Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NeedAClew said:

I was mocking For without quoting guess too subtle for some

Like I said, we never saw the conditions that show the full potential of the AC75. The limit was never reached. Cowes was the limit for the F50. Those boats went from racing to surviving in Cowes. Even Russell admitted that.

GD may yet be correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.6k
  • 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

59 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

The F50s got new wings and foils for a variety of ranges. They aren't your GD's AC50s. Or Season 1's F50s.  But they won't be in NZ for at least a year or maybe more if ever. On to San Francisco....

And the AC75’s will also be a step on from last time. They won’t be AC36’s version either. 

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

The F50s got new wings and foils for a variety of ranges.

Yet like any foiling craft they still struggle in light airs. The F50 is more weight sensitive than the AC75. Turns out their huge light air wing makes the boat too heavy. An engineering faux pas in my book. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

America's Cup: RNZYS Committee calls for reality check on NZ based AC37 Match
by Richard Gladwell/Sail-World.com 22 Nov 17:35 NZDT
22 November 2021

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron General Committee have set Thursday December 9, as the date for the Special General Meeting to consider a motion to hold the 37th America's Cup, and all others defended by the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron's America's Cup team.

However a second motion has been submitted by the General Committee (labelled "Alternative Two"), is diluted version of the first.

The General Committee says "it does not believe that it would be helpful that either motion is passed".

In a blunt statement to the membership the outgoing General Committee says: "There needs to be a reality check in respect to a New Zealand based AC37 Match. ETNZ needs to secure funding, with local and central Government support, to hold this event in Auckland.

"Unless this happens, we need to consider offshore venues. The consequences of not doing so are potentially dire – no cup defence at all, and giving the America’s Cup back having been unable to stage a defence and meet our obligations under the Deed of Gift.

"This means the loss of the America’s Cup, the loss of our Team New Zealand, and the potential loss of future America’s Cup challenges from the RNZYS, and most likely New Zealand.

"So, while we understand and support the sentiment of the petition and their desire to “have the event in New Zealand”, the answer is not that simple."

The Special General Meeting will be held after the Squadron's Annual General Meeting set for December 9, 2021 at 6.00pm (NZDT)

https://www.sail-world.com/news/244155/Americas-Cup-Blunt-talk-on-NZ-Defence-Venue

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So worst case scenario, if NZL can't defend, does it go to GBR as COR or ITA as the previous challenger?

It's a serious question, I'm sure it's in the deed but I'm not as deed savvy as some here...

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

So worst case scenario, if NZL can't defend, does it go to GBR as COR or ITA as the previous challenger?

It's a serious question, I'm sure it's in the deed but I'm not as deed savvy as some here...

Forfeit, GBR wins the cup.

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

America's Cup: RNZYS Committee calls for reality check on NZ based AC37 Match
by Richard Gladwell/Sail-World.com 22 Nov 17:35 NZDT
22 November 2021

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron General Committee have set Thursday December 9, as the date for the Special General Meeting to consider a motion to hold the 37th America's Cup, and all others defended by the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron's America's Cup team.

However a second motion has been submitted by the General Committee (labelled "Alternative Two"), is diluted version of the first.

The General Committee says "it does not believe that it would be helpful that either motion is passed".

In a blunt statement to the membership the outgoing General Committee says: "There needs to be a reality check in respect to a New Zealand based AC37 Match. ETNZ needs to secure funding, with local and central Government support, to hold this event in Auckland.

"Unless this happens, we need to consider offshore venues. The consequences of not doing so are potentially dire – no cup defence at all, and giving the America’s Cup back having been unable to stage a defence and meet our obligations under the Deed of Gift.

"This means the loss of the America’s Cup, the loss of our Team New Zealand, and the potential loss of future America’s Cup challenges from the RNZYS, and most likely New Zealand.

"So, while we understand and support the sentiment of the petition and their desire to “have the event in New Zealand”, the answer is not that simple."

The Special General Meeting will be held after the Squadron's Annual General Meeting set for December 9, 2021 at 6.00pm (NZDT)

https://www.sail-world.com/news/244155/Americas-Cup-Blunt-talk-on-NZ-Defence-Venue

 

 

So 30 members have called for an SGM, for a club with 3500 members.

but there's only 100 or so allowed in the room. so it will have to be online too if there is demand for attendance.

 

What's the majority required to pass the resolution, 50%, 2/3, 75%?  given the right electioneering it's possible plenty of members vote for an auckland regatta (against etnz)

 

Even if passed I'm pretty sure that the contract between ETNZ and the club would not allow the club to force a venue decision. so all this does is really delay and obfuscate the matter (when that energy should really be spent on raising the cash locally)

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

 

 

What's the majority required to pass the resolution, 50%, 2/3, 75%?  given the right electioneering it's possible plenty of members vote for an auckland regatta (against etnz)

 

Its not a constitutional change or anything so I would expect a simple majority of those voting 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

None of it matters. It’s yet another storm in a teacup. Ross will have his membership revoked afterward

The Squadron is between a rock and a hard place. They vote to always hold it in NZ, then Team NZ can turn around and say “then you pay for it” which leaves the squadron with the burden of raising funds and being forced to forfeit the cup and never challenge again, or they vote for the status quo and the status quo remains. 

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

In a blunt statement to the membership the outgoing General Committee says: "There needs to be a reality check in respect to a New Zealand based AC37 Match. ETNZ needs to secure funding, with local and central Government support, to hold this event in Auckland.

Crikey so the RNZYS whose membership includes some of the wealthiest Kiwis is seeking a social welfare hand out to participate in a pissing match between Billionaires.

Reminds me of how the GOP viewed bailing out the too big to fail conglomerates as socialism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across this today, written 400+ years ago.  It seems more than somewhat related to our obsession. If you like it, you can tell me. If you don't, there is no need to say so as I don't plan to make a regular feature of such quotations. You get a gold star if you know where I came across it.

I hear new news every day, and those ordinary rumours of war, plagues, fires, inundations, thefts, murders, massacres, meteors, comets, spectrums, prodigies, apparitions, of towns taken, cities besieged in France, Germany, Turkey, Persia, Poland, &c., daily musters and preparations, and such like, which these tempestuous times afford, battles fought, so many men slain, monomachies, shipwrecks, piracies, and sea-fights, peace, leagues, stratagems, and fresh alarms. A vast confusion of vows, wishes, actions, edicts, petitions, lawsuits, pleas, laws, proclamations, complaints, grievances, are daily brought to our ears. New books every day, pamphlets, currantoes, stories, whole catalogues of volumes of all sorts, new paradoxes, opinions, schisms, heresies, controversies in philosophy, religion, &c. Now come tidings of weddings, maskings, mummeries, entertainments, jubilees, embassies, tilts and tournaments, trophies, triumphs, revels, sports, plays: then again, as in a new shifted scene, treasons, cheating tricks, robberies, enormous villanies in all kinds, funerals, burials, deaths of Princes, new discoveries, expeditions; now comical then tragical matters. To-day we hear of new Lords and officers created, to-morrow of some great men deposed, and then again of fresh honours conferred; one is let loose, another imprisoned; one purchaseth, another breaketh: he thrives, his neighbour turns bankrupt; now plenty, then again dearth and famine; one runs, another rides, wrangles, laughs, weeps &c. Thus I daily hear, and such like, both private and publick news. Amidst the gallantry and misery of the world: jollity, pride, perplexities and cares, simplicity and villany; subtlety, knavery, candour and integrity, mutually mixed and offering themselves, I rub on in a strictly private life.

Robert Burton (1577-1640), The Anatomy of Melancholy

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

 

However a second motion has been submitted by the General Committee (labelled "Alternative Two"), is diluted version of the first.

And that motion is "The members of the Squadron confirm that the purposes of the Squadron include holding America’s Cup regattas in Auckland and that it is their desire that they are held in Auckland."

So by diluted they of course mean a nothing statement.

I don't suppose the agreement between ETNZ and RNZS has ever been released so that we can know whether they have any contractual control left.

If the EGM passes a binding motion could they then be in a position where they are committed to exiting that contract and possibly getting sued by ETNZ? 

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

None of it matters. It’s yet another storm in a teacup. Ross will have his membership revoked afterward

The Squadron is between a rock and a hard place. They vote to always hold it in NZ, then Team NZ can turn around and say “then you pay for it” which leaves the squadron with the burden of raising funds and being forced to forfeit the cup and never challenge again, or they vote for the status quo and the status quo remains. 

ok let's pretend it happens and we go down this road. ETNZ says - ok you do it, they would surely fold at that point.

 

Since there's a protocol already out, and a basic agreement with the CoR. it would need to be in AC75 or similiar. The big fight would then be between team ineos, who would get rather upset if they changed it to something "affordable" like a TP52 (launched with a gofundme campaign).

 

BUT the club has an agreement with the now defunct ETNZ that they are not responsible for any liability, so the club could tell Sir Jim to go beef with Dalts.

 

There's no easy way out of it, because anyone in control of the club would be against this move. but they are removable by the majoprity of members. Could be financial suicide.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the more legally inclined will correct me on this, but the protocol is only binding whilst there is mutual consent, if the members vote to force RNZYS Inc to hold the cup in Auckland and TNZ Ltd declines, then RNZYS Inc is forced to negotiate with the challenger of record, if Athena Racing Limited (competing as INEOS BRitannia) / RYS Ltd then decline it becomes a deed of gift match.

So RNZYS Inc would then have to build a boat to compete under the deed of gift rules or hand the cup over.

Of course in reality, there will just be a lot of legal battles which I'm sure will only serve to enrich certain interests.

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

I'm sure the more legally inclined will correct me on this, but the protocol is only binding whilst there is mutual consent

No. The protocol is a contract between RNZYS Inc and RYS Ltd and

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron Incorporated (“RNZYS”), having defended the 36th
America’s Cup, holds the silver trophy known as the America’s Cup in accordance with the
terms of a Deed of Gift dated 24 October 1887 (the “Deed of Gift”).

and

RNZYS has appointed Team New Zealand Limited (“TNZL”) to represent it as the
sailing team that will defend the America’s Cup in AC37 on its behalf and to organise
the delivery of all of the Events that will comprise AC37.

There are processes defined in the protocol to resolve disputes. Nobody can now just say, MC is over, back to the DoG.

 

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

There are processes defined in the protocol to resolve disputes. Nobody can now just say, MC is over, back to the DoG.

There are, but they are not infinite, if at some point if it all breaks down it my understanding is it goes back to the DoG. We were talking extremes here, as I don't think RNZYS will force ETNZ out, I think they will say to the members "we hear you but we have contracts in place".

I also note that the protocol does not have a mechanism for a dispute between RNZYS and ETNZ, so that would presumedly just go straight to a NZ court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RNZYS constitution 2.3.2 seems fairly clear. 50 members needed for a quorum, and provided they aren't changing the constitution (which I don't see that they are) then a vote is binding on the committee.

I have no idea of the levels of support either way amongst members, but given that the people opposed to the event going offshore are more animated (and thus more likely to vote), I am sure there are some nerves amongst some.

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

RNZYS constitution 2.3.2 seems fairly clear.

Is RNZYS and RNZYS Inc the same thing? Does a decision of the first bind the second?

If we were talking RYS and RYSL then the answer to both, at least in theory, is no.

Still curious to know if Dunphy is a member of RNZYS. Nobody here seems to know or wish to say.

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

There are, but they are not infinite, if at some point if it all breaks down it my understanding is it goes back to the DoG.

What leads you to that understanding?

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

Is RNZYS and RNZYS Inc the same thing? Does a decision of the first bind the second?

If we were talking RYS and RYSL then the answer to both, at least in theory, is no.

Still curious to know if Dunphy is a member of RNZYS. Nobody here seems to know or wish to say.

I don't know the answer to those questions, though any committee that chooses to dance on that pinhead would be likeloy to lose their positions at the next election I would suspect. 

I assume it is definitely RNZYS Inc that holds the cup rather than RNZYS? I haven't seen anything definitive

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

I assume it is definitely RNZYS Inc that holds the cup rather than RNZYS? I haven't seen anything definitive

The first clause of the protocol confirms that.

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

What leads you to that understanding?

I'm working off the premise that the Deed controls the cup and permits parts of the competition to be agreed by mutual consent. Thus the deed permits the protocol to run the cup. So if they go through the protocols arbitration procedures as required by that contract, but still can't come to an agreement, I don't see how that doesn't open up either party going to the NYSC and demonstrating that there is no mutual consent and getting the procotol thrown out. I don't see how that any different from the oracle / alinghi court case.

Of course it requires one side or the other (presumedly the challenger, not the defender) to want a deed of gift match, and I admit I might be being naive or mistaken, but thats my logic. It could be the protocols existence would be enough under NY law to show there was mutual consent, and now you can't back out, in which case the AC is going ahead in AC72's now unless INEOS agree otherwise, which would be very interesting if RNZYS and ETNZ fall out...

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

I'm working off the premise that the Deed controls the cup and permits parts of the competition to be agreed by mutual consent. Thus the deed permits the protocol to run the cup. So if they go through the protocols arbitration procedures as required by that contract, but still can't come to an agreement, I don't see how that doesn't open up either party going to the NYSC and demonstrating that there is no mutual consent and getting the procotol thrown out. I don't see how that any different from the oracle / alinghi court case.
 

It is different because the protocol has been signed as a binding contract. It would be NZ courts who'd potentially adjudicate on that. 

Consent to exclusive jurisdiction
If resort to a court of competent jurisdiction is permitted to resolve any dispute and/or issue
arising out of this Protocol, each Competitor, including each of its Team Members, submits
and each of the Indemnified Parties submits any such proceedings to the exclusive
jurisdiction of any New Zealand court and agrees to any such proceedings being brought
there. The laws of New Zealand, without giving effect to its principles of conflicts of law, shall
be applied to resolve any such proceedings.

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

It is different because the protocol has been signed as a binding contract. It would be NZ courts who'd potentially adjudicate on that.

However the court of jurisdiction for the deed is the NYSC, so someone could still go to the NYSC to throw out the protocol based on the deed. So I believe it goes back to the question of wether a break down under arbitration is "grounds" to go to the NYSC.

It would be messy either way as you could presumedly still go to the NZ courts for damgages?

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

However the court of jurisdiction for the deed is the NYSC, so someone could still go to the NYSC to throw out the protocol based on the deed. So I believe it goes back to the question of wether a break down under arbitration is "grounds" to go to the NYSC.

It would be messy either way as you could presumedly still go to the NZ courts for damgages?

This is pure speculative. The Protocol is the mutual consent named in the DoG, and is binding on both parties  that signed it. They have agreed to the terms of the Match as permitted by the DoG. By the terms of the Protocol, it cannot be modified by one of the parties: only by both. Neither party, for example, can unilaterally throw out the AC 75 class as the yacht specified for the Match.

The question is then whether both parties comply with the terms of the Protocol.

As to whether the Protocol can legally bind competitors for anything beyond AC37, that is another issue, and this where Porthos and others of that esteemed profession step up and earn their keep.

But I'm not a lawyer, and don't even play one on television.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

RNZYS constitution 2.3.2 seems fairly clear. 50 members needed for a quorum, and provided they aren't changing the constitution (which I don't see that they are) then a vote is binding on the committee.

I have no idea of the levels of support either way amongst members, but given that the people opposed to the event going offshore are more animated (and thus more likely to vote), I am sure there are some nerves amongst some.

I wonder which way Pete and Blair are going to vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing is merely an internal issue with the Squadron. It changes NOTHING about the AC.

This should've happened before the challenge was accepted, because there is no stopping the process now. This AC is going offshore (most likely) because thats what the Deed, the protocol and the contract between the Squadron and Team NZ stipulates. Dissenters can't change that now. What they can change is future Defences/ challengers, but the other issue the Squadron will have if they vote for it is they'll be on the hook for coming up with the funding for the defence.

There's no way Dalts or anyone will accept being told what to do then being told to pay for it too.

This is a lose/ lose for the squadron. Ross and his merry men should just drop it.

The Protocol is signed, and the Deed clauses have been satisfied.

Ross and his merry men can't do anything to change that. If the Squadron votes to always hold the Cup in Auckland, they'll lose it, and never get it back, and it won't be held in Auckland anyway.

 

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

I came across this today, written 400+ years ago.  It seems more than somewhat related to our obsession. If you like it, you can tell me. If you don't, there is no need to say so as I don't plan to make a regular feature of such quotations. You get a gold star if you know where I came across it.

I hear new news every day, and those ordinary rumours of war, plagues, fires, inundations, thefts, murders, massacres, meteors, comets, spectrums, prodigies, apparitions, of towns taken, cities besieged in France, Germany, Turkey, Persia, Poland, &c., daily musters and preparations, and such like, which these tempestuous times afford, battles fought, so many men slain, monomachies, shipwrecks, piracies, and sea-fights, peace, leagues, stratagems, and fresh alarms. A vast confusion of vows, wishes, actions, edicts, petitions, lawsuits, pleas, laws, proclamations, complaints, grievances, are daily brought to our ears. New books every day, pamphlets, currantoes, stories, whole catalogues of volumes of all sorts, new paradoxes, opinions, schisms, heresies, controversies in philosophy, religion, &c. Now come tidings of weddings, maskings, mummeries, entertainments, jubilees, embassies, tilts and tournaments, trophies, triumphs, revels, sports, plays: then again, as in a new shifted scene, treasons, cheating tricks, robberies, enormous villanies in all kinds, funerals, burials, deaths of Princes, new discoveries, expeditions; now comical then tragical matters. To-day we hear of new Lords and officers created, to-morrow of some great men deposed, and then again of fresh honours conferred; one is let loose, another imprisoned; one purchaseth, another breaketh: he thrives, his neighbour turns bankrupt; now plenty, then again dearth and famine; one runs, another rides, wrangles, laughs, weeps &c. Thus I daily hear, and such like, both private and publick news. Amidst the gallantry and misery of the world: jollity, pride, perplexities and cares, simplicity and villany; subtlety, knavery, candour and integrity, mutually mixed and offering themselves, I rub on in a strictly private life.

Robert Burton (1577-1640), The Anatomy of Melancholy

Good Reads?

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

None of the deed, protocol or contract stipulate going offshore. So that is still open to challenge

On what grounds? The deed of Gift specifically says that the Defender chooses the courses if they cannot be agreed by mutual consent, and sets specific limits on those courses.

Choosing the courses includes choosing where those courses are. Nothing in the Deed requires those courses to be located in the home waters of the defending club. The precedent for this has already been set.

From the DoG:

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

In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup. All such races shall be on ocean courses, free from headlands, as follows: the first race, twenty nautical miles to windward and return; the second race, an equilateral triangular race of thirty-nine nautical miles, the first side of which shall be a beat to windward; the third race, (if necessary), twenty nautical miles to windward and return; and one week day shall intervene between the conclusion of one race and the starting of the next race. These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever. The challenged Club shall not be required to name its representative vessel until at the time agreed upon for the start, but the vessel when named must compete in all the races; and each of such races must be completed within seven hours."

With regard to this, the Protocol states:

"8.1        Venue and dates

(a)      The 37th America’s Cup Match (“Match”) will be contested between the Defender and the 
winner of the CSS.

(b)      The Match Venue and the approximate dates for the Match (the “Match Racing Period”) shall 
(unless otherwise agreed by COR/D) be announced by the Defender on or before 31 March 2022.
"
 

Everyone seems to be jumping through the appropriate hoops. The lawyers on both sides are smart, experienced people.

Who is going to challenge this, and what standing do they have at this point?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JonRowe said:

I'm sure the more legally inclined will correct me on this, but the protocol is only binding whilst there is mutual consent, if the members vote to force RNZYS Inc to hold the cup in Auckland and TNZ Ltd declines, then RNZYS Inc is forced to negotiate with the challenger of record, if Athena Racing Limited (competing as INEOS BRitannia) / RYS Ltd then decline it becomes a deed of gift match.

So RNZYS Inc would then have to build a boat to compete under the deed of gift rules or hand the cup over.

Of course in reality, there will just be a lot of legal battles which I'm sure will only serve to enrich certain interests.

Historically, in the history of the AC, has there ever been a divorce between $quillionaire/or team and Defending Club? 

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

RNZYS constitution 2.3.2 seems fairly clear. 50 members needed for a quorum, and provided they aren't changing the constitution (which I don't see that they are) then a vote is binding on the committee.

I have no idea of the levels of support either way amongst members, but given that the people opposed to the event going offshore are more animated (and thus more likely to vote), I am sure there are some nerves amongst some.

You can be there will be a ton of lobbying going on behind the scenes, right now. This is one vote the outgoing RNZYS committee will NOT want to lose.

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

Historically, in the history of the AC, has there ever been a divorce between $quillionaire/or team and Defending Club? 

Can’t think of one but yes, maybe the members (as Trustees) will tell ETNZ “Race it here if you can, otherwise we simply end the contract.” 

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

Can’t think of one but yes, maybe the members (as Trustees) will tell ETNZ “Race it here if you can, otherwise we simply end the contract.” 

"Race it here if you can....." Sorry, we can't because of reasons".

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

"Race it here if you can....." Sorry, we can't because of reasons".

“Fine, then piss off” :) 

Doubt it will happen. KHD makes the argument that more than enough is available for a successful defense in Auckland. GD (and his partner AY, possibly even his business partner) want to pursue some bigger pot of gold, claiming that it is a necessity. Given this and the claims made about how this Prot reduces budgets, maybe the money-folks should get together and come clean, get honest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jethrow said:

So worst case scenario, if NZL can't defend, does it go to GBR as COR or ITA as the previous challenger?

It's a serious question, I'm sure it's in the deed but I'm not as deed savvy as some here...

All the RNZYS needs to defend are 

- a bit of water 

- a boat

- some buoys

- a couple of officials, a pro, a jury, umpires 

Nothing strange or unusual for a bona fide YC. Hence, the RNZYS shouldn't tell anyone that they are not able to defend under the Deed. That's a blatant lie. 

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

“Fine, then piss off” :) 

Doubt it will happen. KHD makes the argument that more than enough is available for a successful defense in Auckland. GD (and his partner AY, possibly even his business partner) want to pursue some bigger pot of gold, claiming that it is a necessity. Given this and the claims made about how this Prot reduces budgets, maybe the money-folks should get together and come clean, get honest. 

So, if the money is here, "SHOW ME THE MONEY". Which of course is the first response, GD gave, Dunphy and his KHD cronies.

Crickets. Moving right along....

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

Nothing strange or unusual for a bona fide YC. Hence, the RNZYS shouldn't tell anyone that they are not able to defend under the Deed. That's a blatant lie. 

I agree that "not able to" and "not willing to risk" are different, but the current agreement means they are not funding ETNZ, if ETNZ say "we can't compete at home" and RNZYS are forced by the membership to terminate the agreement, if thats even legally possible, then RNZYS would have to foot the bill for building or buying an AC72 and hosting a defence. Its entirely possible they would forfeit in that scenario.

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

So, if the money is here, "SHOW ME THE MONEY". Which of course is the first response, GD gave, Dunphy and his KHD cronies.

Crickets. Moving right along....

KHD is willing to underwrite a check for $40M (!) and then go fundraise what he can to recuperate some of it. GD says that’s not enough. As I said (and I think Dunphy has said too) - GD should get honest with the Aucklanders about how much is needed for what. 

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

Historically, in the history of the AC, has there ever been a divorce between $quillionaire/or team and Defending Club? 

No idea, but spinning that point on its head, has there ever been members of a club fighting the team?

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

No idea, but spinning that point on its head, has there ever been members of a club fighting the team?

One example is SDYC fighting off DC’s consideration of Hawaii and Long Beach, as for where to defend the 88 DoG Match. SDYC (SD business interests, basically) won. 

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

KHD is willing to underwrite a check for $40M (!) and then go fundraise what he can to recuperate some of it. GD says that’s not enough. As I said (and I think Dunphy has said too) - GD should get honest with the Aucklanders about how much is needed for what. 

There you go, telling GD what he should and shouldn't do again.

And by the way, the AC Defence has fuck all to do with what Aucklanders want. 

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

Who is going to challenge this, and what standing do they have at this point?

 

 

I mean the club members can challenge it. Because it is not specified in the deed or protocol they could in theory force the RNZS to hold it in NZ. With the possible of exception of the contract, which can't specify the location (because it hasn't been agreed) but we don't know whether RNZYS signed away all their rights and/or whether there are any exit clauses.

So it's about what happens if motion 1 is carried and is 'binding' on RNZYS officers - if not on RNZYS Inc

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

There you go, telling GD what he should and shouldn't do again.

And by the way, the AC Defence has fuck all to do with what Aucklanders want. 

Am suggesting it is the solution. Have heard both MD and HR suggest the same, live on TE shows. 
 

And actually, it apparently IS in the interest of some Aucklanders or they wouldn’t be pressing to keep it hosted at home. Some heavy hitter Aucklanders. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is turning into a typical bar conversation, the more people drink the more bull they talk, and the less they listen to each other.
Time to finish your drinks and crawl home, you alcies.

Just saying, after morning coffee, like a real AA.

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

I mean the club members can challenge it. Because it is not specified in the deed or protocol they could in theory force the RNZS to hold it in NZ. With the possible of exception of the contract, which can't specify the location (because it hasn't been agreed) but we don't know whether RNZYS signed away all their rights and/or whether there are any exit clauses.

So it's about what happens if motion 1 is carried and is 'binding' on RNZYS officers - if not on RNZYS Inc

It depends on the terms of the contract between RNZYS and ETNZ, and how much decision-making has been signed away by RNZYS, and to whom. The contract, presumably, is between those two entities in some form.

Sounds like something approaching a mutually assured destruction case if it goes down the way you are speculating it could.

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

KHD is willing to underwrite a check for $40M (!) and then go fundraise what he can to recuperate some of it. GD says that’s not enough. As I said (and I think Dunphy has said too) - GD should get honest with the Aucklanders about how much is needed for what. 

Then why hasn’t he done it already! He was asked if he had the money, directly. His answer was “NO” but he wanted to get around the table and discuss options. If you can’t put your money where your mouth is, then FUCK OFF.

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

Am suggesting it is the solution. Have heard both MD and HR suggest the same, live on TE shows. 
 

And actually, it apparently IS in the interest of some Aucklanders or they wouldn’t be pressing to keep it hosted at home. Some heavy hitter Aucklanders. 

Hamish Ross can get fucked. He’s not in the conversation and never has been. There’s nothing to see here. All Ross is doing is dragging the RNZYS through the mud and into a lose/ lose situation. The vote gets passed, the cup is forfeit because the squadron does not have the will, the means or resources to pay a team to design build and race an AC75 as well as run the event. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dalton keeps talking about the financial ‘misinformation’ being spread. Well then why not come clean with those folks, and detail the real numbers for them?

MD has the money but will only hand it over once the deal is agreed for hosting it in Auckland, obviously. 

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

Hamish Ross can get fucked. He’s not in the conversation and never has been. There’s nothing to see here. All Ross is doing is dragging the RNZYS through the mud and into a lose/ lose situation. The vote gets passed, the cup is forfeit because the squadron does not have the will, the means or resources to pay a team to design build and race an AC75 as well as run the event. 

Question: If the Cup is forfeited does it go back to the Trustee - the NYYC or does it revert back to Team Oracle, the last holder of the Cup?

 

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

MD has the money...

Does he really? You have his word on it, right? Well, that's reassuring. ;-)

A little bit of scepticism can serve you well, when it comes to political promises, Stinger.

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

Question: If the Cup is forfeited does it go back to the Trustee - the NYYC or does it revert back to Team Oracle, the last holder of the Cup?

 

In the unlikely event it happens, I think the previous Trustee so yes, GGYC.

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

Does he really? You have his word on it, right? Well, that's reassuring. ;-)

A little bit of scepticism can serve you well, when it comes to political promises, Stinger.

You have to ask yourself why he is making the offer if he is not fully capable and intent on backing it up. Doubting him is the non-sensical take on it.  

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

No idea, but spinning that point on its head, has there ever been members of a club fighting the team?

 

4 hours ago, shebeen said:

I wonder which way Pete and Blair are going to vote?

so this is a scenario I would tune in for  - Blair and Burling give Dalton a public pantsing.

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

In the unlikely event it happens, I think the previous Trustee so yes, GGYC.

That doesn't seem completely clear in the DoG, at least not in an obvious way. That is what happens when the club holding the Cup is dissolved, and fails to transfer it to another club in that same country within a specified timeframe.

I'll defer to Porthos on this one, as there may be applicable case law or precedent outside the four walls of the words of the Deed that might apply.

 

From the DoG:

"Should the Club holding the Cup be for any cause dissolved, the Cup shall be transferred to some Club of the same nationality, eligible to challenge under this deed of gift, in trust and subject to its provisions. In the event of the failure of such transfer within three months after such dissolution, said Cup shall revert to the preceding Club holding the same, and under the terms of this deed of gift. It is distinctly understood that the Cup is to be the property of the Club, subject to the provisions of this deed, and not the property of the owner or owners of any vessel winning a match."

In this case, both clubs have signed the Protocol, and the Protocol gives the class of boats, but no venue and no dates for racing as of now. That means one team can't show up with a Protocol-compliant boat for a sail-over, because they would not know where or when to show up.

It's hard to believe things would ever get to that state, really. This does sound like bar talk after way too much to drink.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@accnick

Farfetched? Maybe.

6 months ago it would have certainly been far fetched. It needed GD to try and take it offshore; fail; a "local hero" to show up supposedly with the money, GD to reject that; a motion to be raised in RNZYS in opposition to GD desires.

That all sounds far-fetched. Now all it needs is that motion to pass and we don't know what will happen. RnzYs ignore it? GD honour it or reject it? 

Without knowing what the contract between RNZYS and ETNZ we can only guess. But if the squadron have signed away the rights and so have no choice, should they/will they admit that?

 

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

Young said yesterday if RNZYS can’t defend then they’d have to “give the Cup back” but who knows what he meant by that, or if he has even thought that through..

“Team New Zealand needs to secure the necessary funding with local and government support to hold this event in Auckland. Unless this happens we need to consider offshore venues. 

“The consequences of not doing so are potentially dire – no cup defence at all, and giving the America’s Cup back, having been unable to stage a defence and meet obligations under the Deed of Gift.

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

@accnick

Farfetched? Maybe.

6 months ago it would have certainly been far fetched. It needed GD to try and take it offshore; fail; a "local hero" to show up supposedly with the money, GD to reject that; a motion to be raised in RNZYS in opposition to GD desires.

That all sounds far-fetched. Now all it needs is that motion to pass and we don't know what will happen. RnzYs ignore it? GD honour it or reject it? 

Without knowing what the contract between RNZYS and ETNZ we can only guess. But if the squadron have signed away the rights and so have no choice, should they/will they admit that?

 

Can't argue with any of that. 

This is, after all, the America's Cup, where reality is sometimes more unbelievable than fiction.

Pass the popcorn, please.

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

Is TE still a member of GGYC?

Is LE? 

I think TE joined St Fancy, where Julia is a long-time member. He’s also a NYYC member. 
 

No idea about LE but seriously doubt he’d get back into AC again. Been there, done that. 

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

America's Cup: RNZYS Committee calls for reality check on NZ based AC37 Match
by Richard Gladwell/Sail-World.com 22 Nov 17:35 NZDT
22 November 2021

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron General Committee have set Thursday December 9, as the date for the Special General Meeting to consider a motion to hold the 37th America's Cup, and all others defended by the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron's America's Cup team.

However a second motion has been submitted by the General Committee (labelled "Alternative Two"), is diluted version of the first.

The General Committee says "it does not believe that it would be helpful that either motion is passed".

In a blunt statement to the membership the outgoing General Committee says: "There needs to be a reality check in respect to a New Zealand based AC37 Match. ETNZ needs to secure funding, with local and central Government support, to hold this event in Auckland.

"Unless this happens, we need to consider offshore venues. The consequences of not doing so are potentially dire – no cup defence at all, and giving the America’s Cup back having been unable to stage a defence and meet our obligations under the Deed of Gift.

"This means the loss of the America’s Cup, the loss of our Team New Zealand, and the potential loss of future America’s Cup challenges from the RNZYS, and most likely New Zealand.

"So, while we understand and support the sentiment of the petition and their desire to “have the event in New Zealand”, the answer is not that simple."

The Special General Meeting will be held after the Squadron's Annual General Meeting set for December 9, 2021 at 6.00pm (NZDT)

https://www.sail-world.com/news/244155/Americas-Cup-Blunt-talk-on-NZ-Defence-Venue

 

 

The fact that the leadership has added a watered down second motion seems to indicate that they are getting a lot of push back from the membership.  Looks like they felt they had to give an option for members to vote their desire to hold it at home, but make it just symbolic with no actual requirement to keep it home.

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

I think TE joined St Fancy, where Julia is a long-time member. He’s also a NYYC member. 
 

No idea about LE but seriously doubt he’d get back into AC again. Been there, done that. 

So the cup is forfeited back to the GGYC who doesn't have a team and has no interest in defending the Cup.

They then follow the deed as quoted previously: "Should the Club holding the Cup be for any cause dissolved, the Cup shall be transferred to some Club of the same nationality, eligible to challenge under this deed of gift, in trust and subject to its provisions."

GGYC chooses their friendly club to the south - the Long Beach Yacht Club.  They decide to call up Canfield and Buckley to restart their team. 

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

The fact that the leadership has added a watered down second motion seems to indicate that they are getting a lot of push back from the membership.  Looks like they felt they had to give an option for members to vote their desire to hold it at home, but make it just symbolic with no actual requirement to keep it home.

Exactly, that second motion is purely symbolic.

The key here may be in who shows up to vote. 
 

I’ve wondered here a few times, to some ridicule, about if AY (like the recently ousted NYYC Comm) may be in jeopardy over AC matters. Is he up for re-election? 

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

So the cup is forfeited back to the GGYC who doesn't have a team and has no interest in defending the Cup.

They then follow the deed as quoted previously: "Should the Club holding the Cup be for any cause dissolved, the Cup shall be transferred to some Club of the same nationality, eligible to challenge under this deed of gift, in trust and subject to its provisions."

GGYC chooses their friendly club to the south - the Long Beach Yacht Club.  They decide to call up Canfield and Buckley to restart their team. 

:D 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Is there no other NZ club who would take it on? That is the first choice of the default. Surely there is some club who would like to cock a snoot at RNZYS, invite Dunphy in and run a cheapo campaign?

Sure there is. Port Nicholson Yacht Club would be more than capable. Not sure about, Wellington Harbour as an ideal place for a 'home waters' Defence though. ;-)

Also, Mercury Bay Boating Club has some experience in these things. There track record is not so great though.

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

Sure there is. Port Nicholson Yacht Club would be more than capable. Not sure about, Wellington Harbour as an ideal place for a 'home waters' Defence though. ;-)

Also, Mercury Bay Boating Club has some experience in these things. There track record is not so great though.

Tutukaka yacht club challenged in 95 with Tag Heuer.

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

Is there no other NZ club who would take it on? That is the first choice of the default. Surely there is some club who would like to cock a snoot at RNZYS, invite Dunphy in and run a cheapo campaign?

Doesn’t work that way. It’s RNZYS or forfeit. Is that really what you people want? You are so fucking jaded about Dalton that you’d rather they forfeit on a technicality that has nothing to do with the DoG because he’s not defending in Auckland even though offshore defences have been held in the past? You’d rather a forfeit than another cycle and a team beating ETNZ on the water because you don’t like Dalton?

Ainslie won’t want a forfeit win. No team would want a forfeit win over another cycle because of a few wankers with hurt feelings. 
Anyway, should the unthinkable happen, it may be a good thing, as anyone who wins the cup from that day forward will always have an asterisk next to their win because they didn’t beat the best.

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

Doesn’t work that way. It’s RNZYS or forfeit. Is that really what you people want? You are so fucking jaded about Dalton that you’d rather they forfeit on a technicality that has nothing to do with the DoG because he’s not defending in Auckland even though offshore defences have been held in the past? You’d rather a forfeit than another cycle and a team beating ETNZ on the water because you don’t like Dalton?

Ainslie won’t want a forfeit win. No team would want a forfeit win over another cycle because of a few wankers with hurt feelings. 
Anyway, should the unthinkable happen, it may be a good thing, as anyone who wins the cup from that day forward will always have an asterisk next to their win because they didn’t beat the best.

Haters gona hate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read what accnick quoted. If RNZYS forfeit the first choice is another NZ club.

And quit with the tedious haters bullshit. It's kiwis that are driving this, not me. I'm just an interested observer. I want us to beat you on the water. If you can get there

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites