Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

Ratcliffe: Damn Ben, I've put into this fucking campaign twice the budget of the other teams and you screwed it. I've bought you everything you asked me for!

Ben: Sorry Boss, but there is still something you could buy and that will guarantee our presence in the next AC Match.

Ratcliffe: What?

Ben: a 1 - 1 Match against the Kiwis

Ratcliffe: Good idea Ben, and this will cost me way less than funding you to try winning the damn Challengers Selection on your own again!

  • Like 2
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

15 minutes ago, Didieffe said:

Question to experts here:
 

based on "You can't Challenge for AC37 if you don't agree to use the AC75 Class for AC38!"
EB (little bit upset for the rules settled to avoid his shopping into the actual ac75 crew) can say this rule is against the rule you cannot settled 
anything for a future regata till when the actual one is not finished.
So he will goes to NYC courts to request a DOG, he can make shopping through the crew, he can buy LRPP boat 2 (promising to be COR later in case of win) and he can fuck Ineos and tring it seriously .

Where I'm wrong?

Should EB win again the Cup, I wouldn't be surprised if he introduces a nationality rule of his own, by which 99% of sailing crew MUST be of a different nationality than their own yachtclub :D

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Forourselves said:
4 hours ago, jaysper said:

Well, that's the current teams. What about prospective teams?

And if all the teams love them so much, no need to make entry conditional upon them right?

I'm sorry but this is ETNZ trying to impose their vision on AC38 regardless of whether they win it lose and is no better than Orifice.

If ETNZ want to keep dictating terms, they make sure they keep winning. Not pull this scam.

Expand  

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.

Feh!  OTOH, it all makes perfect sense in the context of a two-boat DoG match in Cowes in a year or two

You cast doubt on ETNZ's Protocol.  It is clearly NOT. We're only viewing an outline now, But it promises a Protocol written and shared and signed by both RYS and RNZYS

If they go the DoG route, both teams are complicit. Both have will have signed the contract. Each is dependent on the other. It envisages two matches. And it is all Mutual Consent.  All other contenders can line up and wait their turn.

If Dalton decides he doesn't want to go to Cowes, he still has months to negotiate his way out and opt for a multi-challenger match here in four years with Ineos/RYA as CoR. What's more he can blame his short-sighted Kiwi detractors.

In the interim he will have vastly strengthened his negotiating position versus Nash, Goff and the pinchpenny hand-wringers brigade here.

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

Pretty exciting prospect eh, JAL?

exciting me and strider thinking along the same lines? ;)

to be honest I am happy INEOS re committed, for continuity and potentially some stability, I will let the massively successful SA legal advisory team that have suddenly set up residence debate that one..

Racing in the Solent? fuck yes it would be great to see, NZ defending back in NZ, yup that's great too and I hope it can make financial sense or the melt down will be beyond ridiculous.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jaysper said:

Well, that's the current teams. What about prospective teams?

And if all the teams love them so much, no need to make entry conditional upon them right?

I'm sorry but this is ETNZ trying to impose their vision on AC38 regardless of whether they win it lose and is no better than Orifice.

If ETNZ want to keep dictating terms, they make sure they keep winning. Not pull this scam.

As long as ETNZ hold the cup, I don't have an issue with persisting with a class of boat, and signalling that to potential entrants.

I suspect that if ETNZ lose the cup, anything that anyone signed up to previously (e.g. aforementioned persistence if AC75) would be legally difficult to enforce... and they'll know that...

 

 

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

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. 

And where, pray tell, is that written? Chapter and verse please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

153000007_LordDalton.jpg.bd5a52cff8285f4044497fbe4dac7947.jpg

I think that if this highly rumoured 1 - 1 Match will result real, (I still hope it doesn't) it will be one of the most disgusting and unsportsmanlike things made to the America's Cup in the modern era. An act of selfishness and total disrespect to the other syndicates, especially Prada, without whom the Cup would be probably still quietly in Bermuda.

I would say the same if it were Prada planning such bullshit.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, strider470 said:

153000007_LordDalton.jpg.bd5a52cff8285f4044497fbe4dac7947.jpg

I think that if this highly rumoured 1 - 1 Match will result real, (I still hope it doesn't) it will be one of the most disgusting and unsportsmanlike things made to the America's Cup in the modern era. An act of selfishness and total disrespect to the other syndicates, especially Prada, without whom the Cup would be probably still quietly in Bermuda.

I would say the same if it were Prada planning such bullshit.

Agree. Really hope ETNZ aren’t lured by cash to do it. It’s essentially UK trying to buy back the America’s Cup. Buying home advantage and buying win in challenger series. If I understand it correctly. 

Although I probably have more sympathy for other teams over LR, from the way the COR behaved over the various parts.

 

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

Aren't you guys sayng it's going to be possible what I wrote here two days ago? Back then almost everybody (me included) said it was bulshit.

Was possible, is possible but I don't so far see why ETNZ would want to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think signalling AC75s for 2 cycles, and only one boat, to get more teams. More teams is signalling to the venue more money. But its just that, signalling. We'll have to wait for an actual protocol. Fuck I can't keep up this processing after less than a week, can't I just enjoy my beer. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sailing.org/news/90836.php#.YFSCL0hKh0t

 

So maybe we already have a glimpse of AC37:

- Ineos COR

- AC75 confirmed for 2 Cup cycles

- 100% nationality rule for the sailing team (with little room for exceptions)

- Teams will be allowed to build only one boat

- Teams from emerging nations will have derogations on the nationality rule and will generally be helped to be able to launch a credible challenge

 

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

I think signalling AC75s for 2 cycles, and only one boat, to get more teams. More teams is signalling to the venue more money. But its just that, signalling. We'll have to wait for an actual protocol. Fuck I can't keep up this processing after less than a week, can't I just enjoy my beer. 

Good man, I'm totally confused and going blind. 

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

https://www.sailing.org/news/90836.php#.YFSCL0hKh0t

 

So maybe we already have a glimpse of AC37:

- Ineos COR

- AC75 confirmed for 2 Cup cycles

- 100% nationality rule for the sailing team (with little room for exceptions)

- Teams will be allowed to build only one boat

- Teams from emerging nations will have derogations on the nationality rule and will generally be helped to be able to launch a credible challenge

 

AC75 confirmed for 2 Cup cycles just guarantees that neither Ineos or ETNZ will win the next cup.

 

If they want to encourage development and other teams, the rule needs to be you can only own 1 boat at a time (including AC36 boats) and teams need to be given a credit in some way for selling rather than scrapping an old boat (ie extra foil allowance or similar).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The one-boat rule (and to some extend, the nation rule for crew) strongly favours the existing teams, if not specifically Ineos and ETNZ.

Breaking the two-cycle rule would then have to be sued in NY, wouldn't it? The winner shouldn't have much trouble if he doesn't want to follow this rule....

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

The one-boat rule (and to some extend, the nation rule for crew) strongly favours the existing teams, if not specifically Ineos and ETNZ.

Breaking the two-cycle rule would then have to be sued in NY, wouldn't it? The winner shouldn't have much trouble if he doesn't want to follow this rule....

Also a having an AC Match whose protocol is not DoG compliant could lead to NYC.

Does anyone knows if RNZYS received other challenges other than from the Brits? Just in case RYS forget to organize their annual regatta. :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Forourselves said:

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.

 

 

So ETNZ is requiring teams to agree to an unenforceable condition in order to participate in AC37, when everybody knows it is unenforceable? Why go through that circus? Why not just say "We intend to use this class of boat for the next two cups."  Why make a challenger agree to a legal fiction? That makes no sense.

The best evidence of what ETNZ intends is the plain meaning of the words they use, without having to read in innuendo or a wink, blink, or nod. We should take them at their word, shouldn't we? And the plain language ETNZ has used (at least in the press release) is that no team participating in AC37 can challenge in AC38 in anything other than an AC75. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

Fine by me

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 didn't try to make agreeing to the future boat a condition of entry.

It's also hard, at this point and after not having serious nationality rules for decades, to view those as anything other than keeping ETNZ's labor costs down by not allowing some of their top sailors any opportunity to negotiate a better deal for themselves with another team.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, idontwan2know said:

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 didn't try to make agreeing to the future boat a condition of entry.

It's also hard, at this point and after not having serious nationality rules for decades, to view those as anything other than keeping ETNZ's labor costs down by not allowing some of their top sailors any opportunity to negotiate a better deal for themselves with another team.

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  :ph34r:

  • Like 7
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

NZH - Stunning World Scoop!

Our intrepid reporters have uncovered ETNZ's new low-wind, high-speed mode for the AC35.5 ...

Remember, you saw it first at NZH.

image.png.546a3649697d1e379289d468bea288d9.png

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

And where, pray tell, is that written? Chapter and verse please.

Obviously Four is wrong.

However the Deed specifies the condition of selection of a challenger, so if they  impose a double condition: first to challenge and acceptation of the same rule for the next challenge, it could open a law suit at the NYYSC as 1) the Deed never contemplated this as a condition to challenge 2) the YC was deemed to be the first because they agreed to this MC, 3) the MC is about the condition of the present match, not the next one.

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

So ETNZ is requiring teams to agree to an unenforceable condition in order to participate in AC37, when everybody knows it is unenforceable? Why go through that circus? Why not just say "We intend to use this class of boat for the next two cups."  Why make a challenger agree to a legal fiction? That makes no sense.

The best evidence of what ETNZ intends is the plain meaning of the words they use, without having to read in innuendo or a wink, blink, or nod. We should take them at their word, shouldn't we? And the plain language ETNZ has used (at least in the press release) is that no team participating in AC37 can challenge in AC38 in anything other than an AC75. 

As forourselves has noted, a protocol agreed for the current Cup can only set conditions for the current Cup.

ETNZ/RNZYS have held the Cup four times, second longest to the NYYC (25). So I am surprised that their lawyers believe they can write a protocol that can bind any challengers to any future Cups. 

Do they accept that challengers will sign up and then default. If so why write it?

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

As forourselves has noted, a protocol agreed for the current Cup can only set conditions for the current Cup.

ETNZ/RNZYS have held the Cup four times, second longest to the NYYC (25). So I am surprised that their lawyers believe they can write a protocol that can bind any challengers to any future Cups. 

Do they accept that challengers will sign up and then default. If so why write it?

I can't explain why ETNZ has done something that everyone appears to agree is legally unenforceable. William of Ockham would suggest that ETNZ believes they can make the restrictions stick or they would not have announced that they are putting them in the AC37 protocol.  Anything else requires the assumption that ETNZ is expecting challengers to ignore what ETNZ actually wrote in the AC37 protocol in favor of some deeper, unwritten understanding. 

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

153000007_LordDalton.jpg.bd5a52cff8285f4044497fbe4dac7947.jpg

I think that if this highly rumoured 1 - 1 Match will result real, (I still hope it doesn't) it will be one of the most disgusting and unsportsmanlike things made to the America's Cup in the modern era. An act of selfishness and total disrespect to the other syndicates, especially Prada, without whom the Cup would be probably still quietly in Bermuda.

I would say the same if it were Prada planning such bullshit.

I'm not nearly as unhappy about that as I am about the rumors about attempting to dictate the boat for AC38.

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

I can't explain why ETNZ has done something that everyone appears to agree is legally unenforceable. William of Ockham would suggest that ETNZ believes they can make the restrictions stick or they would not have announced that they are putting them in the AC37 protocol.  Anything else requires the assumption that ETNZ is expecting challengers to ignore what ETNZ actually wrote in the AC37 protocol in favor of some deeper, unwritten understanding. 

I don't give a fuck if its enforceable, if true its a disgrace.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, idontwan2know said:

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 didn't try to make agreeing to the future boat a condition of entry.

It's also hard, at this point and after not having serious nationality rules for decades, to view those as anything other than keeping ETNZ's labor costs down by not allowing some of their top sailors any opportunity to negotiate a better deal for themselves with another team.

totally agree. Shameful. 

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

totally agree. Shameful. 

Let's wait until there will be an official document.

Up until now, it's only a rumour, and I don't want to blame anyone for just a rumour.

Let's hope they will decide in a fair way and for something that doesn't bring any future legal problem, we already had enough in the past...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, strider470 said:

Let's wait until there will be an official document.

Up until now, it's only a rumour, and I don't want to blame anyone for just a rumour.

Let's hope they will decide in a fair way and for something that doesn't bring any future legal problem, we already had enough in the past...

Totally agree Strider and good on you.

Honestly,  the 1 v 1 doesn't fill me with rage. Its bad for the cup in a lot of ways but it is compatible with both the letter and spirit of the deed of gift (unfortunately).

Even the nationality rule, whilst disappointing,  doesn't boil my blood.

However the imposition of the AC75 is outrageous if true. A total cunt move even Ernie would be proud of.

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

Totally agree Strider and good on you.

Honestly,  the 1 v 1 doesn't fill me with rage. Its bad for the cup in a lot of ways but it is compatible with both the letter and spirit of the deed of gift (unfortunately).

Even the nationality rule, whilst disappointing,  doesn't boil my blood.

However the imposition of the AC75 is outrageous if true. A total cunt move even Ernie would be proud of.

I' m far more concerned on the 1 - 1, than the boat. Give us anything with hull and sails, but let us compete!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of what we're discussing is speculation and it seems that it will take a while to become fact. And then there's the legendary posturing that has become such as pain the arse with these AC campaigns. It's also clear that anyone thinking of making a significant financial commitment needs some degree of certainty. The structure of previous campaigns and the petty spats make it very difficult to form a framework which has common support. And the fact that the CoR and Defender get to hammer it out doesn't necessarily mean we will get a satisfactory result. We need only look at what happened between LRPP and ETNZ this time around to see how strained matters can become.

That this process will continue for moths merely adds to the cloak of subterfuge.

 

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

I don't give a fuck if its enforceable, if true its a disgrace.

I am guilty of reverting to my training. If we all asked ourselves each time not only whether we can do something but whether we should do something, we'd all be better off.  And I'd probably have to find a new job.

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

Totally agree Strider and good on you.

Honestly,  the 1 v 1 doesn't fill me with rage. Its bad for the cup in a lot of ways but it is compatible with both the letter and spirit of the deed of gift (unfortunately).

Even the nationality rule, whilst disappointing,  doesn't boil my blood.

However the imposition of the AC75 is outrageous if true. A total cunt move even Ernie would be proud of.

Is the suggested or proposed 1 on 1 a challenge match, dog n pony show or an actual proposed AC match?

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

I' m far more concerned on the 1 - 1, than the boat. Give us anything with hull and sails, but let us compete!

Oh look, I REALLY don't like the idea at all as it will remove continuity for teams like Prada meaning their teams will disintegrate. But it is not the deal breaker for me.

Also, the news articles I've read point  VERY STRONGLY to a multi challenger event so I think its pure rumour. 

Reading the part about nationality, it requires only to be a passport holder and that is super easy to get around so the rule will have zero effect thankfully. 

But the imposition of the AC75 if true means you and I could end up supporting the same team next cup. And whilst it hurts a lot to type that, yes I'm serious. 

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

Is the suggested or proposed 1 on 1 a challenge match, dog n pony show or an actual proposed AC match?

Honestly,  the news articles are all talking multi challenger, so I reckon its either fiction or a dog n pony show.

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

Reading the part about nationality, it requires only to be a passport holder and that is super easy to get around so the rule will have zero effect thankfully. 

Passport holder at March 19 2021. 

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

Oh look, I REALLY don't like the idea at all as it will remove continuity for teams like Prada meaning their teams will disintegrate. But it is not the deal breaker for me.

Also, the news articles I've read point  VERY STRONGLY to a multi challenger event so I think its pure rumour. 

Reading the part about nationality, it requires only to be a passport holder and that is super easy to get around so the rule will have zero effect thankfully. 

But the imposition of the AC75 if true means you and I could end up supporting the same team next cup. And whilst it hurts a lot to type that, yes I'm serious. 

For the nationality rule, it's a little bit more complicated because the passport must be produced with the date... of yesterday...

For the boat, if someone wins the Cup and wishes to change class, it would be easy because that point of the protocol is not permitted under the deed. That said, the eventual winner will have all the interest in keeping a class of boats where they were so successful. What concerns me is a possible legal action to the NYSC

The 1 - 1 match, is indeed a direct action to damage and try to disrupt other strong competitors (read LRPP) taking an unfair advantage. They can do that, by the deed, but it will be an unforgivable sin that will remain forever and will bring consequences in the long period, and nothing good for the two teams involved.
I would like to read the comments here if Prada and Alinghi had made, or even just talked about something of that sort...

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

I would like to read the comments here if Prada and Alinghi had made, or even just talked about something of that sort...

Oh the meltdown would make Fukushima look like a fire cracker. 

I am pleased some fellow Kiwis on here find this objectionable. The rest are hypocrites. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

New nationality rule is interesting - wouldn’t fly in the NBA - but if the young kiwi and Aussie talent are OK with it, then cool

For any US team, looks like Riley Gibbs, Sarah Newberry, Ravi Parent and David Liebenberg are your go to pilots.

Just need a backer and a CEO with authority who isn’t as a sailmaker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark my words. If (a great IF) there is this 1 - 1 Match, I bet Bertelli will hold a splendid second edition of the Prada Cup in Cagliari in AC75s, as an independent event, in the same year. Between Prada, Alinghi and any other challenger. The motto of the competition will be "Everyone invited".

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

 

The 1 - 1 match, is indeed a direct action to damage and try to disrupt other strong competitors (read LRPP) taking an unfair advantage. They can do that, by the deed, but it will be an unforgivable sin that will remain forever and will bring consequences in the long period, and nothing good for the two teams involved.
I would like to read the comments here if Prada and Alinghi had made, or even just talked about something of that sort...

I guess the way to think of the 1V1 match (if indeed it is true) is a bonus.  The normal interval between cups is 3-4 years, so if the plan is to have a 1V1 in 2022 and still have a multi challenger cup in 2024 then LRPP haven't really lost anything vs a "normal" cycle.  They may even gain as ETNZ and INEOS will be forced to reveal their next generation boats, whilst others can work away in private for 3 years and evaluate what the 2 teams come up with next year without having to reveal anything groundbreaking that they come up with.  

Especially if the only 2 teams in the 1V1 are invested in signing up for the AC75s in 2024 and a multi challenger event.  I can see the argument that this gives the other teams the certainty to prepare on a normal timescale, and start now, but also gives meaningful racing next year to keep the public interested.  

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the reason for the statement about boat for cup 38, because they know that 37 is going to be only between the 2 teams, and that statement is not actually for the 2 teams involved, but by tying up the competitors in 37 to the broad details of 38 (in terms of time and boat) it gives others the certainty to be able to plan for 38 as if 37 wasn't happening.  It also makes sense talking about the competitors only building one boat for 37.  After all, consider if they didn't do that, but just announced that they're going 1V1 next summer.  LRPP would have to mothball, at least, until after that event.

There's a lot in that press release that, to my eyes at least, only really makes sense if there is a 2 team event next year with a multi challenger event following on normal timelines.  Not that I think that it's a good idea, but it isn't quite as bad as it first comes across, I think.  

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

Well, that's the current teams. What about prospective teams?

And if all the teams love them so much, no need to make entry conditional upon them right?

I'm sorry but this is ETNZ trying to impose their vision on AC38 regardless of whether they win it lose and is no better than Orifice.

If ETNZ want to keep dictating terms, they make sure they keep winning. Not pull this scam.

Exactly.  The whole document is written for protectionism, not competition.  It is written out of FEAR and to limit challenges.

You discussed the boat rule.  With the nationality rule, they are also trying to freeze some possible teams/skippers and prevent any NZ sailors from sailing with anyone else.  They are trying to be cute with this rule, but it excludes the design and shore crew.  It would be interesting to see someone poach their design/leadership team just to teach them a lesson about restricting all sailors from sailing with another team.

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

I guess the way to think of the 1V1 match (if indeed it is true) is a bonus.  The normal interval between cups is 3-4 years, so if the plan is to have a 1V1 in 2022 and still have a multi challenger cup in 2024 then LRPP haven't really lost anything vs a "normal" cycle.  They may even gain as ETNZ and INEOS will be forced to reveal their next generation boats, whilst others can work away in private for 3 years and evaluate what the 2 teams come up with next year without having to reveal anything groundbreaking that they come up with.  

Especially if the only 2 teams in the 1V1 are invested in signing up for the AC75s in 2024 and a multi challenger event.  I can see the argument that this gives the other teams the certainty to prepare on a normal timescale, and start now, but also gives meaningful racing next year to keep the public interested.  

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the reason for the statement about boat for cup 38, because they know that 37 is going to be only between the 2 teams, and that statement is not actually for the 2 teams involved, but by tying up the competitors in 37 to the broad details of 38 (in terms of time and boat) it gives others the certainty to be able to plan for 38 as if 37 wasn't happening.  It also makes sense talking about the competitors only building one boat for 37.  After all, consider if they didn't do that, but just announced that they're going 1V1 next summer.  LRPP would have to mothball, at least, until after that event.

There's a lot in that press release that, to my eyes at least, only really makes sense if there is a 2 team event next year with a multi challenger event following on normal timelines.  Not that I think that it's a good idea, but it isn't quite as bad as it first comes across, I think.  

I hope you are right as that explanation, if true, would rehabilitate the otherwise headscratching statements from ETNZ.  I would then wonder why ETNZ just didn't say that in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cbulger said:

New nationality rule is interesting - wouldn’t fly in the NBA - but if the young kiwi and Aussie talent are OK with it, then cool

For any US team, looks like Riley Gibbs, Sarah Newberry, Ravi Parent and David Liebenberg are your go to pilots.

Just need a backer and a CEO with authority who isn’t as a sailmaker

Goodison would also be available. As would Barker for that matter, but his chance of helming another AC probably rounds to zero.

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

I guess the way to think of the 1V1 match (if indeed it is true) is a bonus.  The normal interval between cups is 3-4 years, so if the plan is to have a 1V1 in 2022 and still have a multi challenger cup in 2024 then LRPP haven't really lost anything vs a "normal" cycle.  They may even gain as ETNZ and INEOS will be forced to reveal their next generation boats, whilst others can work away in private for 3 years and evaluate what the 2 teams come up with next year without having to reveal anything groundbreaking that they come up with.  

Especially if the only 2 teams in the 1V1 are invested in signing up for the AC75s in 2024 and a multi challenger event.  I can see the argument that this gives the other teams the certainty to prepare on a normal timescale, and start now, but also gives meaningful racing next year to keep the public interested.  

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the reason for the statement about boat for cup 38, because they know that 37 is going to be only between the 2 teams, and that statement is not actually for the 2 teams involved, but by tying up the competitors in 37 to the broad details of 38 (in terms of time and boat) it gives others the certainty to be able to plan for 38 as if 37 wasn't happening.  It also makes sense talking about the competitors only building one boat for 37.  After all, consider if they didn't do that, but just announced that they're going 1V1 next summer.  LRPP would have to mothball, at least, until after that event.

There's a lot in that press release that, to my eyes at least, only really makes sense if there is a 2 team event next year with a multi challenger event following on normal timelines.  Not that I think that it's a good idea, but it isn't quite as bad as it first comes across, I think.  

This is a disgrace for any new team. Honestly, LR can easily survive (they have the money to do that if Bertelli wishes so) and as you wrote, even gain some advantage. I add that since they will not be able to place the challenge until 2022/2023, they will not be bound to any limitation on dual boat testing until that moment.

Until the 37th Match is completed, there could be no protocol for AC38, so you can't sign an agreement with any challenger. How are you supposed to find a sponsor to fund such an enormous effort without being even certain that there will be an event? And If you wait until the AC37 outcome, there will be not enough time to be competitive in 2 years, if as you say, they want to maintain the normal scheduling. Whoever will win the Cup, against ETNZ or (less likely) INEOS, and sooner or later it will happen, they will not easily forget this thing, and there will be consequences.

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

Where does Jimmy Spithill live? Is he locked into Italy or Australia? 

In this campaign he lived in Cagliari and in Auckland with the team

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of press saying the nationality rule is anti-Swiss. I wouldn’t have thought so at all, highly skilled bunch of Swiss nationals who would be very capable. 
 

it’s more bad news for the large numbers of Aussie and NZ nationals on other teams as they can’t change. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another rumour that a specific rule in the protocol will prevent redhead helmsmen and Sicilians from joining any team, even if all other requirements are met. With this GD hopes to give some advantage to Peter Burling in the starts.

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

Jack Griffin’s Cup Experience News has a reasonable spin, and additional info, on the 2022/2024 dual affair

Can you point out the link? I can't find it. Thanks Xlot

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

153000007_LordDalton.jpg.bd5a52cff8285f4044497fbe4dac7947.jpg

I think that if this highly rumoured 1 - 1 Match will result real, (I still hope it doesn't) it will be one of the most disgusting and unsportsmanlike things made to the America's Cup in the modern era. An act of selfishness and total disrespect to the other syndicates, especially Prada, without whom the Cup would be probably still quietly in Bermuda.

I would say the same if it were Prada planning such bullshit.

Will be fun watching the faithful defend this though. 

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

The IACC boats lasted several Cup cycles. How? Was there agreement in advance as ETNZ is trying to do, general consensus, or what? 

general consensus, no agreement at all (not permitted by the deed)

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

at first glance I thought what the fuck is DB doing in that photo with Ben? :lol:

challs.PNG

Sailors are such pussies these days - does Ben have hi-lights in his hair or is this picture photoshopped?  

 

For fucks sake.......

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main issue is the one boat program. That's the real game changer. They could organize a lot of ACWS series, in a lot of different countries, different locations, sailing with a "mini" AC75. Something that will allow design teams to develop and test new solutions, keep the sailors sharp, and increase the visibility of the event. It would be less expensive than the two boat program, and could allow new teams to participate. Something like the 34th AC, with the AC72 for the Challengers Series and the Match, and the AC45 for the ACWS. 

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

I think the main issue is the one boat program. That's the real game changer. They could organize a lot of ACWS series, in a lot of different countries, different locations, sailing with a "mini" AC75. Something that will allow design teams to develop and test new solutions, keep the sailors sharp, and increase the visibility of the event. It would be less expensive than the two boat program, and could allow new teams to participate. Something like the 34th AC, with the AC72 for the Challengers Series and the Match, and the AC45 for the ACWS. 

Did those AC36 test boats do much in the long run? 

Given the sailors  all have bitten the cash laden SGP hook, don't they already get this for a mere $5-$7m a year? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Enzedel92 said:

Sailors are such pussies these days - does Ben have hi-lights in his hair or is this picture photoshopped?  

 

For fucks sake.......

:lol: styled by Georgie 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2021 at 12:10 AM, mako23 said:

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

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

:lol::lol:

You have no clue how it works in the real world

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

All you have mentioned has been tried before, and been caught. 
 

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

 

If the cost of getting caught is expulsion from the cup, most teams will not try it. For it to work a lot of people have to keep their mouth shut. Also you can give someone who you are paying under the table a lot of power. Give me what I want or I’ll go the press

That just proves they couldn't organise it properly, its in every walk of life and business.

Anybody thinks they can police that is a gullible fool.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking a bit about the one-boat rule: It's obviously a good way to cut costs, which has to be  good thing if you want to attract new teams and build the event; I'm not sure it causes as many problems as people might fear:

  • The racing we've seen seems to indicate that in most conditions the hull shape isn't nearly as important as the foils and the rig.
  • The aerodynamic drag of the hull is relatively easy to model (easier than a conventional boat with all the wave-making complexities); in all but very light conditions, the hull's interaction with the water is a relatively minor concern.
  • It's pretty easy to see what the existing boats look like, there's plenty of video and still imagery in the public domain. The designs are likely to converge; not only does this mean differences in hull design will be less significant than in AC36, but also that the data teams have on their current hulls will be of less value.
  • 2-boat testing is not allowed, so teams with existing hulls can't use them for that
  • The structural loads in normal sailing are fairly easy to model, and there isn't the same incentive to pare down structural weight that you have in a conventional boat.
  • All these factors mean that it's probably not too hard, this time round, for a well-resourced team to build a hull that's good enough.

There are lots of advantages to having competed in AC36 - you have lots of experience and data, and you can start building and trying new foils the day you get home (unless the new protocol forbids sailing your AC75 before a certain date). So new teams are definitely at a disadvantage, but I don't think the ability to build 2 hulls changes that significantly, because it's not the hull that's likely to make the difference.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

The IACC boats lasted several Cup cycles. How? Was there agreement in advance as ETNZ is trying to do, general consensus, or what? 

THe IACC came about when San Diego were defending. After the fiasco of the DoG match with Michael Fay submitting a 90' monohull, SDYC decided that the 12 meter had reached its sell by date.

The IACC was actually a consensus rule with designers from several countries participating .  The previously winning syndicate was largely on the sidelines (Dennis Conner) who thought it was much too expensive (ha ha compared to now) .  

It stayed in place because each successive defender liked the format and agreed to stick with it with the CoR.  Until Brad Butterworth in charge of Allinghi decided something more modern and faster was needed. They had  poodle CoR which was subsequently deemed unqualified as a CoR leading to another DoG match and then Oracle made the change. Since then there has been a change at each successive cup.  The AC45s at Bermuda were proposed by the defender and agreed by consensus leading to resignation of the CoR.

So in short......the intro of the IACC came about from an initiative from the defender and was designed by consensus.  The end of the IACC came about when the then defender decided some thing new was needed.

NZ will have decided in advance with their new CoR what kind of boat the next AC will be in.  This in effect means that NZ decides because they would have made a decision on who the Challenger is based on a preemptive agreement on the type of boat.

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

Where does Jimmy Spithill live? Is he locked into Italy or Australia? 

Pretty sure JS is eligible for Italy based on location for past 3 years, Aus as nationality and USA as his official residence.

It's guys like NO and Slingsby that could be screwed plus any members of INEOSand ETNZ that may have been thinking of jumping ship...

The date limits on this nationality clause shift it into being a proper dick move by COR and Defender

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

Thinking a bit about the one-boat rule: It's obviously a good way to cut costs, which has to be  good thing if you want to attract new teams and build the event; I'm not sure it causes as many problems as people might fear:

  • The racing we've seen seems to indicate that in most conditions the hull shape isn't nearly as important as the foils and the rig. NZ hull with the "cut low" deck gave them more sail area low down.
  • The aerodynamic drag of the hull is relatively easy to model (easier than a conventional boat with all the wave-making complexities); in all but very light conditions, the hull's interaction with the water is a relatively minor concern.
  • It's pretty easy to see what the existing boats look like, there's plenty of video and still imagery in the public domain. The designs are likely to converge; not only does this mean differences in hull design will be less significant than in AC36, but also that the data teams have on their current hulls will be of less value.
  • 2-boat testing is not allowed, so teams with existing hulls can't use them for that 
  • The structural loads in normal sailing are fairly easy to model, and there isn't the same incentive to pare down structural weight that you have in a conventional boat.
  • All these factors mean that it's probably not too hard, this time round, for a well-resourced team to build a hull that's good enough.

There are lots of advantages to having competed in AC36 - you have lots of experience and data, and you can start building and trying new foils the day you get home (unless the new protocol forbids sailing your AC75 before a certain date). So new teams are definitely at a disadvantage, but I don't think the ability to build 2 hulls changes that significantly, because it's not the hull that's likely to make the difference.  The old protocol finished on the day of the last race. There is not a new protocol in place yet. So during this no-mans land period......the existing teams can be doing whatever they like including 2 boat testing.  None of them are, which strikes me as a wasted opportunity.

The single largest problem with a 1 boat rule is that any team seeking to innovate whose first boat is not competitive is out of the running immediately with no chance to come back and build something more conventional.

Most of the billionaire funders will want 2 bites of the apple just in case.....especially any new teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts for those proposing spending limits:

  • What currency are you going to use to define the limits? How do you then deal with exchange rate fluctuations?
  • How do you compensate for the different costs of doing business in different countries? A team based in a country with lower land prices for their base will have more money left to spend on the boat. Ditto labour costs.
  • How do you ensure teams pay the full market rate for services purchased from sponsors or other friendly suppliers? What if the local council or government make a base available at a favourable rate?
  • How do you put a price on technical collaboration or the purchase of knowledge or expertise? For instance Team Ineos collaboration with Mercedes or the cycling team's sport scientists?
  • How do you put a price on technologcal state support? Bear in mind that a Chinese team is likely to have much stronger state support than most Western teams.

At the end of the day, a well-financed team is always going to find ways to spend money. The best you can do is limit the benefit they can get from that money (for instance by restricting the number of hulls, foils etc that you can build).

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

Thinking a bit about the one-boat rule: It's obviously a good way to cut costs, which has to be  good thing if you want to attract new teams and build the event; I'm not sure it causes as many problems as people might fear:

 

No, the boat is not what costs the most in a team, just a fraction of the budget. It's just an easy and unfair way to disadvantage new comers.

 

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

A few thoughts for those proposing spending limits:

  • What currency are you going to use to define the limits? How do you then deal with exchange rate fluctuations?
  • How do you compensate for the different costs of doing business in different countries? A team based in a country with lower land prices for their base will have more money left to spend on the boat. Ditto labour costs.
  • How do you ensure teams pay the full market rate for services purchased from sponsors or other friendly suppliers? What if the local council or government make a base available at a favourable rate?
  • How do you put a price on technical collaboration or the purchase of knowledge or expertise? For instance Team Ineos collaboration with Mercedes or the cycling team's sport scientists?
  • How do you put a price on technologcal state support? Bear in mind that a Chinese team is likely to have much stronger state support than most Western teams.

At the end of the day, a well-financed team is always going to find ways to spend money. The best you can do is limit the benefit they can get from that money (for instance by restricting the number of hulls, foils etc that you can build).

First, it is tiring to hear about that, all defenders pretend to limit budgets and, at the exception of AC35, come back with a $ 100 M + budget.

Second, to cut the benefits of rich teams by restricting the number of hull ???? Well, I don't understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

First, it is tiring to hear about that, all defenders pretend to limit budgets and, at the exception of AC35, come back with a $ 100 M + budget.

Second, to cut the benefits of rich teams by restricting the number of hull ???? Well, I don't understand.

But they indeed restricted the number of hulls going from cat to monos :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
  • 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.  
    ...
     
  • 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 or to have been physically present in that country (or, acting on behalf of such yacht club in Auckland, the venue of the AC36 Events) for two of the previous three years prior to 18 March 2021. As an exception to this requirement, there will be a discretionary provision allowing a quota of non-nationals on the race crew for competitors from “Emerging Nations”. 

I wish, LRPP had won.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeedAClew said:

The IACC boats lasted several Cup cycles. How? Was there agreement in advance as ETNZ is trying to do, general consensus, or what? 

Remember that after AC32, it was decided that after five iterations, it was generally conceded it was time for a new rule to replace the ACC rule, which dated back to 1990, even though there were significant changes to the boat in each generation of the rule. 

I believe Tom Schnacks oversaw writing of the AC 90 rule for a big, powerful semi-conventional monohull, which of course, never came to fruition after AC 32 and the succeeding DoG Match.

After the DoG Match of 2013, Oracle pursued two rule routes for AC 34 for a short time. One was a canting-keel monohull, sort of an inshore version of a VO 70. The other was a big cat.  The preliminary concept VPP showed the cat to be faster all around, and the plug was pulled on the canting-keel monohull rule. It was the right call at the right time.

The AC 72 Rule was commissioned by Oracle, but numerous stakeholders, including other potential competitors, were involved in discussions and provided input at multiple stages of rule development. This was similar to the process used in developing the previous ACC rule after the 1988 DoG Match.

Pete Melvin, the principle author of the AC 72 rule, did not go to work for Oracle after completion of the Rule, but became part of the ETNZ design team.

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

I wish, LRPP had won.

If all above is true and correct, so do I Rennie and will be cheering them on with @strider470.

The condition of entry i find utterly objectionable. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumors from a Sail Loft Scientist:

The 2 Skin Sails were The CAT's ASS for the 36th AC

Many now being ordered for the MAXI Class & WALLY YACHTS

The development has continued throughout and The Next Generation will be a part of the Next CUP

Watch for the introduction of The 4 Skin Sails to be introduced at the next BBS in Frisco

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

The single largest problem with a 1 boat rule is that any team seeking to innovate whose first boat is not competitive is out of the running immediately with no chance to come back and build something more conventional.

Most of the billionaire funders will want 2 bites of the apple just in case.....especially any new teams.

Its a bullshit rule designed to help etnz defend.

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

I think the main issue is the one boat program. That's the real game changer. They could organize a lot of ACWS series, in a lot of different countries, different locations, sailing with a "mini" AC75. Something that will allow design teams to develop and test new solutions, keep the sailors sharp, and increase the visibility of the event. It would be less expensive than the two boat program, and could allow new teams to participate. Something like the 34th AC, with the AC72 for the Challengers Series and the Match, and the AC45 for the ACWS. 

The 1 boat rule is for AC37. And, supposedly, for AC38. If they are indeed going for a 1V1 match next year the 1 boat rule is just a way to allow Cor and Def to build one boat more than the opposition.
It's a dirt trick, and one of the worse.
 

 

10 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

I wish, LRPP had won.

^^this^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still catching up, so, sorry if this is redundant...
 

13 hours ago, JJD said:

No it isn’t. TNZ hated the boat. Why would they sign up for that. It was a beach cat. Fact is ALL the Teams fuckin loved the AC 75. 

13 hours ago, jaysper said:

Well, that's the current teams. What about prospective teams?

And if all the teams love them so much, no need to make entry conditional upon them right?

I'm sorry but this is ETNZ trying to impose their vision on AC38 regardless of whether they win it lose and is no better than Orifice.

If ETNZ want to keep dictating terms, they make sure they keep winning. Not pull this scam.

Bold: My first thought, you're so right.
 

13 hours ago, mako23 said:

I think this rule must be in place for a DOG match which is then followed by a normal America’s Cup. 

13 hours ago, jaysper said:

Well, that's the only way this is ethical.

Not really IMHO, at least not if this 1:1 match is held somewhere outside of NZ, and then, no matter who wins, will return to NZ.
There are some things that are just right: Defend in your home waters, do not consider the challenge after the current one, demand no more entry requirements than the DoG.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s pretty hard to see their condition being anything other than in breach of the DoG and surely they will know that. So maybe their plan is to put it in their and see if anyone objects... if Noone does )which is possible because teams may see that it is a great boat and good to give it another couple of cycles) then it works. If not they pull that condition out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites