Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

Someone (e2 maybe?) above questioned if Jeddah is necessarily in play. The only/originating source I can think of was in an article in Ireland, AFloat.ie maybe, after the reporter had spoken to someone who had met with OSG. It then became 'gospel' everywhere else but for all we know that person got it wrong, or OSG was bluffing, or Jeddah already pulled out and has been replaced by some other venue possibility, or just about anything! My hunch is that it really is Jeddah given their appetite for sporting events but am also open-minded about where the supposed 3rd offshore option is. Dubai would be my next guess.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

On Hamish Ross and the Discrimination Issue: This will be long, pedantic, and legal.  I apologize for the length; read at your own risk. Hamish Ross has recently claimed on multiple occasion

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

Posted Images

JEDDAH is totally in play! They have summitted their US$120M Bid before the Sept. 17th Deadline and is the only Venue to do so.

The Reason Dalton/Shoebrige/Green extended the Deadline is because they knew Jeddah might be controversial so they are trying to get a better Package from Cork or the Spanish Bid and if they don't then it's Jeddah!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Farmer stirring the pot again.

From NZHerald 24/09

Much of the financial support provided to Team New Zealand from Matteo de Nora comes in the form of on-demand loans, something Grant Dalton has acknowledged is something of a "wild card".

Since 2000 de Nora, a low-profile Swiss-Italian businessman, has been providing support for Team New Zealand. He has never been a member of the syndicate's board. While Team NZ have never detailed the nature of the support, they have acknowledged that, without it, it was unlikely the team would have been able to win the America's Cup. But details of the financial arrangements are revealed in emails Team NZ chief executive Dalton sent to Mark Dunphy, the wealthy businessman who has launched a campaign to keep the next defence of the America's Cup in Auckland.

On July 15, before Dunphy's interest in the cup became public, Dalton gave an insight into his relationship with de Nora. "A very close friend to all of us, he is constantly updated by myself (usually daily) on 'what we are up to' and has over the years made a significant financial and 'advisory' impact on the team," Dalton wrote. In short if it was not for Matteo, TNZ would have disappeared a long time ago."

Dalton said Dunphy had probably already been informed that "we carry a significant loan on the books [from Matteo] which is 'on demand' - the relationship is such that to date that 'on demand' has not come," Dalton wrote. Describing the fluid situation around how much Team New Zealand needed to run the cup, he added that "Matteo's loan also remains somewhat of a wild card".

The relationship between de Nora and the team had concerned at least one former director, Jim Farmer, QC, who was on Team New Zealand's board for almost a decade until 2013. Farmer told the Herald that over time he became concerned about the influence de Nora had over the team and in particular Dalton. The pair got on "like a house on fire" and spoke at length, usually daily. Farmer said that not long before he left the board he called a meeting at which he insisted de Nora become a director. The businessman flatly refused.

Dr Jim Farmer, QC, told the Herald that when he was a board member he raised concerns about Matteo de Nora's influence over Team New Zealand. "I know quite a lot about company law but I've never heard of a team principal, someone who's a principal of a company, who's not actually a director of a company." While on the board Farmer became aware that the support de Nora had provided Team New Zealand was not gifts, but loans. "I said 'Grant, we could never repay those loans if he called on them'. He said 'oh, [de Nora] will never call on them'. I said 'that's not the point. What if [de Nora] gets run over by a bus and the executor of his estate mightn't be so generous?'"

Team New Zealand declined to discuss the details of their financial arrangements with de Nora. "We are a private company and the details of his immense support over the years are confidential," Team New Zealand director Greg Horton said in an emailed statement.

"Without Matteo and Grant, however, I can say that we would not have won two America's Cups."

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You couldn’t make this shit up! Lol Hamish Ross in full damage control lol. “I wasn’t actually representing anyone, even though I said I was”

Dalton and the Squadron tells Dunphy to fuck off and he says “No I don’t want to” lol

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

Am not certain if the safety of RAK made it into any decisions (interesting question though, since like Zaal suggested it could set a precedent) but I am certain it came up at least orally before Justice Kornreich (spelling?) - who happened to be Jewish and as I recall it she at least expressed skepticism about the suitability of RAK.  

Did you attend the court hearings? 

Any discussion about the alleged dangers associated with RAK never made it into any opinion or order of the NYSC so there is no precedent anywhere with respect to that issue. Musing of a judge at a hearing have no precedential value whatsoever. And there is a good legal reason why Judge Kornreich (or any judge -- there were several) never put any reference to the alleged dangers of RAK into any opinion or order: the Deed doesn't allow consideration of the danger of any venue. 

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

Jim Farmer stirring the pot again.

From NZHerald 24/09

Much of the financial support provided to Team New Zealand from Matteo de Nora comes in the form of on-demand loans, something Grant Dalton has acknowledged is something of a "wild card".

Since 2000 de Nora, a low-profile Swiss-Italian businessman, has been providing support for Team New Zealand. He has never been a member of the syndicate's board. While Team NZ have never detailed the nature of the support, they have acknowledged that, without it, it was unlikely the team would have been able to win the America's Cup. But details of the financial arrangements are revealed in emails Team NZ chief executive Dalton sent to Mark Dunphy, the wealthy businessman who has launched a campaign to keep the next defence of the America's Cup in Auckland.

On July 15, before Dunphy's interest in the cup became public, Dalton gave an insight into his relationship with de Nora. "A very close friend to all of us, he is constantly updated by myself (usually daily) on 'what we are up to' and has over the years made a significant financial and 'advisory' impact on the team," Dalton wrote. In short if it was not for Matteo, TNZ would have disappeared a long time ago."

Dalton said Dunphy had probably already been informed that "we carry a significant loan on the books [from Matteo] which is 'on demand' - the relationship is such that to date that 'on demand' has not come," Dalton wrote. Describing the fluid situation around how much Team New Zealand needed to run the cup, he added that "Matteo's loan also remains somewhat of a wild card".

The relationship between de Nora and the team had concerned at least one former director, Jim Farmer, QC, who was on Team New Zealand's board for almost a decade until 2013. Farmer told the Herald that over time he became concerned about the influence de Nora had over the team and in particular Dalton. The pair got on "like a house on fire" and spoke at length, usually daily. Farmer said that not long before he left the board he called a meeting at which he insisted de Nora become a director. The businessman flatly refused.

Dr Jim Farmer, QC, told the Herald that when he was a board member he raised concerns about Matteo de Nora's influence over Team New Zealand. "I know quite a lot about company law but I've never heard of a team principal, someone who's a principal of a company, who's not actually a director of a company." While on the board Farmer became aware that the support de Nora had provided Team New Zealand was not gifts, but loans. "I said 'Grant, we could never repay those loans if he called on them'. He said 'oh, [de Nora] will never call on them'. I said 'that's not the point. What if [de Nora] gets run over by a bus and the executor of his estate mightn't be so generous?'"

Team New Zealand declined to discuss the details of their financial arrangements with de Nora. "We are a private company and the details of his immense support over the years are confidential," Team New Zealand director Greg Horton said in an emailed statement.

"Without Matteo and Grant, however, I can say that we would not have won two America's Cups."

Thanks SBD for posting the article.

Would be interesting to hear Matteo's view on chasing for money offshore, I wonder if he's in favor if it?

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

Did you attend the court hearings? 

Any discussion about the alleged dangers associated with RAK never made it into any opinion or order of the NYSC so there is no precedent anywhere with respect to that issue. Musing of a judge at a hearing have no precedential value whatsoever. And there is a good legal reason why Judge Kornreich (or any judge -- there were several) never put any reference to the alleged dangers of RAK into any opinion or order: the Deed doesn't allow consideration of the danger of any venue. 

Did not, but Clean may have and TE most certainly did. The skepticism I described was (thinking back now) direct from TE on a recent show. There may be court transcripts of that session (there were for some of the 15 or so, some were even on live video).

Agree with the rest, and thanks for checking.

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

Did not, but Clean may have and TE most certainly did. The skepticism I described was (thinking back now) direct from TE on a recent show. 

Agree with the rest, and thanks for checking.

If you are relying on hearsay from TE, I'm sorry but I just don't trust him. He has confirmed time and again that he, at best, is unrestrained by actual facts. 

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

Did not, but Clean may have and TE most certainly did. The skepticism I described was (thinking back now) direct from TE on a recent show. 

Agree with the rest, and thanks for checking.

TE worked for Oracle at the time of the hearings.

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

If you are relying on hearsay from TE, I'm sorry but I just don't trust him. He has confirmed time and again that he, at best, is unrestrained by actual facts. 

I can think of no reason TE would just 'make that up.' HR was present too in those courtroom sessions representing SNG and is often tuned in to TE's show real-time and HR and would (sometimes does) happily correct him about the 2009 proceedings. They've had some interesting recollections when HR was the guest (several times) and are often very humorous about it too.

Anyway, if that never made it into any rulings then it's a non-issue, precedence-wise.

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

You couldn’t make this shit up! Lol Hamish Ross in full damage control lol. “I wasn’t actually representing anyone, even though I said I was”

Dalton and the Squadron tells Dunphy to fuck off and he says “No I don’t want to” lol

Dunphy is just desperate but this will go nowhere! Why can't Jacinda depart Dunphy & Ross from New Zealand or put them both in MIQ for the next 3 years!

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

I can think of no reason TE would just 'make that up.' HR was present too in those courtroom sessions representing SNG and is often tuned in to TE's show real-time and HR and would (sometimes does) happily correct him about the 2009 proceedings. They've had some interesting recollections when HR was the guest (several times) and are often very humorous about it too.

Anyway, if that never made it into any rulings then it's a non-issue, precedence-wise.

I can think of no reason why TE would say on his show that RYSL was formed just weeks before becoming the CoR, particularly when public records show that to be not true, and yet that is exactly what he said on his show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Max and Ben have at one time sailed with TNZ, with Luna Rossa falling out of favour, Ben is the next in line. Ben was jumping at the bit to be CoR in Bermuda, its just there'd been a pre existing agreement with LR. Ben has also been a keen proponent of the AC75 from day one.

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

I can think of no reason why TE would say on his show that RYSL was formed just weeks before becoming the CoR, particularly when public records show that to be not true, and yet that is exactly what he said on his show.

No idea either but iirc what he pointed out was that the name suddenly changed, and some of the language changed too. Did HR point that out to him? Yes, probably. TE does not think there is a case to be made of it, although HR apparently does.

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

I read what you wrote.......To think that the "haves" are the only ones who benefit from the cup is small minded and straight out wrong. Many people from all walks of life enjoy and engage in ETNZ's success.

Its all about perspective, the AC is a show and everyone pays an entry fee whether they want to or not. from an economic benefit who wins the lions share, the punters or the people with their hands in the till? 

The AC has changed, in the 90's with all the teams and the fantastic international regatta flavour I would agree that it boosted the city. The atmosphere, activity and buzz however those days are gone and its been fucked by a whole series of assholes starting with  Michael Fay and his big boat, Ellison and his cats that removed sailing from sailing  and now with these stupid Swiss Army knives that are so ridiculously expensive that only a few teams can afford them and dare I say it funded with suspect money, the frackers and the whole UAE thing.  So yes in my opinion it needs to go where the billionaires live and let them squabble over it. I am not fooled by the NZ in Emirates TNZ

 

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

No idea either but iirc what he pointed out what that the name suddenly changed, and some of the language changed too. Did HR point that out to him? Yes, probably. 

TE clearly said "formed".  He didn't misspeak and wasn't talking just about a name change. We've had this discussion before, and it was right after you posted the video of his show in which he said this untruth. I'm not going to go back and find it now.

 

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

TE clearly said "formed".  He didn't misspeak and wasn't talking just about a name change. We've had this discussion before, and it was right after you posted the video of his show in which he said this untruth. I'm not going to go back and find it now.

 

He did say 'formed' at one point (maybe misspoke, he does this stuff live, on the fly) but later in that same show used a different term, something like re-labelled. Anyway, whatever TE said he does not think there's a case to be made of it but does question why they made any change right before becoming CoR and thinks they could and maybe should have just left things as-is.

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

No idea either but iirc what he pointed out was that the name suddenly changed, and some of the language changed too. Did HR point that out to him? Yes, probably. TE does not think there is a case to be made of it, although HR apparently does.

Check it out yourself or are your internet searches limited to what is sent to you from the cartel?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09050036

Huge change to the name - they removed the word "Racing"!!!!

 

RSL-Name-Change-companies_house_document.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an American equivalent to companies house? I'd bet American Magic was "formed" after RYS racing...

My point merely being, that this "drama" is merely people reading UK legal paperwork, RYS predates almost every yacht club in the cup currently.

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

He did say 'formed' at one point (maybe misspoke, he does this stuff live, on the fly) buy later in that same show used a different term, something like re-labelled. Anyway, whatever TE said he does not think there's a case to be made of it but does question why they made any change right before becoming CoR and thinks they should have just left things as-is.

Do you want to peruse the accounts as well?  I'm sure @Stingray~ you will find some conspiracy or mushroom in them.

 

09050036_aa_2021-07-22.pdf

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

Is there an American equivalent to companies house? I'd bet American Magic was "formed" after RYS racing...

It's irrelevant.  RYSL (Royal Yacht Squadron Limited) as it is called now was first registered in May 2014.  The recent minor name change occurred in March 2021.

Another name change occurred in July 2014 - not sure what that issue is.

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

Is there an American equivalent to companies house? I'd bet American Magic was "formed" after RYS racing...

My point merely being, that this "drama" is merely people reading UK legal paperwork, RYS predates almost every yacht club in the cup currently.

The problem is that the NYSC has set forth how a future court should consider this issue, and, yes, you need to look at the date the yacht club was formed. The yacht club at issue in this case is RYSL, not RYS, and the formation of the latter can't be used to make the former legitimate.

Doesn't matter anyway because RYSL meets the requirements of the Deed on its own.

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

Did you attend the court hearings? 

Any discussion about the alleged dangers associated with RAK never made it into any opinion or order of the NYSC so there is no precedent anywhere with respect to that issue. Musing of a judge at a hearing have no precedential value whatsoever. And there is a good legal reason why Judge Kornreich (or any judge -- there were several) never put any reference to the alleged dangers of RAK into any opinion or order: the Deed doesn't allow consideration of the danger of any venue. 

There were news reports of Ellison's complaints about proximity of RAK to Iran but if it never was cited in the decision then it's irrelevant. 

https://www.thenationalnews.com/sport/troubled-water-threatens-america-s-cup-1.494183

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

Doesn't matter anyway because RYSL meets the requirements of the Deed on its own.

The (yes, newly named) RYSL - does it have a history of holding annual regattas? 

A recent article included details of an email (leaked by GD) from HR to the NYYC (yes, and cc'd to MD), I think it had some detail about the argument.

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

No the yacht club is RYS, who are represented by RYSL who in turn are represented by INEOS. Just like how NYYC is represented by AM and RNZYS PTY LTD is represented by ETNZ.

No. RYSL is the Challenger of Record, who has an agreement with INEOS to represent RYSL. 

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

The (yes, newly named) RYSL - does it have a history of holding annual regattas? 

A recent article included details of an email (leaked by GD) from HR to the NYYC (yes, and cc'd to MD), I think it had some detail about the argument.

Yes.

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

The problem is that the NYSC has set forth how a future court should consider this issue, and, yes, you need to look at the date the yacht club was formed. The yacht club at issue in this case is RYSL, not RYS, and the formation of the latter can't be used to make the former legitimate.

Doesn't matter anyway because RYSL meets the requirements of the Deed on its own.

It doesn't matter anyway.  RYSL is fully owned by the Squadron and its members.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kate short for Bob said:

It doesn't matter anyway.  RYSL is fully owned by the Squadron and its members.  

It's fully owned by the RYS members, not RYS. I understand this is a distinction only a lawyer could care about.

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

No INEOS is the CoR, just as LR was>

A sailing team cannot be a Challenger of Record. The Deed requires the Challenger to be a yacht club. LR wasn't the Challenger of Record. Circola Della Vela Sicilia was (a yacht club).

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

Dunphy is just desperate but this will go nowhere! Why can't Jacinda depart Dunphy & Ross from New Zealand or put them both in MIQ for the next 3 years!

I hope you are joking. The last time I looked, NZ was a constitutional monarchy, not a dictatorship.

This is not Germany in the 1930s.

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

I hope you are joking. The last time I looked, NZ was a constitutional monarchy, not a dictatorship.

This is not Germany in the 1930s.

Of Course I am joking!

In all seriousness though Mark Dunphy & Hamish Ross and their "Team Dunphy" buddies have become an IMO unneccessary, wasteful distraction and we shouldn't give these in my humbled opinion "ATTENTION SEEKERS" any more time then we already have!

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

Of Course I am joking!

In all seriousness though Mark Dunphy & Hamish Ross and their "Team Dunphy" buddies have become an IMO unneccessary, wasteful distraction and we shouldn't give these in my humbled opinion "ATTENTION SEEKERS" any more time then we already have!

So, how do we differentiate between when you are joking and when you are serious? 
 

Curious minds want to know…

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

I must have missed it. Please cite me the section of the Deed requiring a yacht club to have a clubhouse. 

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

A recent article included details of an email (leaked by GD) from HR to the NYYC (yes, and cc'd to MD), I think it had some detail about the argument.

Not the exact text but from America's Cup: Auckland lawyer lays out foiled plan to disrupt next defence | Stuff.co.nz

Ross’s legal argument was the challenge was made in the name of a limited liability company owned by RYS, rather than by the yacht club entity itself, and could be in breach of the Cup’s governing Deed of Gift.

 

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

Jim Farmer etc.

Since 2000 de Nora, a low-profile Swiss-Italian businessman, has been providing support for Team New Zealand. He has never been a member of the syndicate's board. While Team NZ have never detailed the nature of the support, they have acknowledged that, without it, it was unlikely the team would have been able to win the America's Cup. But details of the financial arrangements are revealed in emails Team NZ chief executive Dalton sent to Mark Dunphy, the wealthy businessman who has launched a campaign to keep the next defence of the America's Cup in Auckland.

Yeah right, the classy Swiss-Italian de Nora is a low-profile business man, and the horse-fucking nouveau-riche Dunphy a wealthy business man.

And that Dr. QC is just a sleazball lawyer!

FYI,  from https://oceanmagazine.com.au/quiet-achiever/ :

Quiet achiever 

Dr. Matteo de Nora is a true renaissance man, having enjoyed unparalleled success as a businessman as well as making seismic contributions to medical science and as a philanthropist. As backer of Emirates Team New Zealand’s attempts to win the America’s Cup, however, he is a decidedly modest presence that belies his impact and expertise in the world of yachting, writes Ivor Wilkins.

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

RYS v RYS Ltd has been done to death before on this forum. I think @dogwatch or someone, posted a flyer as well.

RE Annual regatta. Comes under the annual  Members regatta's (run by RYS Ltd/Racing etc)

https://www.rys.org.uk/events/event-details/2019-06-14-rysr-members-regatta-2019 

Do you suppose they Challenged using RYSR, or using RYSL? 

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

Not the exact text but from America's Cup: Auckland lawyer lays out foiled plan to disrupt next defence | Stuff.co.nz

Ross’s legal argument was the challenge was made in the name of a limited liability company owned by RYS, rather than by the yacht club entity itself, and could be in breach of the Cup’s governing Deed of Gift.

 

Hamish should be more careful. The birth records of RYSL state:

"The Objects for which the is established are:

4.1  to carry on a yacht club; [and].

4.2  to encourage and promote yacht racing and other yachting activities on the water and on shore[.]"

It's. Right. There. 

RYSL is a yacht club.

 

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

Doesn't matter. It's the same entity. Which is a yacht club.

You could very well be right but if you put HR's hat on, what angle do you think he is taking? It's not like the guy is new to legal arguments over YC's.

Oh, and CNEV's clubhouse was spectacular too..  :D

 

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

You could very well be right but if you put HR's hat on, what angle do you think he is taking? It's not like the guy is new to legal arguments over YC's.

Oh, and CNEV's clubhouse was spectacular too..  :D

 

I'm not expressing opinions here; I'm just citing actual facts. Facts are stubborn things.

I have no idea why Hamish is advancing factually incorrect claims. You would have to ask him.

And clubhouses are irrelevant. I don't care what CNEV's looked like, or what RYSL's looks like. More importantly, neither would a court.

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

And clubhouses are irrelevant. I don't care what CNEV's looked like, or what RYSL's looks like. More importantly, neither would a court.

There is a 'famous' photo of the Mercury Bay 'YC', it was a beat up car on a deserted NZ beach. Am guessing it did not come into play in court, but maybe just maybe they did have to prove an existence in meatspace?

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

There is a 'famous' photo of the Mercury Bay 'YC', it was a beat up car on a deserted NZ beach. Am guessing it did not come into play in court, but maybe just maybe they did have to prove an existence in meatspace?

Funny how these things live on in folk law:

https://www.sporty.co.nz/mercurybayboating

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

There is a 'famous' photo of the Mercury Bay 'YC', it was a beat up car on a deserted NZ beach. Am guessing it did not come into play in court, but maybe just maybe they did have to prove an existence in meatspace?

I have no idea what you are saying. As far as I know, nobody challenged MBYC's status as a club in the court proceeding.  The fact that they produced a 90' boat sort of suggests they actually exist.

p.s. "meatspace" is a stupid term. 

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

Nope, it says RYSR

I am not arguing this any direction but there's f-all else going on, may as well entertain and address what HR's argument could be. It does potentially impact the venue, and the general timeline if a court case does get lodged - even judging whether the party has standing could be lengthy.

 

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

Nope, it says RYSR

I am not arguing this any direction but there's f-all else going on, may as well entertain and address what HR's argument could be. It does potentially impact the venue, and the general timeline if a court case does get lodged - even judging whether the party has standing could be lengthy.

 

You should stay away from corporate law. You don't understand it.  Neither does Hamish, apparently.

 

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

Am more than happy to be better-informed and definitely do appreciate your inputs here.

A company can change its name and it is the same company. "Apple Computer" changed its name to "Apple" and it didn't become a different company.  You just file a name change certificate with the appropriate corporations bureau.

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

Presumably that is the same with Yacht Clubs..

It doesn't matter what the entity does. It's just a legal name change. It's the same entity, just with a new name. So, yes, it applies to yacht clubs.

I'm helping a client sell her company. Actually, all the assets, including the name. The purchase agreement requires her to change the name of her company after the sale. I'll file a name change certificate with the Michigan corporations bureau. Her company will still exist -- same tax ID number, etc. -- but it will just have a new name.

 

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

If you changed your name to "I am Ehman's and Ross's Love Baby" would you still be the same person? Of course you would. You'd have a weird name, but you'd still be you.

:D 

I would have to be a completely different person to do that!

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

It doesn't matter what the entity does. It's just a legal name change. It's the same entity, just with a new name. So, yes, it applies to yacht clubs.

If you changed your name to "I am Ehman's and Ross's Love Baby" would you still be the same person? Of course you would. You'd have a weird name, but you'd still be you.

 

Why are you responding to him? I mean, you are speaking to a wall here:D

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

That was silly on my part, Stingers, and I apologize.

Thanks, all good.

There was an episode on (yes I know...) TE's Sailing Illustrated show earlier this year where HR was the guest and I think he spelled out in some detail the possible issues with RYSL. Meritless or not, I could try find that for you. Again, those two are pretty experienced.. 

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

I hope you are joking. The last time I looked, NZ was a constitutional monarchy, not a dictatorship.

This is not Germany in the 1930s.

Even if he was not joking, Dunphy would only need a short isolation as the team is busy packing bags. Just need Dalts to let them know where to book a flight too. Once they have gone Dun could come back out again and return to his previous life.

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

Yeah right, the classy Swiss-Italian de Nora is a low-profile business man, and the horse-fucking nouveau-riche Dunphy a wealthy business man.

And that Dr. QC is just a sleazball lawyer!

FYI,  from https://oceanmagazine.com.au/quiet-achiever/ :

Quiet achiever 

Dr. Matteo de Nora is a true renaissance man, having enjoyed unparalleled success as a businessman as well as making seismic contributions to medical science and as a philanthropist. As backer of Emirates Team New Zealand’s attempts to win the America’s Cup, however, he is a decidedly modest presence that belies his impact and expertise in the world of yachting, writes Ivor Wilkins.

Behind every great fortune is an asshole

                                     Arthur M Sackler

 

 

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

Well that and I do not think anyone else wanted it. 

Even if another YC had had a man (with an offer) on the ground, they wouldn't have got access to RNZYS to deliver their Challenge. It was a done deal even before TNZ lifted the Cup again, IINM.

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

I'm helping a client sell her company. Actually, all the assets, including the name. The purchase agreement requires her to change the name of her company after the sale. I'll file a name change certificate with the Michigan corporations bureau. Her company will still exist -- same tax ID number, etc. -- but it will just have a new name.

Reminds me of Bob Miller’s name change, after he sold his interest in Miller & Whitworth.

 

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

Most of you lot are fuckin idiots.

If you want to weed through the conspiracies and get to the heart of the matter, then @maguah_scalps_pilgrams is the only one to do this accurately and succinctly.

ME SUE EVERYONE - ALL ARE GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!

:D

God dang that guy was a trip!

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

Am not certain if the safety of RAK made it into any decisions (interesting question though, since like Zaal suggested it could set a precedent) but I am certain it came up at least orally before Justice Kornreich (spelling?) - who happened to be Jewish and as I recall it she at least expressed skepticism about the suitability of RAK.  

Yes I also recall that being reported. However I fail to see relevance to AC 37. For starters, there is no American challenger. Don’t want to go to Jeddah? Fine, don’t enter the Prada Cup (or whatever the challenger elimination is called this cycle). Nothing in the DoG protects a competitor who is neither Defender nor CoR.

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

Doesn't matter. It's the same entity. Which is a yacht club.

RYS and RYSL are both yacht clubs. They are not the same entity. That’s the whole point. You could sue RYSL and win a big settlement but it wouldn’t help you much because it has no assets to speak of. Nor could you lay hands on its officers property, because it’s a limited company. This is exactly why the challenger is RYSL not RYS.
 

But yes RYSL is a yacht club. It’s members are all members of the RYS (the converse is not true). It’s rules are the rules of the RYS. It has an annual regatta.

Link to post
Share on other sites