not much chance of ETNZ doing this, it would put them at a disadvantage. 

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

Not much chance of ETNZ doing this, it would put them at a disadvantage. 

That's true, but it's not an advantage anymore for them to keep the same configuration. They will need some new trick and it's not easy to find one on the second iteration of the same class rules

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

That's true, but it's not an advantage anymore for them to keep the same configuration. They will need some new trick and it's not easy to find one on the second iteration of the same class rules

They can open up the foil arm systems and controls to be team-designed, within maximum safety parameters.

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

They can open up the foil arm systems and controls to be team-designed, within maximum safety parameters.

That is not a cost-saving idea, for anyone.

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

That's true, but it's not an advantage anymore for them to keep the same configuration. They will need some new trick and it's not easy to find one on the second iteration of the same class rules

It’s going to be very hard for anyone to find significant tricks in the second round. One the other hand great racing will follow. In the end this will better for the sport
 

On the negative from my point of view it’s going to be very hard for ETNZ to defend this time. We can’t keep it for ever, so if we leave the sport better than we found it.....that will be a plus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Ashby won't be around for the next cup. Quite a blow for the defenders, as he's a big part of their campaign. Some rumours of an Aussie challenge. Slingers doing well in the GP wouldn't hurt his chances.

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

Apparently Ashby won't be around for the next cup. Quite a blow for the defenders, as he's a big part of their campaign. Some rumours of an Aussie challenge. Slingers doing well in the GP wouldn't hurt his chances.

Aussie hopes are rekindled!  B)

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

Aussie hopes are rekindled!  B)

With so many good sailors and the event being so close, it's a travesty Aussie hasn't had a challenge for awhile. Lets hope they make next time around.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great time for Glenn to retire and go out on top. It was mentioned during the Cup that Pete was trimming the main himself a lot of the time, so Glenn became a tactician. Maybe there's no real need for a specialised wing trimmer on the AC75 any more which was Glenns position in 2017.

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

Great time for Glenn to retire and go out on top. It was mentioned during the Cup that Pete was trimming the main himself a lot of the time, so Glenn became a tactician. Maybe there's no real need for a specialised wing trimmer on the AC75 any more which was Glenns position in 2017.

You have summed up the ridiculousness of this design.  It really doesn’t need a crew, it needs power and actuators, and is not that far away from being just a drone.  I’ll stick to my 2Meter for RC sailing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

at the risk of upsetting the fan club, if GD wants to ensure continued success its the design team that he needs to nail down, not worry about the sailing team getting poached..

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

at the risk of upsetting the fan club, if GD wants to ensure continued success its the design team that he needs to nail down, not worry about the sailing team getting poached..

You are living in the past - when you the AC boat you launched was what you sailed in the Cup.  If you paid attention, you would notice that for the recent AC, the bits in the water and the control systems were being changed every day.  Without the right guys sailing the boat and providing design guidance, the part of the “design team” sitting at their computers are helpless.  
 

You see it in the UK camp - Ben’s results in the last 2 cups say he is a great great sailor - but a failure as part of the design team. He’s looking bing in the past as well.

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

You have summed up the ridiculousness of this design.  It really doesn’t need a crew, it needs power and actuators, and is not that far away from being just a drone.  I’ll stick to my 2Meter for RC sailing.

It needs a crew to sail the boat. The controls can be routed through multiple consoles. Any one of the crew can fly the boat. Its the same on the F50. Like it or not, its the future. The boats are power hungry. The Supermaxis are the same. The winches,and the canting keel are all powered by diesel engines.

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

at the risk of upsetting the fan club, if GD wants to ensure continued success its the design team that he needs to nail down, not worry about the sailing team getting poached..

The sailing team give input into the boat. TR was a reflection of Pete and how he likes to sail the boat. Even Sirena described it that way. Same in 2017. Glenn was crucial in the design direction yhe team took in Bermuda. 
The INEOS campaign put too much focus on the design team and ended up with a dog. The design team are crucial, but the sailing team are an important part of enabling the design team to produce a boat that does what it is supposed to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 2:56 PM, Horn Rock said:

Apparently Ashby won't be around for the next cup. Quite a blow for the defenders, as he's a big part of their campaign. Some rumours of an Aussie challenge. Slingers doing well in the GP wouldn't hurt his chances.

That's hard, lose the skipper.

Any citation, or private sources?

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

Any citation, or private sources?

Nothing official, just gossip on that FB AC group. So might be complete crap. He has been campaigning a long time in the AC - since the Dogzilla match I think? So wouldn't be surprised if he's had enough.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites