Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Forourselves said:

I remember when Oracle was scouting venues back in 2013, they were going to hold it in Rome, and @Stingray~ and a whole lot of others on here loved that idea! Stingray was talking about how he'd love to travel to Rome and see the Americas Cup held in Rome. Then Bermuda was another great venue choice, but now that its Team NZ scouting venues, and the shoe is on the other foot, its suddenly the worst idea in the world, and Team NZ should just lose at home. The haters on here are a bunch of idiots.

Big BIG difference though:

No matter where in the world Oracle landed the AC, it was always a fully funded campaign before venue selection.

Larry wasn't looking for the venue to fund the campaign!!!

 

Do you see the difference?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

I’m not calling this out for the sake of ostracizing you, nor to play PC police on a forum that is notorious for the opposite of that. I could just hit ignore, delete or whatever. I’m calling this out

Hilarious to watch Kiwis who've been around since AC35 twist themselves into intellectual pretzels to give ETNZ a pass on what they screamed bloody murder about when Oracle did it. Even Oracle di

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Gissie said:

.. it will be somewhere the wind never goes below 6 or above 20 knots and the swell is tiny.

Imagine these delicate little toys heading out into the Fremantle doctor.

imo, you've hit upon a deeper truth there. Part of the magic of the AC was simply vying crews - that is: yacht club vs. yacht club. Or, in an even a broader sense, a battle of sailing territories.

For example, when Aus. II won it from the NYYC, it was "where do these guys come from", or "why are they such good sailors"? And we all got to visit Fremantle - at least virtually if not in person. And wow. just wow. We found out. And now we know why they are such good sailors.

So - why are the Kiwis such good sailors? is it because of their salesmanship in the boardroom - or does it have something to do with being an island nation surrounded by a rugged coastline and big winds? 

salesmanship in the boardroom is sinking the cup. Who doesn't want to see the winning club defend it in their home territory? That's kind of the essence of the whole. thing.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Liquid said:

Big BIG difference though:

No matter where in the world Oracle landed the AC, it was always a fully funded campaign before venue selection.

Larry wasn't looking for the venue to fund the campaign!!!

 

Do you see the difference?

 

So its NOT about whoring the venue now? its NOT about wanting the team to defend at home now? because a few months ago you were all saying they should just lose in Auckland then go over seas. 

Larry was a billionaire asking for hosting fees. He could've paid for it all, but wanted the venue to pay for it too.

So whats the difference?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

SF Bay for AC34 in 2013 was absolutely superb for all kinds of reasons. Once the the cruise ship terminal got completed and Pier 32 got designated for a new basketball stadium there was no place left and SFBOS were never going to bend over backward to make new accommodations available somehow, on that crowded waterfront. Bermuda was pretty good on TV especially for the AC50's they eventually raced but was distant-second to SF as a venue. 

Of the apparently-viable choices for AC37 any of them is a distant-second in almost every imaginable respect to great-infrastructure, great-waters, and great-tradition Auckland. GD should be bending into rather than away from that choice. If you listen to Dunphy, he argues that there is plenty of money to host a successful Defense at home and that the 'lose it at home or be successful offshore' is a completely bogus argument. Backwards, even.

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

The SF Bay for AC34 in 2013 was absolutely superb for all kinds of reasons. Once the the cruise ship terminal got completed and Pier 32 got designated for a new basketball stadium there was no place left and SFBOS were never going to bend over backward to make new accommodations available somehow, on that crowded waterfront. Bermuda was pretty good on TV especially for the AC50's they eventually raced but was distant-second to SF as a venue. 

Of the apparently-viable choices for AC37 any of them is a distant-second in almost every imaginable respect to great-infrastructure, great-waters, and great-tradition Auckland. GD should be bending into rather than away from that choice. If you listen to Dunphy, he argues that there is plenty of money to host a successful Defense at home and that the 'lose it at home or be successful offshore' is a completely bogus argument. 

Backtracking lol thats NOT what you were saying when Bermuda was selected. An offshore venue didn't matter then, so it shouldn't matter now. I guess we're all allowed to change our mind each cycle lol/.

If you listen to Dunphy. He doesn't have the money he says he has.

He wants independent governance. Why? No where in the Deed does it state the Cup must be independently governed.

The other document which governs the event, is the protocol. Unless it states the event must be independently managed, both documents uphold the traditions of the AC.

In terms of money, no, there isn't. If there was, Dunphy would've handed over the cash and said "Best of luck" but he hasn't because he doesn't have it.

What he wants, is to get around the table and try and convince the Government to up their FINAL offer.

One thing is for sure, I'd rather have Grant Dalton run the AC than Mark Dunphy.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To get along with MBIE etc without conflict this time, GD should agree that the event-run can be done by them instead of the team. The $30M budget allocated plus the $70M in facilities is no small amount. The $40M Dunphy has promised to underwrite is for 'direct to the team' that GD is more than welcome to run. As Dunphy has also said, ETNZ's own publicly-available figures suggest $40M (on top of the team's commercial sponsorship) can easily support a successful Defense. And if those sums now can't provide for a successful Defense, then ETNZ needs to just 'come clean' and explain where the gap is. Instead, MD and other Aucklanders are getting stonewalled and even insulted. Weird!

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

To get along with MBIE etc without conflict this time, GD should agree that the event-run can be done by them instead of the team. The $30M budget allocated plus the $70M in facilities is no small amount. The $40M Dunphy has promised to underwrite is for 'direct to the team' that GD is more than welcome to run. As Dunphy has also said, ETNZ's own figures suggest $40M (on top of the team's commercial sponsorship) can easily support a successful Defense. And if those sums now can't provide for a successful Defense, then ETNZ needs to just 'come clean' and explain where the gap is. Instead, MD and other Aucklanders are getting stonewalled and even insulted. Weird!

You wouldn’t want MBIE to run anything. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, amc said:

You wouldn’t want MBIE to run anything. 

Okay, well then how about whoever runs big events in Auckland, rugby and such?

GD complained last time about struggling with long organizational meetings with too many people and so forth. Seems to me he could let that side of it go, to whoever-the-heck is actually good at that. Lots of people have suggested this, for a long time already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the AC40s, has there been any talk so far about the production rate and availability dates for them? Presumably ETNZ and Ineos would give to themselves the right to boats #1 and #2, then others get their first boats after that, then second boats follow, etc. Given that delivery dates will surely vary, it will be interesting to see how the Protocol preserves a good degree of fairness somehow, given they are intended to also be used as test boats. Maybe teams will be allowed to also build their own half-sized surrogates, like last time? Being restricted to only one (!) AC75 boat this time, putting even more emphasis on R&D and testing, this does have the potential to get a touch interesting.

 

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

 Larry was a billionaire asking for hosting fees. He could've paid for it all, but wanted the venue to pay for it too.

So whats the difference?

So, you don't see the difference!

 

sigh... asking for fees to host an event which includes your currently fully funded campaign vs asking for fees to host an event and also fund your team's sailing campaign.

Exactly the same... got it!

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

So, you don't see the difference!

 

sigh... asking for fees to host an event which includes your currently fully funded campaign vs asking for fees to host an event and also fund your team's sailing campaign.

Exactly the same... got it!

I know a good solution: Use their money and in return call yourselves Team Cork. But don't let any Irish sailors into the team! :)

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

SF Bay for AC34 in 2013 was absolutely superb for all kinds of reasons. Once the the cruise ship terminal got completed and Pier 32 got designated for a new basketball stadium there was no place left and SFBOS were never going to bend over backward to make new accommodations available somehow, on that crowded waterfront. Bermuda was pretty good on TV especially for the AC50's they eventually raced but was distant-second to SF as a venue. 

(...) 

And SF was the only city with ocean access in the US? 

Going to Bermuda was a shit move by Oracle

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

So, you don't see the difference!

 

sigh... asking for fees to host an event which includes your currently fully funded campaign vs asking for fees to host an event and also fund your team's sailing campaign.

Exactly the same... got it!

Just ignore the troll. They are completely incapable of rational thought- living in a world where they are only ones who can see what is REALLY going on, and everyone else is obviously wrong.

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

Just ignore the troll. They are completely incapable of rational thought- living in a world where they are only ones who can see what is REALLY going on, and everyone else is obviously wrong.

Why? Because youve all been exposed as hypocrites! 

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

So, you don't see the difference!

 

sigh... asking for fees to host an event which includes your currently fully funded campaign vs asking for fees to host an event and also fund your team's sailing campaign.

Exactly the same... got it!

Are you saying NONE of that funding AT ALL, Zero dollars, nothing, zip went to the team? You’re either extremely naive or stupid if you think that. 

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

Going to Bermuda was a shit move by Oracle

And, despite what some seem to claim, Oracle lost a lot of American fans due to the move offshore.

This has already happened with the team and I don't think they will come back. Not even if they were finally forced to pick Auckland.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Are you saying NONE of that funding AT ALL, Zero dollars, nothing, zip went to the team? You’re either extremely naive or stupid if you think that. 

Sure as hell would have if they had Dalts and his creative accounting team working for them. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

At risk of sounding like my 96 year old mother and suspecting I am tilting at windmills I think this same discussion could be had without ad hominem attacks, name calling and vulgar language. Is complex issue no? 

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

Going to Bermuda Leaving the home waters of the GGYC was a shit move by Oracle

fify.

44 minutes ago, Gissie said:

And, despite what some seem to claim, Oracle lost a lot of American fans due to the move offshore.

This has already happened with the team and I don't think they will come back. Not even if they were finally forced to pick Auckland.

RNZYS needs to grow a pair and fix this thing. If you recall, StFYC refused to bend over and play the chumps to Mr. Ellison and Co. GGYC did - but even at the time it was somewhat scandalous.

Idks - but I'd like to think the RNZYS don't consider themselves mere chumps and pawns.

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

And, despite what some seem to claim, Oracle lost a lot of American fans due to the move offshore.

This has already happened with the team and I don't think they will come back. Not even if they were finally forced to pick Auckland.

Let’s be honest, they never really had many American fans to begin with. TNZ always loses fans in between. Then they all come back when the racing starts. It’s happened every time in the past and it’ll happen again 

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

And SF was the only city with ocean access in the US? 

Going to Bermuda was a shit move by Oracle

I wish they could have made Alameda work for everyone as it did for Artemis, and then kept the racing on spectacular SF Bay for AC35. Oh, and with beastly AC72 V2's! :)

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

I wish they could have made Alameda work for everyone as it did for Artemis, and then kept the racing on spectacular SF Bay for AC35. Oh, and with beastly AC72 V2's! :)

they simply didn't want to. have you been there? plenty of room for everyone - and more to spare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jean-Baptiste said:

At risk of sounding like my 96 year old mother and suspecting I am tilting at windmills I think this same discussion could be had without ad hominem attacks, name calling and vulgar language. Is complex issue no? 

You do know where you are don't you?

Polite Anarchy is three doors down.

Not to be confused with PA, which is three floors down.

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

fify.

RNZYS needs to grow a pair and fix this thing. If you recall, StFYC refused to bend over and play the chumps to Mr. Ellison and Co. GGYC did - but even at the time it was somewhat scandalous.

Idks - but I'd like to think the RNZYS don't consider themselves mere chumps and pawns.

RNZYS may not consider themselves chumps and pawns, but it is what others will see them as. The team will have an ironclad contract giving them total control over all aspects of the cup. This was fine when things were good, but is now biting them in the arse.

I almost feel sorry for them as they have zero input but will be always known as the club that let it go overseas. Plus, as it will never return, if the team keep winning, they will be dragged back into it every time it is held.

I wonder if they have the ability to decide to step back and relinquish the cup?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Yeah, ripping off the taxpayer, something to aspire too. About your level of achievement.

Ripping off in what way? There was no misappropriation, no fraud and no wrong doing. So you can howl at the moon all you want, but you’ll always be wrong. See. Like I said, even if Auckland does host, dickheads like you will bag it anyway with your “ripping off the taxpayer” stupidity. Auckland host venue, off shore host venue, can’t win either way.

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

RNZYS may not consider themselves chumps and pawns, but it is what others will see them as. The team will have an ironclad contract giving them total control over all aspects of the cup. This was fine when things were good, but is now biting them in the arse.

I almost feel sorry for them as they have zero input but will be always known as the club that let it go overseas. Plus, as it will never return, if the team keep winning, they will be dragged back into it every time it is held.

I wonder if they have the ability to decide to step back and relinquish the cup?

The RNZYS doesn’t give a crap what others see them as. Their events here at home are thriving, it’s youth program is thriving. The AC is extra curricular activity. Relinquish the cup!? You’re fuckin dreaming! 

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

I wish they could have made Alameda work for everyone as it did for Artemis, and then kept the racing on spectacular SF Bay for AC35. Oh, and with beastly AC72 V2's! :)

But you said billionaires could do anything! So okay, Larry couldn’t make Alameda work so they went to Bermuda, which you loved, by your own admission! Dalton couldn’t make Auckland work so they may go offshore and the sky is falling! 
You’re a hypocrite!

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

You do know where you are don't you?

Polite Anarchy is three doors down.

Not to be confused with PA, which is three floors down.

Yes. I did think worth a try but apparently incorrect. 

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

Oh so its not about "whoring out the venue" as long as its a venue you like lol

How you arrived at that I'll never know. It's your country doing the whoring. I'm just watching your boys flailing and failing at Larry's vision.

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

At risk of sounding like my 96 year old mother and suspecting I am tilting at windmills I think this same discussion could be had without ad hominem attacks, name calling and vulgar language. Is complex issue no? 

As a general principle I applaud your suggestion, and have argued as such in the past. There are however one or two in this forum who have not only justified some of the insults of themselves, but repeatedly proved that they are more in the nature of factual statements

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

King GD:  it's time to pick the venue!

Serf:  Auckland was the first location we looked at.  

King GD:  screw them and the whole purse clutching penny pinching lot. Audit, my ass.  Who else is in the mix? What is the second venue's bid and how much is my management fee offer?

Serf:  your Majesty there IS no second.

 

 

 

 

Explosion-im-Kopf-Titelbild-e1570617946727.jpg

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

More Facebook fake news about. I'm surprised seemingly otherwise intelligent people, are dazzled in this shit's headlights.

I am appaled by Dunphy

https://kiwihomedefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2021.11.09-Open-Letter-KHD-to-all-RNZYS-members.pdf

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/mark-dunphy-calls-on-rnzys-members-to-pressure-executive-over-americas-cup-venue/XIDG3FT33HRZLOKRERNB2ISCJA/

(I can't get behind the Paywall Article of the Herald)

Dunphy is threatening RNZYS Members! Unbelievable!

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

Are you saying NONE of that funding AT ALL, Zero dollars, nothing, zip went to the team? You’re either extremely naive or stupid if you think that. 

No, that's not what I'm saying - not at all - pay attention dipshit!

Again, Larry didn't need hosting fees to fund his teams. In fact, Larry wanted to drop 100's of millions of $ on the SF waterfront but the city wouldn't sell. 

The false king Sir Dalton can't live without hosting fees!

Can you grasp that tiny little detail? 

If not, "you’re either extremely naive or stupid." In your case, I'm going with both as you have a severe case of confirmation bias.

 

 

Regardless, I guess you believe that Larry couldn't afford to fund a campaign in Bermuda without a hosting fee????

.......and we're the idiots!!!!!

 

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

No, that's not what I'm saying - not at all - pay attention dipshit!

Again, Larry didn't need hosting fees to fund his teams. In fact, Larry wanted to drop 100's of millions of $ on the SF waterfront but the city wouldn't sell. 

The false king Sir Dalton can't live without hosting fees!

Can you grasp that tiny little detail? 

If not, "you’re either extremely naive or stupid." In your case, I'm going with both as you have a severe case of confirmation bias.

 

 

Regardless, I guess you believe that Larry couldn't afford to fund a campaign in Bermuda without a hosting fee????

.......and we're the idiots!!!!!

 

I honestly don’t even know why you try. We’re currently locked into the greatest international match race in history (race to the bottom as biggest fuckwit ever), so it’s best just to ignore 4idiot and Alinghi4ever. Let them continue to try to out dumb each other. 

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

No, that's not what I'm saying - not at all - pay attention dipshit!

Again, Larry didn't need hosting fees to fund his teams. In fact, Larry wanted to drop 100's of millions of $ on the SF waterfront but the city wouldn't sell. 

The false king Sir Dalton can't live without hosting fees!

Can you grasp that tiny little detail? 

If not, "you’re either extremely naive or stupid." In your case, I'm going with both as you have a severe case of confirmation bias.

 

 

Regardless, I guess you believe that Larry couldn't afford to fund a campaign in Bermuda without a hosting fee????

.......and we're the idiots!!!!!

 

Just because he didn’t need it, doesn’t mean he didn’t take it. The fact is, both Bermuda and SF paid a host fee. 

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

Can’t live without hosting fees? You know he won the Cup in Bermuda with no Government money right?

I see a a turn towards a circular nature so I'm going to follow Monkey's advice.

One last question tho:

Why the fuck can't Dalton do what he did in Bermuda right now, right there at home???

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

I see a a turn towards a circular nature so I'm going to follow Monkey's advice.

One last question tho:

Why the fuck can't Dalton do what he did in Bermuda right now, right there at home???

He has answered that question already. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Liquid said:

I see a a turn towards a circular nature so I'm going to follow Monkey's advice.

One last question tho:

Why the fuck can't Dalton do what he did in Bermuda right now, right there at home???

What,a huge tax break?

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

No, that's not what I'm saying - not at all - pay attention dipshit!

Again, Larry didn't need hosting fees to fund his teams. In fact, Larry wanted to drop 100's of millions of $ on the SF waterfront but the city wouldn't sell. 

The false king Sir Dalton can't live without hosting fees!

Can you grasp that tiny little detail? 

If not, "you’re either extremely naive or stupid." In your case, I'm going with both as you have a severe case of confirmation bias.

 

 

Regardless, I guess you believe that Larry couldn't afford to fund a campaign in Bermuda without a hosting fee????

.......and we're the idiots!!!!!

 

It is absolutely useless to try and carry on a discussion with that troll.  Just use the ignore list.

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

Why the fuck can't Dalton do what he did in Bermuda right now, right there at home???

Money to fund a successful defence, is the short answer. And don't even bother to wave, Dunphy's KHD vaporous funds back in my face. 

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

In AC37, it appears there are no others. Usually at this point in the cycle there's a long list of wannabes. Not this time. I don't think announcing the venue is going to change that. I believe that's partly down to Covid and partly down to a secular decline in the sell-ability of the AC brand that began with the AC33 shenanigans. 

If you are correct, then yes, there might not be any harm from a late announcement. Or maybe some have finally learnt that there is no point in going public too soon, before funding, as all it does us make you look foolish and desperate. I always thought those who made big statements with nothing to back them up were risking their reputations, or giving themselves a reputation for not being able to deliver. 

 

18 hours ago, Gissie said:

There is one advantage to not knowing the venue these days. Unlike in the old days, we do now it will be somewhere the wind never goes below 6 or above 20 knots and the swell is tiny.

Funny that. Remember when Dalton said that they needed to move away from AC50's as they would be unable to be sailed in Hauraki Gulf, because of wind and wave? And what did we end up with? A boat that needs the same conditions as the AC50's!

Of course the real reason why Dalts dumped the AC50 was the deal done with Bertelli to use a monohull, but that's another story. Just another case of St. Grant "playing" with words...........

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

If you are correct, then yes, there might not be any harm from a late announcement. Or maybe some have finally learnt that there is no point in going public too soon, before funding, as all it does us make you look foolish and desperate. I always thought those who made big statements with nothing to back them up were risking their reputations, or giving themselves a reputation for not being able to deliver. 

 

Funny that. Remember when Dalton said that they needed to move away from AC50's as they would be unable to be sailed in Hauraki Gulf, because of wind and wave? And what did we end up with? A boat that needs the same conditions as the AC50's!

Needs or ended up with? Burling said they never got the conditions that would've seen the full potential of the AC75.

Of course the real reason why Dalts dumped the AC50 was the deal done with Bertelli to use a monohull, but that's another story. Just another case of St. Grant "playing" with words...........

It was always common knowledge that Luna Rossa wanted a Monohull.

What they didn't bank on was ETNZ having the ability to make those monohulls successfully fly.

 

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

Maybe Lord Dalton should be knocking on Sir Peter Jackson's door seems he is a bit flush after parting with Weta for $3.5 Billion.

With the ability of Weta who cares on the venue. Just digitise the whole thing, no need for sailors, shore crew or even all the oil products wasted in construction. No flying boats, equipment and personnel all around the world.

The new green AC, name the imagined venue and it is game on. Toss a coin before each race to pick the conditions. Even better, have as diverse a crew you wish to promote, no one will know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the conversation on this board seems to have drifted towards that direction, here's an interesting development from the department of hypocricy: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-state-dept-okays-650-million-potential-air-to-air-missile-deal-saudi-arabia-2021-11-04/

Money talks and bullshit walks. When the checkbooks open, "moral and ethical" standards fly out of the window.

Grant Dalton will sell the venue to the highest bidder, if indeed there is any, the way Bertarelli and Ellison did before him. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just a business transaction.

The only issue that annoys me is that we will most likely have just three challengers again, so no proper semi-finals...

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

Since the conversation on this board seems to have drifted towards that direction, here's an interesting development from the department of hypocricy: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-state-dept-okays-650-million-potential-air-to-air-missile-deal-saudi-arabia-2021-11-04/

Money talks and bullshit walks. When the checkbooks open, "moral and ethical" standards fly out of the window.

Grant Dalton will sell the venue to the highest bidder, if indeed there is any, the way Bertarelli and Ellison did before him. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just a business transaction.

The only issue that annoys me is that we will most likely have just three challengers again, so no proper semi-finals...

What do weapons and the US government have to do with this? Are there going to even be any teams from the US? Doesn't MBS use chainsaws and knives?

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

Since the conversation on this board seems to have drifted towards that direction, here's an interesting development from the department of hypocricy: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-state-dept-okays-650-million-potential-air-to-air-missile-deal-saudi-arabia-2021-11-04/

Money talks and bullshit walks. When the checkbooks open, "moral and ethical" standards fly out of the window.

Grant Dalton will sell the venue to the highest bidder, if indeed there is any, the way Bertarelli and Ellison did before him. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just a business transaction.

The only issue that annoys me is that we will most likely have just three challengers again, so no proper semi-finals...

We each choose our own moral standards. Just because the US (and yourself) choose to overlook the human rights issues in KSA, it doesn't mean I should or will. In the end GD will choose for himself, but the more we make our voice heard the more likely he is to think twice, whether because of his own moral compass or fear of the impact on sponsors

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

We each choose our own moral standards. Just because the US (and yourself) choose to overlook the human rights issues in KSA, it doesn't mean I should or will. In the end GD will choose for himself, but the more we make our voice heard the more likely he is to think twice, whether because of his own moral compass or fear of the impact on sponsors

And if they do, and you watch the event, all your rhetoric goes out the window.

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

And if they do, and you watch the event, all your rhetoric goes out the window.

The point is not perfection or nothing, the point is try to consider more than just short term money when making decisions. Watching doesn't enable or facilitate anything.

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

The point is not perfection or nothing, the point is try to consider more than just short term money when making decisions. Watching doesn't enable or facilitate anything.

But if you’re watching, you’re giving those who made that decision exactly what they want - eyes on the product. So there’s no point in mouthing off about the decision if you know you’re going to support it. 

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

But if you’re watching, you’re giving those who made that decision exactly what they want - eyes on the product. So there’s no point in mouthing off about the decision if you know you’re going to support it. 

I mean, the choice of venue may indirectly affect broad popularity and video views, but isn't really a thing that can generally be expected to directly affect video views of the most avid fans. It's really much more related to other things. It's not really that people are making these decisions expecting a boycott. And boycotts are not really effective as a tool for individuals. So, it's really just spiteful and detrimental to no one but the person who is refusing to watch for some ineffective perfection principle. It's much more effective to voice those opinions and vote based on them, and do things like use less gas and other petroleum based products that helps everyone anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don’t watch and say nothing the event still happens

if you watch and say nothing the event still happens 

 

if you watch because you want the team you are supporting to win  and make your voice heard then at least everyone concerned knows that you the buying public think it’s a shit show not to be repeated. 

doing nothing validates dumb greedy decisions. 
 

if only there was someone in NZ making a case for a home defence that the kiwi public and gov could get behind and support… ;-) 

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

If you don’t watch and say nothing the event still happens

if you watch and say nothing the event still happens 

 

if you watch because you want the team you are supporting to win  and make your voice heard then at least everyone concerned knows that you the buying public think it’s a shit show not to be repeated. 

doing nothing validates dumb greedy decisions. 
 

if only there was someone in NZ making a case for a home defence that the kiwi public and gov could get behind and support… ;-) 

Yip, the event does happen irrespective of your views. But if you voice your “concerns” over and over again, if you stand on your moral high ground, and accuse people of having questionable morals and ethics, and then say “we’ll it’s gonna happen regardless of what I think so I’ll just watch it anyway” that makes you no better than those whose morals you’re questioning.

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

It was always common knowledge that Luna Rossa wanted a Monohull.

What they didn't bank on was ETNZ having the ability to make those monohulls successfully fly.

 

That's irrelevant. Yes, it was common knowledge but at the time that Dalton started the BS about the AC50, it wasn't common knowledge that a deal had been done for the next boat to be a monohull. That only came out later.  The question is why did Dalton push the bullshit line that the AC50 was unsuitable for the NZ conditions and then design a boat that needs the same conditions as the AC50?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SimonN said:

That's irrelevant. Yes, it was common knowledge but at the time that Dalton started the BS about the AC50, it wasn't common knowledge that a deal had been done for the next boat to be a monohull. That only came out later.  The question is why did Dalton push the bullshit line that the AC50 was unsuitable for the NZ conditions and then design a boat that needs the same conditions as the AC50?

A deal was done in 2013 when ETNZ and LR partnered. If ETNZ had won back then LR would become CoR and a monohull was the preferred option.

The AC75 may have been fully capable of racing outside the conditions seen in Auckland. All teams said the full potential of the AC75 had not yet been reached. The AC50 has clearly seen it’s limit before it becomes too dangerous to race. The AC75 hasn’t yet.

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

Yip, the event does happen irrespective of your views. But if you voice your “concerns” over and over again, if you stand on your moral high ground, and accuse people of having questionable morals and ethics, and then say “we’ll it’s gonna happen regardless of what I think so I’ll just watch it anyway” that makes you no better than those whose morals you’re questioning.

Pretty sure your morals can stay Un corrupted as long as you arent the one with the begging bowl… 

Very sure you suck on the teat of old Uncle Sam or any other country that you have used in your straw man what aboutery deflection argument when defending the honour of the KSA or GD, in the course of your every day life. Double standards chum 

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

A deal was done in 2013 when ETNZ and LR partnered. If ETNZ had won back then LR would become CoR and a monohull was the preferred option.

The AC75 may have been fully capable of racing outside the conditions seen in Auckland. All teams said the full potential of the AC75 had not yet been reached. The AC50 has clearly seen it’s limit before it becomes too dangerous to race. The AC75 hasn’t yet.

We all know that a deal was done in 2013, but it was not public knowledge and the exact details still aren't public knowledge. At the time that Dalton began saying the AC50 was unsuitable for NZ conditions, it was not public knowledge that one of the conditions of the deal was that the boat had to be a monohull. We all know that Dalton gave the unsuitability of the AC50 for NZ conditions as a reason he couldn't sign up to the agreement by other teams to use the AC50 for future editions of the cup at a time nobody knew that he had done a deal that meant the next boat had to be a monohull.

What the AC75 could or could not do isn't really relevant to the discussion because the courses were set such as AC50's could have sailed those courses. Dalton clearly said that the AC50 was unsuitable for NZ conditions yet they are suitable for the courses that were set. It should be noted that the limits set for the AC75 racing were lower than those set for AC50 racing, although ETNZ wanted the same limits. So even ETNZ were stating that the AC75 shouldn't be sailed in any more wind that the AC50. If ETNZ felt the AC75 could be raced in more than 24 knots, why didn't they push for that in the rules?

You always argue to support Dalton's position, whatever the situation and however much the facts show something else. How hard is to to accept that Dalton plays a game, like everybody else, and you cannot take what he says as being fact because he has an agenda, often one none of us know about. This is both right and proper in his position. I hope that Dalton declares that snow is always black, because I look forward to the warped defence of that position that I know would be forthcoming from you;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SimonN said:

We all know that a deal was done in 2013, but it was not public knowledge and the exact details still aren't public knowledge. At the time that Dalton began saying the AC50 was unsuitable for NZ conditions, it was not public knowledge that one of the conditions of the deal was that the boat had to be a monohull. We all know that Dalton gave the unsuitability of the AC50 for NZ conditions as a reason he couldn't sign up to the agreement by other teams to use the AC50 for future editions of the cup at a time nobody knew that he had done a deal that meant the next boat had to be a monohull.

What the AC75 could or could not do isn't really relevant to the discussion because the courses were set such as AC50's could have sailed those courses. Dalton clearly said that the AC50 was unsuitable for NZ conditions yet they are suitable for the courses that were set. It should be noted that the limits set for the AC75 racing were lower than those set for AC50 racing, although ETNZ wanted the same limits. So even ETNZ were stating that the AC75 shouldn't be sailed in any more wind that the AC50. If ETNZ felt the AC75 could be raced in more than 24 knots, why didn't they push for that in the rules?

You always argue to support Dalton's position, whatever the situation and however much the facts show something else. How hard is to to accept that Dalton plays a game, like everybody else, and you cannot take what he says as being fact because he has an agenda, often one none of us know about. This is both right and proper in his position. I hope that Dalton declares that snow is always black, because I look forward to the warped defence of that position that I know would be forthcoming from you;)

Who really gives a fuck why they changed from the AC50. The fact is, they won and the DoG grants them that right. Maybe he thought the AC50 was a piece of shit boat, and that’s why they changed it. Who cares! They changed it because the DoG says they could. Larry changed from the IACC which arguably ruined the AC way back then. They did it because they could. Because they won and that win granted them that right. That’s the whole point of winning. The Deed of Gift is the only document that governs the AC. When your team (who ever that might be) wins, they can do the same. But right now, the AC75 is the class chosen by Team NZ and supported by the rest of the Challengers.

If you’ve got a problem, take it up George Schuyler, otherwise take a fucking concrete pill. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there an issue with the reason Team NZ changed from the AC50 to the AC75? The DoG gives them the right, as it does with venue selection. 
As long as the terms in the Deed of Gift are followed, that’s all that matters.

The Deed allows for mutual consent between C and D and provides a solution in the case that MC is not satisfied.

The reason/s for why the class is selected are irrelevant other than the Deed of Gift allows the Defender and CoR to do so. 

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

Who really gives a fuck why they changed from the AC50. The fact is, they won and the DoG grants them that right. Maybe he thought the AC50 was a piece of shit boat, and that’s why they changed it. Who cares! They changed it because the DoG says they could. Larry changed from the IACC which arguably ruined the AC way back then. They did it because they could. Because they won and that win granted them that right. That’s the whole point of winning. The Deed of Gift is the only document that governs the AC. When your team (who ever that might be) wins, they can do the same. But right now, the AC75 is the class chosen by Team NZ and supported by the rest of the Challengers.

If you’ve got a problem, take it up George Schuyler, otherwise take a fucking concrete pill. 

 

The ACC Class was already scheduled to be replaced after the 2007 AC because the boat's design evolution had run its course through five iterations of the rule and the event. 

It was replaced not by Larry Ellison, whose team did not win the Cup until 2010, but by Alinghi, which created a new rule for a 90', higher-performance monohull.

It was a pretty good rule, largely written by Tom Schnackenberg. It obviously never went into effect, and no boat was ever built to it.

After the DoG Matach in 2010, Oracle, the new Defender, took a two-track approach to creating a new class for AC 34. One rule was for a 70-foot canting-keel monohull, the other for a 72-foot catamaran.

We know which one they ultimately chose for the next event.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Why is there an issue with the reason Team NZ changed from the AC50 to the AC75? The DoG gives them the right, as it does with venue selection. 
As long as the terms in the Deed of Gift are followed, that’s all that matters.

The Deed allows for mutual consent between C and D and provides a solution in the case that MC is not satisfied.

The reason/s for why the class is selected are irrelevant other than the Deed of Gift allows the Defender and CoR to do so. 

I'd be pretty pissed if that OD hull design rumour turns up the the, Proto. Might be good for lower cost entry, but surely, it's a hell of risk to a successful Defence, I reckon. The shoe is well and truly on the other foot too, IHTBS.

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

The ACC Class was already scheduled to be replaced after the 2007 AC because the boat's design evolution had run its course through five iterations of the rule and the event. 

It was replaced not by Larry Ellison, whose team did not win the Cup until 2010, but by Alinghi, which created a new rule for a 90', higher-performance monohull.

It was a pretty good rule, largely written by Tom Schnackenberg. It obviously never went into effect, and no boat was ever built to it.

After the DoG Matach in 2010, Oracle, the new Defender, took a two-track approach to creating a new class for AC 34. One rule was for a 70-foot canting-keel monohull, the other for a 72-foot catamaran.

We know which one they ultimately chose for the next event.

Smart move too. They obviously has an advantage sticking with multihulls. Why would they have given that up for a new mono class? 

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

Who really gives a fuck why they changed from the AC50.

A lot of people do, because many believe that if there had left the AC50 as the boat for the last AC, there would have been significantly more challengers. I know of 2 challengers who would have been there with the AC50 that didn't eventuate.

 

1 hour ago, Forourselves said:

The fact is, they won and the DoG grants them that right.

Fundamentally wrong.  The defender cannot force a choice of boats on the challenger. There has to be mutual consent, or else they have to resort to the DoG terms for the boat type. The DoG gives the defender and challenger (CoR) the right to mutually agree the type of boat. 

 

1 hour ago, Forourselves said:

Maybe he thought the AC50 was a piece of shit boat, and that’s why they changed it.

If that is the case, it further proves my point - don't believe what Dalton says. All I am asking for is a defender that is honest and we haven't seen one for a long time.

It would be helpful if, before you type your rubbish, you actually understood basic documents, such as the DoG and also understood the actual history of the AC, because you get so much wrong. You ask who cares? Most of us do - it's just you who seems out of step.

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

If the AC50s were unsuitable for NZ waters, no wonder the F50s passed them by on their way to Oz.

Now we say NZ waters? How un-specific do we need to be to score points? ;-)

GD specifically said the (inner) Hauraki Gulf... 

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

A lot of people do, because many believe that if there had left the AC50 as the boat for the last AC, there would have been significantly more challengers. I know of 2 challengers who would have been there with the AC50 that didn't eventuate.

 

Fundamentally wrong.  The defender cannot force a choice of boats on the challenger. There has to be mutual consent, or else they have to resort to the DoG terms for the boat type. The DoG gives the defender and challenger (CoR) the right to mutually agree the type of boat. 

 

If that is the case, it further proves my point - don't believe what Dalton says. All I am asking for is a defender that is honest and we haven't seen one for a long time.

It would be helpful if, before you type your rubbish, you actually understood basic documents, such as the DoG and also understood the actual history of the AC, because you get so much wrong. You ask who cares? Most of us do - it's just you who seems out of step.

The DoG makes no provision for what "many people believe"

You know of 2 challengers? Real ones or fake ones like Softbank Team Japan and Team France?

Even in SailGP there is only one fully funded team and thats Rockwool Denmark. The rest are backed by Larry Ellison, which is exactly what Softbank were in Bermuda. A Challenger campaigned and funded by the Defender.

4th, ABSOLUTELY WRONG. As what happened in Bermuda proved, a Defender CAN and HAS forced a replacement of a class rule on the CoR when Oracle replaced the AC62 rule with the AC50 rule, forcing the withdrawal of LR as the CoR.

You want honesty? Really? 

Obviously I understand the DoG, and the history of the AC better than you do.

Try again numpty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't all this screwed around by TNZ trying to find somebody else to fund their defense in flying wonder-boats kind of like if Wairarapa Bush somehow won the Ranfurly Shield then spent years dodging defenses until they could find someone (e.g., from Spain, Ireland, or Saudi Arabia) to build them a fancy new stadium and world-class pitch?

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

Isn't all this screwed around by TNZ trying to find somebody else to fund their defense in flying wonder-boats kind of like if Wairarapa Bush somehow won the Ranfurly Shield then spent years dodging defenses until they could find someone (e.g., from Spain, Ireland, or Saudi Arabia) to build them a fancy new stadium and world-class pitch?

Short answer... No.

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

The ACC Class was already scheduled to be replaced after the 2007 AC because the boat's design evolution had run its course through five iterations of the rule and the event. 

It was replaced not by Larry Ellison, whose team did not win the Cup until 2010, but by Alinghi, which created a new rule for a 90', higher-performance monohull.

It was a pretty good rule, largely written by Tom Schnackenberg. It obviously never went into effect, and no boat was ever built to it.

After the DoG Matach in 2010, Oracle, the new Defender, took a two-track approach to creating a new class for AC 34. One rule was for a 70-foot canting-keel monohull, the other for a 72-foot catamaran.

We know which one they ultimately chose for the next event.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know its semantics, but the AC90 rule was never valid, as the Challenging yacht club did not meet the DoG requirements, therefor any agreements/ mutually consented aspects were also invalid.

In the meantime, the version 5's were still being raced on the Louis Vuitton circuit and were only retired at the end of the Dubai regatta.

 

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

4th, ABSOLUTELY WRONG. As what happened in Bermuda proved, a Defender CAN and HAS forced a replacement of a class rule on the CoR when Oracle replaced the AC62 rule with the AC50 rule, forcing the withdrawal of LR as the CoR.

That is not correct, but your lack of historic knowledge doesn't surprise me. LR and Oracle agreed a set of rules that included a provision that allowed changes to the boat by a majority vote of all challengers and the defender. Oracle could not unilaterally change the rules. They may have been the one that first suggested the change, but they needed the approval of the other challengers. If they had rejected the change, that would have been that. I know for a fact that both BAR and Artemis were very much in favour of the change and neither of them were in the pocket of Oracle.  The interesting thing is that when Oracle was the CoR in 2003, they also insisted that any rule change had to be made by majority vote and that a vote did happen which prevented a rule change that TNZ wanted.

Nor did Oracle force LR to withdraw as challenger. LR did that all on their own as they could have stayed on but as we have seen, Bertelli has a habit of spitting the dummy. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SimonN said:

That is not correct, but your lack of historic knowledge doesn't surprise me. LR and Oracle agreed a set of rules that included a provision that allowed changes to the boat by a majority vote of all challengers and the defender. Oracle could not unilaterally change the rules. They may have been the one that first suggested the change, but they needed the approval of the other challengers. If they had rejected the change, that would have been that. I know for a fact that both BAR and Artemis were very much in favour of the change and neither of them were in the pocket of Oracle.  The interesting thing is that when Oracle was the CoR in 2003, they also insisted that any rule change had to be made by majority vote and that a vote did happen which prevented a