Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Horn Rock said:

Except for Rita 1....I hear they're trying to give that her away.......Maybe EB could pick her up......

Defiant is also a bit of a problem child, all the crew down the back wasn't a great idea

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • 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

4 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

ETNZ can't impose anything on AC38. They know it, we know it, you can be damn sure the CoR knows it, potential (prospective) teams know it so AC38 doesn't come into the picture.

 

Did you read the shit above?

If true that's exactly what they are trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q. Is this the first time in the history of the cup that a team has/is trying to set a rule beyond the next cycle? 
 

To which may follow, a new defender could simply write a new rule overruling anything prior? 
 

Getting heavy for a Friday afternoon, beer, I think I can finally stomach a beer after Wednesday night. 

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

Did you read the shit above?

If true that's exactly what they are trying.

They can try it, but we all know the NY courts will toss it if anyone challenges it.

It's like those indemnity forms you sign when you participate in anything dangerous (bungy jumping, skydiving etc), not really worth the paper they are written on. If you die, your family can still sue them and win.

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

10 mill for a proven boat would be cheap.

Wondering what ETNZ would change when they do build a new boat? TR looked very complete.....Maybe make a bit of room for an under deck boom ala LR? Looking at the stern cams, I suspect LR traveller was a teensy bit more responsive than TR's, and maybe quicker?......certainly much quieter......Their clew setup was cleaner.......

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

Wondering what ETNZ would change when they do build a new boat? TR looked very complete.....Maybe make a bit of room for an under deck boom ala LR? Looking at the stern cams, I suspect LR traveller was a teensy bit more responsive than TR's, and maybe quicker?......certainly much quieter......Their clew setup was cleaner.......

No enough room the deck is way lower on TR

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

Wondering what ETNZ would change when they do build a new boat? TR looked very complete.....Maybe make a bit of room for an under deck boom ala LR? Looking at the stern cams, I suspect LR traveller was a teensy bit more responsive than TR's, and maybe quicker?......certainly much quieter......Their clew setup was cleaner.......

I suspect ETNZ's B2 is underdeveloped and has significant potential, particularly in rig control. They were only just learning how to sail it. LR knew this.

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

Wondering what ETNZ would change when they do build a new boat? TR looked very complete.....Maybe make a bit of room for an under deck boom ala LR? Looking at the stern cams, I suspect LR traveller was a teensy bit more responsive than TR's, and maybe quicker?......certainly much quieter......Their clew setup was cleaner.......

I wonder if they will put her back in the water to see what she really could do in the 15-20 kts range with added sailing knowledge. Then again, by the time they sort the DoG the team will be back to rusty again. Would/Will be so good to see her fly again. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernesto asked to buy ETNZ's first boat and TNZ said - go away!

Now the Protocol slams the door on non-national crew.

There seems to be a theme here - and good job!

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

They can try it, but we all know the NY courts will toss it if anyone challenges it.

It's like those indemnity forms you sign when you participate in anything dangerous (bungy jumping, skydiving etc), not really worth the paper they are written on. If you die, your family can still sue them and win.

I'm not suggesting they can get away with it. I'm suggesting that if that is what they are trying to get away with, they are hypocrites.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Chapter Four said:

Defiant is also a bit of a problem child, all the crew down the back wasn't a great idea

Can be easily be fixed with hull layout change.

 

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

Ernesto asked to buy ETNZ's first boat and TNZ said - go away!

Now the Protocol slams the door on non-national crew.

There seems to be a theme here - and good job!

EB did a right number on us in 2003, there’s no love lost between the two syndicates, even after 17 years 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Left field thinking....

The NZ govt need to think smarter, 65% of our teams cost is people. Instead of govt cash why not remove GST and Income tax for the team and crew?

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

Left field thinking....

The NZ govt need to think smarter, 65% of our teams cost is people. Instead of govt cash why not remove GST and Income tax for the team and crew?

Because that would be way more than what they give!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I don’t like EB, it would be morally wrong to stop him competing by bringing rule after rule making life hard for him.  No syndicate should engineer the rules to stop another.

I agree with one boat to keep  costs down and the nationality rule. But that’s is we’re it should end.

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

Bullshit, Switzerland has excellent sailors, and again, the designer makes the difference, not the crew.

A lot must have changed in Switzerland since 2003. IIRC, back then EB wasn't buying up the best Swiss sailors.

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

Wonder if RNZYS will run a defender series to select the defending syndicate?

We don’t have enough corporate sponsorship to run one team,  let alone two.

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

Did you read the shit above?

If true that's exactly what they are trying.

Don't be so dramatic. They can't impose ANYTHING beyond AC37. The conditions in the protocol last only as long as the protocol is valid, which is only until the current challenge is decided, which is the final race of AC37.

At the end of the day, ETNZ cannot impose anything on anyone past AC37. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mako23 said:

As much as I don’t like EB, it would be morally wrong to stop him competing by bringing rule after rule making life hard for him.  No syndicate should engineer the rules to stop another.

I agree with one boat to keep  costs down and the nationality rule. But that’s is we’re it should end.

I dont see it as an attempt to curtail EB im sure they would be stoked with more entries. Its just SA whispers

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you've won the AC twice in succession and now need to raise another 100 mill or so right away, and in the COVID era.

I've mentioned before that winning the AC can be a poisoned chalice, I mean with each defence that's another 100 million to cough up with a few meill right away. Anyone who's done any serious fundraising knows just how hard it is even on a good day/

If ones trying to fund raise for an event on NZ thats really hard. I met with some high end UK sailing sponsors whilst they were in NZ and it was a no go as the NZ market was too small  for them.

AC coverage outside NZ is insignificant so that's out as well.

There has to be a plan. What is the end game for funders? Just how many times can one team fund this?

James Ratcliffe has an end game as synthesis between Ineos's sponsorships adds performance knowledge to his company and secondly its raised Ineos's profile and helped unify all the parts of the organisation.

Hopefully the relationship between ETNZ and Ineos will be productive, I believe their philosophies are very similar and the AC will grow. 

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

I'm not suggesting they can get away with it. I'm suggesting that if that is what they are trying to get away with, they are hypocrites.

The difference is, they are doing it through the correct channels and processes, where Oracle tried to do it during the Cup, but independently of the current protocol, by calling it a "Framework"

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

Ineos appeared to have the best grinder system, so I suspect all the teams will try to replicate that.

Anything you would copy off American Magic 

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

The difference is, they are doing it through the correct channels and processes, where Oracle tried to do it during the Cup, but independently of the current protocol, by calling it a "Framework"

If you don't agree with the AC75s you are not allowed to enter. What is "proper" about that????

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mako23 said:

I see they have brought in a waiver program in regards to nationality for Emerging Nations. A good idea, but what qualifies as an “emerging nation”

I would say a country like Croatia for example

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

Ernesto asked to buy ETNZ's first boat and TNZ said - go away!

Now the Protocol slams the door on non-national crew.

There seems to be a theme here - and good job!

If this rule was in place from 2000 - would the landscape look different to how it is today ? Would Alinghi have won the AC on first attempt in 2003?

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

As much as I don’t like EB, it would be morally wrong to stop him competing by bringing rule after rule making life hard for him.  No syndicate should engineer the rules to stop another.

I agree with one boat to keep  costs down and the nationality rule. But that’s is we’re it should end.

Any Challenger is welcome back as long as the Nationality rule is complied with. (And no Switzerland is not an emerging nation in the AC, and no the Alinghi syndicate could not go and mount the challenge from a Yacht club in an emerging country )

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jaysper

You are spot on correct!

If you don't agree to use the AC75 Class in AC38 you are not allowed to Enter AC37. That's what this Rule says and I can tell you that the RNZYS, the RYS and their respective Teams ETNZ & INEOS TEAM UK opened themselves up to a massive legal Challenge here.

As much as I like these new Foiling Monos this is not legal.

I wonder what the New York Yacht Club is thinking about this? They have a habit going to Court.

I hope this Rule will not be written into the Official Protocol because if it is it has a NYSC Court Challenge written all over it!

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

@jaysper

You are spot on correct!

If you don't agree to use the AC75 Class in AC38 you are not allowed to Enter AC37. That's what this Rule says and I can tell you that the RNZYS, the RYS and their respective Teams ETNZ & INEOS TEAM UK opened themselves up to a massive legal Challenge here.

As much as I like these new Foiling Monos this is not legal.

I wonder what the New York Yacht Club is thinking about this? They have a habit going to Court.

I hope this Rule will not be written into the Official Protocol because if it is it has a NYSC Court Challenge written all over it!

So I am still waiting to see if this is true, but if it is then it is probably worse than what Orifice tried. At least Orifice didn't try to bar entry unless you agreed to keep the cats.

Also, I don't care if it's legal. I care that such a move would make Etnz hypocrites.

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

So I am still waiting to see if this is true, but if it is then it is probably worse than what Orifice tried. At least Orifice didn't try to bar entry unless you agreed to keep the cats.

Also, I don't care if it's legal. I care that such a move would make Etnz hypocrites.

To be fair mate New Zealand got burned in 2003 by not making strict enough rules. 

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

So I am still waiting to see if this is true, but if it is then it is probably worse than what Orifice tried. At least Orifice didn't try to bar entry unless you agreed to keep the cats.

Also, I don't care if it's legal. I care that such a move would make Etnz hypocrites.

This Rule was clearly aimed at excluding the New York Yacht Club/American Magic from Competition but they probably would not have challenged anyways since they did not like AC75 Class anyways.

Still, this is very bad if it means what it says. I am with you!

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

To be fair mate New Zealand got burned in 2003 by not making strict enough rules. 

Maybe but pulling a stunt like this excluding a potential Competitor because that Competitor doesn't like the current Boat Class and making it a Condition for their Entry is a massive fraud in my view!

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

@jaysper

You are spot on correct!

If you don't agree to use the AC75 Class in AC38 you are not allowed to Enter AC37. That's what this Rule says and I can tell you that the RNZYS, the RYS and their respective Teams ETNZ & INEOS TEAM UK opened themselves up to a massive legal Challenge here.

As much as I like these new Foiling Monos this is not legal.

I wonder what the New York Yacht Club is thinking about this? They have a habit going to Court.

I hope this Rule will not be written into the Official Protocol because if it is it has a NYSC Court Challenge written all over it!

I'm not sure it's about controlling past this Cup (well at least not the main reason) it does make a lot of sense if you are trying to attract new teams though. Knowing that you can invest then carry that investment on into a second cycle will be a much better investment than a one and done affair. 

On the other hand it might also signal that the first cup will be held between two team who are hapyp to sign back up to the ac75 class no matter who wins for a second go round with a few more competitors,. This would also make sense with the one boat  only rule, not much time to build two boats if the next Am Cup is in 12-16 months around the Isle of Wight... 

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

It has been agreed the AC75 Class shall remain the class of yacht for the next two America’s Cup cycles, and agreement to this is a condition of entry" 

That is good news,  but how could they decide anything for more than a cup cycle in advance? They should say that they wish it. As much as I like the idea, I think it is not something permitted under the deed

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Another bullshit clause, the AC is a design race not a sailor one. I am more interested to know who Guillaume Verdier will be working for.

You worried you can’t find enough yanks to fill the crew positions? ;-) 

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

If this rule was in place from 2000 - would the landscape look different to how it is today ? Would Alinghi have won the AC on first attempt in 2003?

By all accounts there were similar rules in place but, as we'll likely see in the next cycle, everyone ups-sticks and goes to live in the country of the challenge. 

14 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

This Rule was clearly aimed at excluding the New York Yacht Club/American Magic from Competition but they probably would not have challenged anyways since they did not like AC75 Class anyways.

From what I've heard the 3 backers of AM were split in their opinions of the AC75 with Hap Fauth remaining unimpressed but De Vos becoming quite a fan - he was in NZ and onboard chase boats the whole time and got caught up in the action during the capsize/sinking. I'm not sure where Penske falls on this but if I had to guess I'd say the cross-over/similarities in tech and development between the 75s and motorsports might keep him onside...

 

A new Crew Nationality Rule will require 100% of the race crew for each competitor to either be a passport holder of the country the team’s yacht club as at 19 March 2021 

Might be a few sailors jumping on planes today...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

Think about what you just said here 

That would be a change. Not really feasible for that one...prime iggy candidate

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

Nationality:

Jimmy can sail for LR, the US or Australia.

Ashby can sail for ETNZ or Australia

Slingsby can sail for the US or Australia (take note Amway Magic)

Outeridge is stuck with Aus as far as I know, unless picked up by an "emerging nation"

Dean can sail for NYYC or an NZ team - good luck with that

 

Basically you can only sail for the country that you have a passport in, or have been living in for the last 2 years, or the Yacht Club you were representing in Auckland 2021.

makes it hard for anyone that wants to buy a team

Also means Dalts has his boys fucked if they had been thinking of leaving.

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

That is good news,  but how could they decide anything for more than a cup cycle in advance? They should say that they wish it. As much as I like the idea, I think it is not something permitted under the deed

I think its hypocrisy strider. When Orifice tried the same shit kiwis on these boards (including me) were rightly fucked off.

It's not about if they are good boats. It's about trying to force your vision on the winner of AC 37.

 

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

I'm not sure it's about controlling past this Cup (well at least not the main reason) it does make a lot of sense if you are trying to attract new teams though. Knowing that you can invest then carry that investment on into a second cycle will be a much better investment than a one and done affair. 

On the other hand it might also signal that the first cup will be held between two team who are happ to sign back up to the ac75 class no matter who wins for a second go round with a few more competitors, this souls also make sense with the one boat  only rule, not much time to build two boats if the next Am Cup is in 12-16 months around the Isle of Wight... 

Look, the Point is not if it makes sense or not.

The Point jaysper I am are making that is isn't Deed Compliant!

As I have said and I stand by it: If this is written into the Official Protocol of AC37 the NYYC will Challenge it in Court.

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

Maybe but pulling a stunt like this excluding a potential Competitor because that Competitor doesn't like the current Boat Class and making it a Condition for their Entry is a massive fraud in my view!

How is that "fraud"?? Winners make the rules, quite simple!! A condition of entry is perfectly enforceable so long as the Challenger and Defender mutually agree.

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

I'm not suggesting they can get away with it. I'm suggesting that if that is what they are trying to get away with, they are hypocrites.

Agree, the chalice has poisoned Dalts' mind. Not at all surprised and is why I had moved to preferring Prada take the Cup to new pastures.

The way this is shaping up, we may look back fondly on NYYC and how fair they were by comparison.

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

Look, the Point is not if it makes sense or not.

The Point jaysper I am are making that is isn't Deed Compliant!

As I have said and I stand by it: If this is written into the Official Protocol of AC37 the NYYC will Challenge it in Court.

True potentially, although there is precident in having the same class of yacht for more than one cycle though. How did they manage to keep the IACC around for so many cycles? 

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

Agree, the chalice has poisoned Dalts' mind. Not at all surprised and is why I had moved to preferring Prada take the Cup to new pastures.

The way this is shaping up, we may look back fondly on NYYC and how fair they were by comparison.

I don't think it necessarily changes the fairness of the competition.

However if it's what they are doing, it's just a dirty filthy trick.

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

True potentially, although there is precident in having the same class of yacht for more than one cycle though. How did they manage to keep the IACC around for so many cycles? 

The winners agreed to....until they didn't.

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

Look, the Point is not if it makes sense or not.

The Point jaysper I am are making that is isn't Deed Compliant!

As I have said and I stand by it: If this is written into the Official Protocol of AC37 the NYYC will Challenge it in Court.

This ^. The fact they are even trying to do it, knowing it is not enforceable, is just bullshit. If the boat is so amazing it can stand on its own foil, no need for this crap.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

Look, the Point is not if it makes sense or not.

The Point jaysper I am are making that is isn't Deed Compliant!

As I have said and I stand by it: If this is written into the Official Protocol of AC37 the NYYC will Challenge it in Court.

Care to explain how "this isn't Deed Compliant"??

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

How is that "fraud"?? Winners make the rules, quite simple!! A condition of entry is perfectly enforceable so long as the Challenger and Defender mutually agree.

In the current Cup cycle, yes. But it cannot be enforced in any future Challenges, following an unsuccessful Defence.

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

Also means Dalts has his boys fucked if they had been thinking of leaving.

 

2 minutes ago, jaysper said:

I think its hypocrisy strider. When Orifice tried the same shit kiwis on these boards (including me) were rightly fucked off.

It's not about if they are good boats. It's about trying to force your vision on the winner of AC 37.

 

Agree with all of this - the ETNZ boys are locked in, arguably the same for some of the INEOS crew. 

The level of hypocrisy from both ETNZ and INEOS is pretty rife but we can expect the usual cycle of behaviour between COR and Defender - start out chummy and get progressively more distant and combative the closer you get to the finals. I reckon Ratcliffe and BA are setting themselves up to become the new villains of the AC...

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

I don't think it necessarily changes the fairness of the competition.

However if it's what they are doing, it's just a dirty filthy trick.

It does put pressure on any challenger. Win and face the prospect of a court challenge, even if unlikely, if you want to change the design.

 

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

In the current Cup cycle, yes. But it cannot be enforced in any future Challenges, following an unsuccessful Defence.

And that's your legal definition of "fraud"??

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

In the current Cup cycle, yes. But it cannot be enforced in any future Challenges, following an unsuccessful Defence.

More importantly, you are a cunt if you try to.

I hope this is a case of mis reporting.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear ! Nationality rule is going to leave a boatload of Aussies in the pub with no ride. 

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

Oh dear ! Nationality rule is going to leave a boatload of Aussies in the pub with no ride. 

Where's Bondi when you need him?

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

This ^. The fact they are even trying to do it, knowing it is not enforceable, is just bullshit. If the boat is so amazing it can stand on its own foil, no need for this crap.

The last thing the Cup needs is another 3 year legal fight like we had between 2007 - 2010 so why pull this?

The Intention and Rule Interpretation is clear here: You can't Challenge for AC37 if you don't agree to use the AC75 Class for AC38!

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

And that's your legal definition of "fraud"??

I did not use the word "fraud". But I certainly don't think it's a good idea, because it sets out to override the Defence provisions in the, DoG. Not very smart at all, IMO.

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

The last thing the Cup needs is another 3 year legal fight like we had between 2007 - 2010 so why pull this?

The Intention and Rule Interpretation is clear here: You can't Challenge for AC37 if you don't agree to use the AC75 Class for AC38!

Which is just a dick move. Looking more and more like the best thing is Dalts whores the event out to a high paying city and they drop the NZ part from the name. They are becoming an embarrassment, hopefully this is just a brief aberration, but I doubt it.

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

Oh dear ! Nationality rule is going to leave a boatload of Aussies in the pub with no ride. 

Nothing's changed in that regards then. 

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

I think its hypocrisy strider. When Orifice tried the same shit kiwis on these boards (including me) were rightly fucked off.

It's not about if they are good boats. It's about trying to force your vision on the winner of AC 37.

 

If you think teams are going to feel "forced" into anything if they win, then you don't know how the Americas Cup works.

Basically you could write anything into the Protocol you like, as long as both Defender and CoR mutually agree to it.

But that mutual consent only lasts as long as the protocol is valid. These teams know that, so they're not going to be forced into anything if they win. Thats why you put clauses like that in the protocol, because the protocol does not roll over to the next event, and therefor, is NON BINDING for the following event.

By putting it in the protocol, Yes, teams agree to use the AC75, for this cycle, and if the Kiwi's win again, the intent is to continue using the Class into the future, giving some certainty to potential teams. Again, the AC37 protocol does not roll over to the next cycle. Once the next event ends, a new protocol is written and the previous protocol becomes null and void just as it always has.

 

 

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

I did not use the word "fraud". But I certainly don't think it's a good idea, because it sets out to override the Defence provisions in the, DoG. Not very smart at all, IMO.

Ok, so what " Defence provisions in the, DoG" are being "overridden"??

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing comes to my mind and @Kiwimattmay have a Point here: This Rule could mean that we do have a 1 - 1 AC37 between ETNZ and INEOS TEAM UK in Cowes next year. Dalton, De Nora may have already decided secretly to do this to fill the Teams Financial Coffers and take this Offer from Sir Jim and have AC38 in Auckland on mutual consent.

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

Ok, so what " Defence provisions in the, DoG" are being "overridden"??

That the Defender and the Challenger decide on the boats and conditions for the match. (My interpretation, not the actual text).

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

That the Defender and the Challenger decide on the boats and conditions for the match. (My interpretation, not the actual text).

SO how how are the "..boats and conditions for the match" overridden if RNZYS and RYS agree on the boats and conditions of entry and other conditions, which the Deed specifically empowers them under mutual consent??

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

I think its hypocrisy strider. When Orifice tried the same shit kiwis on these boards (including me) were rightly fucked off.

It's not about if they are good boats. It's about trying to force your vision on the winner of AC 37.

 

It is a bit hypocritical but at the same time it is different to what OR were trying to do wasn’t it? They were trying to force not only the class of boat but the whole competition cycle etc (essential SailGP) - weren’t they?

But like others I think it’s not in keeping with the Deed etc and what makes the AC so good... the winner decides!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mako23 said:

With this emerging nation clause what’s to stop EB buying a yacht club in Africa and challenging for the cup.

If someone here have the chance to speak with EB just give him my contacts. I have some good names for him to pick up. ;)

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

SO how how are the "..boats and conditions for the match" overridden if RNZYS and RYS agree on the boats and conditions of entry and other conditions, which the Deed specifically empowers them under mutual consent??

In the current cycle (AC37) no problem. But they don't have rights to try and set those provisions for AC38.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a massive risk for both sides to have a DOG or a multi challenger match and trust the other side to just carry on all chummy for another unenforcible go-around in AC75's. 

The nationality rule sure as hell locks everyone's staff in.(good) Feel sorry for many professional sailors who will be out of work or excluded though (bad) 

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

It is a bit hypocritical but at the same time it is different to what OR were trying to do wasn’t it? They were trying to force not only the class of boat but the whole competition cycle etc (essential SailGP) - weren’t they?

But like others I think it’s not in keeping with the Deed etc and what makes the AC so good... the winner decides!

Orifice tried to convince the other teams to agree, they did NOT make agreement a condition of being allowed to enter.

This is worse. Almost definitely unenforceable, but the intention is shit house.

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

It is a bit hypocritical but at the same time it is different to what OR were trying to do wasn’t it? They were trying to force not only the class of boat but the whole competition cycle etc (essential SailGP) - weren’t they?

But like others I think it’s not in keeping with the Deed etc and what makes the AC so good... the winner decides!

Sure, it might be different. I am mostly concerned about the potential legal challenge it might get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Bertarelli, just to piss off GD, will fund an Aussie Team, calls it Auslinghi, and take all the Australians sailors scattered around the world in other teams . :D

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

Maybe Bertarelli, just to piss off GD, will fund an Aussie Team, calls it Auslinghi, and take all the Australians sailors scattered around the world in other teams . :D

Not a bad option for, Australia.

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

In the current cycle (AC37) no problem. But they don't have rights to try and set those provisions for AC38.

You people need to brush up on your comprehension. Agreeing to AC75s for AC37 and 38 is a Condition of Entry in a multi-Challenger AC. NYSC wouldn't even bother to get out of bed over any application as some of you people are claiming...NYSC has no say in any multi-Challenger event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You Kiwis might not like to hear this: This Rule in my view definitly opens up the possibility of having that rumored 1 vs 1 Single Challenger Event in Cowes for AC37 only to return to Auckland for a Multi-Challenger for AC38. It is definitly possible.

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

You Kiwis might not like to hear this: This Rule in my view definitly opens up the possibility of having that rumored 1 vs 1 Single Challenger Event in Cowes for AC37 only to return to Auckland for a Multi-Challenger for AC38. It is definitly possible.

What's not to like about that? Bring it on.

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

You Kiwis might not like to hear this: This Rule in my view definitly opens up the possibility of having that rumored 1 vs 1 Single Challenger Event in Cowes for AC37 only to return to Auckland for a Multi-Challenger for AC38. It is definitly possible.

I'd prefer that than the alternative. 

At least that would mean that etnz aren't trying to force the ac75 on a bunch of challengers. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sailbydate & @jaysper

Depends entirely on the NZ Government. If they can't reach a Deal within the next 90 Days it is going to happen I think. Dalts needs some Cash to get another Event in Auckland going and this is probably the best way for him to get it having someone like Sir Jim with deep pockets to fund it.

Of course everyone in NZ will throw Apples at Grant, De Nora if this happens!

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

You Kiwis might not like to hear this: This Rule in my view definitly opens up the possibility of having that rumored 1 vs 1 Single Challenger Event in Cowes for AC37 only to return to Auckland for a Multi-Challenger for AC38. It is definitly possible.

They might. I think Dalton would be an idiot to risk it. If they lose the RYS can do what they want, even accept another COR and bye bye Auckland with 250m of infrastructure left rotting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites