Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.5k
  • 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

6 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

What's all the shit show with the Cyclors? There won't be Cyclors on the AC75 Boats!!!

Nah. They're going to use those Nordic Ski cross-trainer things to get max output from legs AND arms. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Nah. They're going to use those Nordic Ski cross-trainer things to get max output from legs AND arms. 

TNZ is just going to power its next boat with 4OS's rage. They will be unstoppable. 

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

TNZ is just going to power its next boat with 4OS's rage. They will be unstoppable. 

If they could power it from his stupidity then they would be able to conquer the world

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

If they could power it from his stupidity then they would be able to conquer the world

Doesn’t matter what it’s powered by. It’s still gonna beat everyones ass like we have for the last 4 years. 

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

Given that they are trying to save money, I thought that they would get rid of they grinders altogether and use electric motors, more power, less cost.

You could save even more by getting rid of the sails. A couple of sodding great outboards would be plenty to get foiling. Why not, they call F1 "motorsport"? Faster, Higher, Stronger is just so 19th century.

But even that is unambitious. Given that simulations are ubiquitous for training, let's go the whole hog. My yacht club simulator versus yours. Umpire boats could be replaced by bots with dolphin avatars. All this angst about venues would be a thing of the past, the venue would be the metaverse. The tech $Bs whose name is not Larry might suddenly take an interest.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2021 at 10:32 AM, enigmatically2 said:

Nah. They're going to use those Nordic Ski cross-trainer things to get max output from legs AND arms. 

I guess rowers would be better, no? Oh, and if they're going that direction, just use those for oars. Run the cup in triremes!

Greek_Galleys.jpg

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

You could save even more by getting rid of the sails. A couple of sodding great outboards would be plenty to get foiling. Why not, they call F1 "motorsport"? Faster, Higher, Stronger is just so 19th century.

But even that is unambitious. Given that simulations are ubiquitous for training, let's go the whole hog. My yacht club simulator versus yours. Umpire boats could be replaced by bots with dolphin avatars. All this angst about venues would be a thing of the past, the venue would be the metaverse. The tech $Bs whose name is not Larry might suddenly take an interest.

Dangerous call, once the gamers get involved there is no way a sailing based team would stand a chance. Still, Vegas would be a great venue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2021 at 12:00 AM, terrafirma said:

The 37th Rendition of the Cup is set to fizz out like a dud set of Fireworks. With the NYYC pulling out due to a lack of time and uncertainty of the location clearly we must ask ourselves how can the event continue? So are we racing with 1 or 2 challengers? Surely we can't get excited about Ineos racing themselves in the challenger series just to face New Zealand? Have the Italians confirmed they are in for sure or will they withdraw like the USA? The event is simply not worth the $$$ The Kiwis want to host the event with 2 or 3 teams competing? How farking boring.! Seriously. :wub:

Not quite as boring as an Aussie trying to tell Kiwis how to Defend the AC. Just sayin.

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

My yacht club simulator versus yours. Umpire boats could be replaced by bots with dolphin avatars.

Let's just play it out in Virtual Regatta. Only cost $50 each and almost guarantee more entries

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

Not quite as boring as an Aussie trying to tell Kiwis how to Defend the AC. Just sayin

I think you will find Terra is a dyed in wool KIwi, just happens to be living in Melbourne.  Maybe the continued lockdown is getting to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2021 at 11:11 AM, Sailbydate said:
On 10/20/2021 at 10:00 PM, terrafirma said:

The 37th Rendition of the Cup is set to fizz out like a dud set of Fireworks. With the NYYC pulling out due to a lack of time and uncertainty of the location clearly we must ask ourselves how can the event continue? So are we racing with 1 or 2 challengers? Surely we can't get excited about Ineos racing themselves in the challenger series just to face New Zealand? Have the Italians confirmed they are in for sure or will they withdraw like the USA? The event is simply not worth the $$$ The Kiwis want to host the event with 2 or 3 teams competing? How farking boring.! Seriously. :wub:

Not quite as boring as an Aussie trying to tell Kiwis how to Defend the AC. Just sayin.

Take your blinkers off SBD please don't tell me you like how the event is travelling at the moment.! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Stingray sends TE this interview with Dunphy, and Ehman reports it on his show.

Dunphy says "He hasn't been involved for the last couple of months, but yip its gonna happen"

Then he's asked after all this time if he has the $80 million and says "No I don't have it yet but its just a dance before we get round the table"

Is this guy for real!? First of all he should've been willing to get around the table weeks ago! 

Second, the Team and Squadron have said and reiterated that they have ceased all communications with Dunphy

3rd, he doesn't have the money he says he does!? He thinks half should come from the private sector and half from the private sector, and then is asked if he's struggling to raise the money, to which he responds stuttering "I haven't actually been that far yet and people have indicated they want to help but he hasn't been prepared to go and have those discussions"

In other words

DUNPHY HAS NOTHING.

WTF?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Did ETNZ accept the £5m that Dunphy said he offered to keep the team going? 

Anyone know?

He said "He was prepared to write a cheque" not that he had already. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Did ETNZ accept the £5m that Dunphy said he offered to keep the team going? 

Anyone know?

No, they didn't accept that. Dalton was quoted "We don't need a LOAN" I believe!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Did ETNZ accept the £5m that Dunphy said he offered to keep the team going? 

Anyone know?

Both the $5M from NZ and the $5M from KHD (Dunphy and others) were predicated on a home Defence, and so therefore rejected. Same with the NZ $31 and (now) KHD $40M. 

During his most recent SI Live show (Friday) TE suggested, without blame or innuendo, that GD gets a % cut of money he raises. It suggests that GD has motivation to raise money himself, and as much as possible, rather than use money raised by others. He also wonders if Auckland interests may take things to court in NZ, to help force their cause. 

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

Take your blinkers off SBD please don't tell me you like how the event is travelling at the moment.! :D

I've gotta believe in the cause, mate. There's fuck all else in the world right now (apart from family & friends) to keep me interested, or at the very least, awake.

Anywho, sorry for insulting you - by calling you an, 'Aussie'. @trt131 reckons you're a good, Kiwi bloke. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2021 at 7:52 PM, trt131 said:

I think you will find Terra is a dyed in wool KIwi, just happens to be living in Melbourne.  

Ooops! Calling a guy a loud-mouthed cousin from the big island, is almost as bad as shagging a bridesmaid at your wedding. I'd better make amends. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sailbydate

Has Hamish Ross shown his "Cards" preemting a Court Challenge?

Opera Momentaufnahme_2021-10-26_002818_www.facebook.com.png

Like it has been mentioned in the "NYYC Thread" MISTER HAMISH ROSS is trying to be the Alan Dershowitz of AC Lawyering!

The Guy is hilarious!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Xlot said:

IANAL, but my thoughts exactly. @porthos?

Nothing in the Deed requires the defending yacht club or challenging yacht club to actually race the match. They are free to contract that out to a syndicate, as has been part of AC history since the beginning. There is certainly nothing legally problematic under NY trust law for a club to contract with a syndicate to race a match on the club's behalf.

That said, the club certainly is ultimately responsible to abide by the Deed and would be responsible if the syndicate attempted to breach the terms of the Deed.  For example, if a syndicate contracted by the defending club decided to require the match be contested in a non-Deed compliant boat, the defending club (and not the syndicate) would be the defendant in the subsequent lawsuit for having failed to comply with the Deed.  The club could not defend itself by pointing a finger at the syndicate it hired.

So the author is right that RNZYS is ultimately responsible for the actions of TNZ, regardless of what the contract between them might say.  What the author gets wrong, however, is his suggestion that the apparent lack of any viable defense in New Zealand waters means that RNZYS's agent is somehow breaching the Deed by looking to hold the match somewhere else. 

That's simply not true. There is nothing in the Deed requiring the defending club to host a defense in any particular waters (except for the hemisphere requirements), or more specifically, in the club's home waters. The defending club can hold the match anywhere that meets the hemisphere requirements (and might be able to waive those through mutual consent, which is what happened in AC33). Look no further that SNG (which has no Deed-compliant home waters) holding the match in Valencia, or GGYC holding the match in Bermuda.  Both were fine under the Deed. 

tl;dr: the author is right to a point but goes off the rails with his ultimate conclusion. 

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

@Sailbydate

Has Hamish Ross shown his "Cards" preemting a Court Challenge?

Opera Momentaufnahme_2021-10-26_002818_www.facebook.com.png

Like it has been mentioned in the "NYYC Thread" MISTER HAMISH ROSS is trying to be the Alan Dershowitz of AC Lawyering!

The Guy is hilarious!

I am convinced Ross fundamentally misunderstands the justice system here and should stop talking about it.

As an initial matter, courts speak through orders, not through what they say at oral argument.  Assuming Ross's transcript of what the judge said at that hearing is correct -- and I assume it is -- you can't cite that transcript as any form of judicial precedent. You have to cite the actual order issued by the judge, and I doubt the actual order the judge issued includes any of those incidental remarks. I think I have seen all of the orders and there was none of that discussion in them.  In other words, those incidental remarks by the judge at oral argument have no precedential value. We have a word for that -- dicta.  And if you cite dicta in a later case, you'll look like an idiot.

More importantly, SNG appealed that order to the NY Appellate Division, and the Appellate Division ruled on that appeal, finding that RAK was not a permissible venue because it was in the wrong hemisphere.  The appellate ruling said absolutely nothing about RAK being an impermissible venue because of discrimination laws. That appellate ruling from the higher court becomes the precedent over the ruling of the lower (trial) court that Ross cites. In other words, you can forget about anything the lower court said that wasn't ruled on by the appellate court.

He even uses the wrong term. He says this "judgment" was "upheld by a New York appellate court."  The lower court didn't issue a judgment; it issued an order. Judgments come at the end of a trial. A first year law school student understands the difference, but Ross apparently doesn't.

His longevity in this area remains baffling to me.

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

I am convinced Ross fundamentally misunderstands the justice system here and should stop talking about it.

As an initial matter, courts speak through orders, not through what they say at oral argument.  Assuming Ross's transcript of what the judge said at that hearing is correct -- and I assume it is -- you can't cite that transcript as any form of judicial precedent. You have to cite the actual order issued by the judge, and I doubt the actual order the judge issued includes any of those incidental remarks. I think I have seen all of the orders and there was none of that discussion in them.  In other words, those incidental remarks by the judge at oral argument have no precedential value. We have a word for that -- dicta.  And if you cite dicta in a later case, you'll look like an idiot.

More importantly, SNG appealed that order to the NY Appellate Division, and the Appellate Division ruled on that appeal, finding that RAK was not a permissible venue because it was in the wrong hemisphere.  The appellate ruling said absolutely nothing about RAK being an impermissible venue because of discrimination laws. That appellate ruling from the higher court becomes the precedent over the ruling of the lower (trial) court that Ross cites. In other words, you can forget about anything the lower court said that wasn't ruled on by the appellate court.

He even uses the wrong term. He says this "judgment" was "upheld by a New York appellate court."  The lower court didn't issue a judgment; it issued an order. Judgments come at the end of a trial. A first year law school student understands the difference, but Ross apparently doesn't.

His longevity in this area remains baffling to me.

I am massivly upset at Ross! Well, he lost a case in 2009/2010 lawyering for the SNG/Alinghi. He will lose that one as well if he goes in that Direction!

Link to post
Share on other sites

MARK DUNPHY apparently will be on TE's "Sailing Illustrated Show" on Friday? Why would you do this when you are convinced of winning. I think Dunphy grasping at straws here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as RYS is supportive of the Defender, there is no time frame. The Deed doesn't specify any time frame in which the RNZYS must defend the cup within, so it could be 2024, or it could be 2034 as long as the venue complies with the Deed of Gift or a location is mutually agreed upon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamish,  clutching at straws 

pretty sure you could find issue with most countries border policies as they currently stand.  Banning entry based on where you are from etc 

His statement is so messy mouthed and lacking specifics or certainties, it’s all 

“if they did, if they were to, in event that.”

dick 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Y88 said:

As reported in Scuttlebutt, RNZYS Commodore Young explained that they have a long standing agreement with Emirates Team New Zealand (ETNZ) to organize all aspects of the next match including indemnifying the Club from any “liability financial or otherwise”.

I ask myself does the RNZYS fully understand the Trust it has accepted. I would hold that in simple terms RNZYS is the principal as to the Trust and ETNZ simply their agent.

Commodore Young states, “At this time we do not have a viable New Zealand defense proposition,…” and as we have heard nor does ETNZ have an overseas proposition at this time.

So RNZYS’s agent is presently unable to fulfill its contract. If this situation continues there must come a time when RNZYS dismisses their agent for non-performance.

 

So his suggestion is that RNZYS should dismiss (E)TNZ and instead defend with that other Kiwi AC team that's waiting in the wings. Apparently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that regardless the possible merit of a lawsuit challenging RNZYS over its duties as Trustee, it could be time-consuming and therefore be of concern to any alternate venue’s considerations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us assume that Ineos would rather the event were not held in the ME (whether because of ethical issues or because it might give EKSANZ more money or out of consideration for the yanks is irrelevant for the moment). 

They can refuse to sign the protocol with that element. For all we know they have already declined to accept ME and that is why the venue announcement was delayed (either last month when it was supposed to be, or last week when there were rumours it would be announced).

Come Feb (IIRC) INEOS can issue (or threaten to issue) a DoG challenge that would force ETNZ to hold it in the Southern hemisphere, and thus effectively NZ. That is before the 6 months Ireland asked for. 

I think if there were a ME offer on the table that was acceptable to GD and Ineos then it would have already been signed. 

Therefore I have a suspicion that one way or another we may end up back in Auckland unless Spain manages to pull a very large plum out of their governmental arse.

But that is based solely on logical deduction from snippets. So could be as wrong as every other suggestion

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Let us assume that Ineos would rather the event were not held in the ME (whether because of ethical issues or because it might give EKSANZ more money or out of consideration for the yanks is irrelevant for the moment). 

They can refuse to sign the protocol with that element. For all we know they have already declined to accept ME and that is why the venue announcement was delayed (either last month when it was supposed to be, or last week when there were rumours it would be announced).

Come Feb (IIRC) INEOS can issue (or threaten to issue) a DoG challenge that would force ETNZ to hold it in the Southern hemisphere, and thus effectively NZ. That is before the 6 months Ireland asked for. 

I think if there were a ME offer on the table that was acceptable to GD and Ineos then it would have already been signed. 

Therefore I have a suspicion that one way or another we may end up back in Auckland unless Spain manages to pull a very large plum out of their governmental arse.

But that is based solely on logical deduction from snippets. So could be as wrong as every other suggestion

My take on things too, still. I doubt it’ll go to a DoG challenge but that’s a possible pressure-point I guess. 
 

Still not seeing what the problem is with defending in Auckland again, the recent KHD statement added up the numbers in a fairly simple summary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ineos were to force a DoG challenge, why would they want it to be in Auckland? Surely it would benefit Ineos and hinder TNZ to hold it in the northern hemisphere?

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

If Ineos were to force a DoG challenge, why would they want it to be in Auckland? Surely it would benefit Ineos and hinder TNZ to hold it in the northern hemisphere?

Because they’d know what kind of boat to build for Aukland, maybe? Not that they could force Aukland if it did come to that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best strategy for Ineos would be "make TNZ spend more money" as that is what Ineos has got and TNZ, so it seems, has not. Therefore, not Auckland. 

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

No, they didn't accept that. Dalton was quoted "We don't need a LOAN" I believe!

Yet they seem to have a large 'loan' payable to de Nora if he asks for it back?

What a blowhard he is turning out to be m

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

If Ineos were to force a DoG challenge, why would they want it to be in Auckland? Surely it would benefit Ineos and hinder TNZ to hold it in the northern hemisphere?

Because the only reason for ETNZ to go overseas is to get more money. They are the ones saying there isn't enough money for a competitive challenge in Auckland. So by forcing it to be there, Ineos could see an advantage

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

 Not that they could force Aukland if it did come to that. 

They can force it to be Southern hemisphere with the timing of their challenge, and that effectively would mean Auckland (or  another venue where ETNZ have even less money)

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Because the only reason for ETNZ to go overseas is to get more money. They are the ones saying there isn't enough money for a competitive challenge in Auckland. So by forcing it to be there, Ineos could see an advantage

Your assumption is that there is more money available overseas. I'm not sure that a brief 2-3 race DoG challenge would be so attractive that a venue will be coughing up much in the way of hosting fees. I don't recall discussion of hosting fees for AC33. 

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

Your assumption is that there is more money available overseas. I'm not sure that a brief 2-3 race DoG challenge would be so attractive that a venue will be coughing up much in the way of hosting fees. I don't recall discussion of hosting fees for AC33. 

I don't think it would be a DoG match in reality, merely the threat of a DoG challenge would be enough to get GD to drop any idea of the ME, but stay in AC75s which I think Ineos would want. But I don't think either party would want an out and out DoG match

Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what Hamish Ross will try legally here, he will never succeed.

As @porthosmentioned the Court ruled out RAK in 2009 because it was in the "Wrong Hemisphere" not because of "Discriminal Laws"

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

As long as RYS is supportive of the Defender, there is no time frame. The Deed doesn't specify any time frame in which the RNZYS must defend the cup within, so it could be 2024, or it could be 2034 as long as the venue complies with the Deed of Gift or a location is mutually agreed upon. 

"As long as" is the key phrase there. If RYS loses patience with the process, all bets are off. You have to assume their patience is not unlimited. The schedule is not totally in the hands of the Defender.

 

From the DoG:

"The challenging Club shall give ten months’ notice in writing naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November first and May first if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May first and November first if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. ........

...............

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be waived.

In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people including you @accnickunderestimate the long standing Relationship between Grant Dalton and Ben Ainslie.

They are not going to break it up for the sake of having a DoG Challenge.

And this is excatly the reason RNZYS picked RYS/INEOS. INEOS also has been very supportive during most if not all of the Arb Panel Hearings/Rulings during AC36.

Now, if the so called "Auckland Home Defence Consortium" challenges the Duties of the RNZYS as Trustees of the Cup that is completely out of INEOS/RYS control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't underestimating the relationship, and we are not suggesting that it will really end in a DoG. But neither is Ben going to play patsy and roll over to have his tummy tickled. 

If he or the Ineos team don't want the event to happen in the ME for any reason, they can easily stop it. And unless GD calls their bluff and insists on a full DoG (which is definitely not in their interest) they can agree on AC75s etc.

Yes Ben wants a fair match, but that doesn't mean to say he has to let ETNZ grab everything their hearts (or GDs bank account) desires

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

We aren't underestimating the relationship, and we are not suggesting that it will really end in a DoG. But neither is Ben going to play patsy and roll over to have his tummy tickled. 

If he or the Ineos team don't want the event to happen in the ME for any reason, they can easily stop it. And unless GD calls their bluff and insists on a full DoG (which is definitely not in their interest) they can agree on AC75s etc.

Yes Ben wants a fair match, but that doesn't mean to say he has to let ETNZ grab everything their hearts (or GDs bank account) desires

 

On the flip side Dalton is not going to defend the AC underfunded I can guarantee you that!

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

On the flip side Dalton is not going to defend the AC underfunded I can guarantee you that!

You assume he has a choice. If we take GD's word as true, then he has said there is insufficient money for a defence in NZ. Ineos can make him choose that option if they want.

Alternatively they can wait for no better offshore options to appear

Whats GD going to do? Take Auckland money and stick it on all to win on a horse?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, enigmatically2 said:

You assume he has a choice. If we take GD's word as true, then he has said there is insufficient money for a defence in NZ. Ineos can make him choose that option if they want.

Alternatively they can wait for no better offshore options to appear

Whats GD going to do? Take Auckland money and stick it on all to win on a horse?

He may take Auckland BUT will likely demand Dunphy to resign from any AC37 Activities. Daltons big goal right now is to get rid of him that's obvious. These two guys can't stand each other.

Dalton made it crystal clear if the Decision of a Host Venue comes back to Auckland again Dunphy will have no part in it.

The Question is: Who is going to carve first?

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

I think many people including you @accnickunderestimate the long standing Relationship between Grant Dalton and Ben Ainslie.

They are not going to break it up for the sake of having a DoG Challenge.

And this is excatly the reason RNZYS picked RYS/INEOS. INEOS also has been very supportive during most if not all of the Arb Panel Hearings/Rulings during AC36.

Now, if the so called "Auckland Home Defence Consortium" challenges the Duties of the RNZYS as Trustees of the Cup that is completely out of INEOS/RYS control.

I have been around this game long enough to know that "long standing relationships" can un-ravel very quickly when one party feels they are being played by the other. This includes times when patience is being abused.

So far, it would appear that the CoR and Defender are still on the same page, and we can reasonably assume both want to keep it that way.

However, this is a two-way street, and there are two parties, each of whose primary goal is to win the Cup.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. LR and ETNZ were best mates, up until they weren't. And BA is not necessarily well-known for his relaxed attitude to sailing competition. I don't think we have a clue where things stand between TNZ and Ineos at this point.

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

Yes. LR and ETNZ were best mates, up until they weren't. And BA is not necessarily well-known for his relaxed attitude to sailing competition.

Hilarious! Have you seen BA in Auckland this year? He was almost too polite & relaxed. BA has completely lost his competitive edge!

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

Hilarious! Have you seen BA in Auckland this year? He was almost too polite & relaxed. BA has completely lost his competitive edge!

If you think that, I'm guessing you don't actually know him.

Dr. Robert Bruce Banner is also mild-mannered...until he isn't. 

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

If Jim decides he has had enough of Grants dithering he won’t be shy of moving on to the next step, special relationship or not. 

Most likely he will walk away from it altogether!

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

Most likely he will walk away from it altogether!

You really can be dumb at times can't you.

Why the fcuk would he do that just because the yanks are unravelling and Dalton is struggling to get enogh money to fund an oppie campaign?

Link to post
Share on other sites

TE tells me that HR will describe the deliberations that excluded RAK on his show today, part of the ‘on this date’ segment. 
 

Maybe a lot more interestingly, KHD’s Dunphy accepted an invitation to appear on Friday’s show. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The deliberations? Or how he is making things up with no knowledge of what would actually be in place should the chose a ME location. Should be a great listen…. 

Fuck I hate to agree with 4 but HR can get in the bin 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, enigmatically2 said:

You really can be dumb at times can't you.

Why the fcuk would he do that just because the yanks are unravelling and Dalton is struggling to get enogh money to fund an oppie campaign?

If you think Jim Ratcliffe has the same desire like Larry Ellison had when he created Oracle in 2003 to win the AC you are gravely mistaken. Jim has other things to do then spending $$$ on a Sailboat Race. He has other Sports to promote his brand unlike Larry in 2003!

If there is a Legal Challenge it doesn't stop there "Oh yeah, we are challenging the Duties of the RNZYS as Trustees of the Cup". They will challenge the Venue and they will challenge the validity of the RYSL as well. Hamish Ross already tried once but Commodore Culver did not comply (Thank God) but there is no doubt Ross will try again to get rid of INEOS/RYSL.

Ratcliffe already seemed pretty annoyed to me in the INEOS Reveal Show about the Venue Delay.

It wouldn't be the first time a CoR quits. Happened with Mascalzone Latino & that Team Australia Challenge from the HIYC!

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

 

It wouldn't be the first time a CoR quits. Happened with Mascalzone Latino & that Team Australia Challenge from the HIYC!

You seem to have forgotten that Luna Rossa also quit in a snit after they replaced HIYC as COR for AC 35.

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

"As long as" is the key phrase there. If RYS loses patience with the process, all bets are off. You have to assume their patience is not unlimited. The schedule is not totally in the hands of the Defender.

 

From the DoG:

"The challenging Club shall give ten months’ notice in writing naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November first and May first if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May first and November first if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. ........

...............

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be waived.

In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup."

Yip, but there are is no court case until then.

We're not even 12 months since the last cycle.

I really don't think INEOS are in any hurry to race for the Cup. The longer they hold off, the more advantage they have over the other challengers, and the longer time they have to sit around the design table with Team NZ which may give them a feel or an insight into which direction Team NZ may go in terms of design.

I also think Ratcliffe and Ainslie want to beat a strong Team NZ, not an underfunded, underdone Team NZ. They don't want an asterisk next to any potential win.

The longer this drags on, the better it is for both Team NZ and INEOS.

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

Yip, but there are is no court case until then.

We're not even 12 months since the last cycle.

I really don't think INEOS are in any hurry to race for the Cup. The longer they hold off, the more advantage they have over the other challengers, and the longer time they have to sit around the design table with Team NZ which may give them a feel or an insight into which direction Team NZ may go in terms of design.

I also think Ratcliffe and Ainslie want to beat a strong Team NZ, not an underfunded, underdone Team NZ. They don't want an asterisk next to any potential win.

The longer this drags on, the better it is for both Team NZ and INEOS.

Probably as long as it stays out of the Courts.

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

If you think Jim Ratcliffe has the same desire like Larry Ellison had when he created Oracle in 2003 to win the AC you are gravely mistaken. Jim has other things to do then spending $$$ on a Sailboat Race. He has other Sports to promote his brand unlike Larry in 2003!

If there is a Legal Challenge it doesn't stop there "Oh yeah, we are challenging the Duties of the RNZYS as Trustees of the Cup". They will challenge the Venue and they will challenge the validity of the RYSL as well. Hamish Ross already tried once but Commodore Culver did not comply (Thank God) but there is no doubt Ross will try again to get rid of INEOS/RYSL.

Ratcliffe already seemed pretty annoyed to me in the INEOS Reveal Show about the Venue Delay.

It wouldn't be the first time a CoR quits. Happened with Mascalzone Latino & that Team Australia Challenge from the HIYC!

Didn’t both of those pull out due to lack of cash though? The Aussies certainly did. Not such a problem for Sir Jim.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Main Man said:

Didn’t both of those pull out due to lack of cash though? The Aussies certainly did. Not such a problem for Sir Jim.

You are correct, money won't be the issue for Jim. I thought more about the lines that he would lose interest if this ends up being a prolonged Court Fight!

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

You are correct, money won't be the issue for Jim. I thought more about the lines that he would lose interest if this ends up being a prolonged Court Fight!

Why on earth do you think there is going to be a court fight? There is no reason to think that will be the case at this point, despite all the posturing by some.

Who is going to claim standing, and what harm have they suffered? The NYYC appears to have dropped out, and LR appears to have had enough of the COR role.

A challenge to the legitimacy of either the current Defender or the current Challenger of Record is beyond a long shot.

This is not going to be a repeat of the shitfight after AC32.

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

Why on earth do you think there is going to be a court fight? There is no reason to think that will be the case at this point, despite all the posturing by some.

Who is going to claim standing, and what harm have they suffered? The NYYC appears to have dropped out, and LR appears to have had enough of the COR role.

A challenge to the legitimacy of either the current Defender or the current Challenger of Record is beyond a long shot.

This is not going to be a repeat of the shitfight after AC32.

"TEAM DUNPHY"

Hamish Ross has all but indicated that he will challenge the Venue no matter where it is headed unless it's Auckland. He has telegraphed this basically since June! Even NZ Media thinks there could be Court Challenges.

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

"TEAM DUNPHY"

Hamish Ross has all but indicated that he will challenge the Venue no matter where it is headed unless it's Auckland. He has telegraphed this basically since June! Even NZ Media thinks there could be Court Challenges.

Anybody can sue anybody for anything. This means fuckall. 

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

"TEAM DUNPHY"

Hamish Ross has all but indicated that he will challenge the Venue no matter where it is headed unless it's Auckland. He has telegraphed this basically since June! Even NZ Media thinks there could be Court Challenges.

There is more than just Hamish Ross in the legal circles that will challenge the location

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

"TEAM DUNPHY"

Hamish Ross has all but indicated that he will challenge the Venue no matter where it is headed unless it's Auckland. He has telegraphed this basically since June! Even NZ Media thinks there could be Court Challenges.

Neither Hamish Ross nor Dunphy have any standing to challenge the venue selection. The only party that would have standing to challenge the venue would be RYSL as CoR. If RYSL agrees with the venue, then the only scenario under which one of the other teams might be able to challenge the venue is if the venue as agreed upon by TNZ and RYSL is not Deed-complaint, such as being in the wrong hemisphere for the dates. Personally, I think a court would allow the parties to ditch the hemisphere requirements via mutual consent, but perhaps not. 

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

"TEAM DUNPHY"

Hamish Ross has all but indicated that he will challenge the Venue no matter where it is headed unless it's Auckland. He has telegraphed this basically since June! Even NZ Media thinks there could be Court Challenges.

Well, let's see what law firm in NY, home of the Deed, wants to take this on. I guarantee they are not going to give anyone a line of credit.

As I recall, Oracle used Boies Schiller Flexner in 2009. David Boies got a pretty good result.

Hope whoever wants to go to court on this one has deep pockets.

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

There is more than just Hamish Ross in the legal circles that will challenge the location

If it's Jeddah, yes someone else might BUT I don't see Ratcliffe challenging it if it's in Europe (Spain, Ireland).

What do you think?

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

If it's Jeddah, yes someone else might BUT I don't see Ratcliffe challenging it if it's in Europe (Spain, Ireland).

What do you think?

I was referring specifically to any location in Saudi Arabia.

Link to post
Share on other sites