The AC 37 has started, news and rumours

[Forourselves 1,691]

5 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

The deed does not have any rules on nationality for sailors. The MC would certainly not override EU nationality rules. No chance. They could ask for an exemption but I suspect it would not be given

It has accepted that nationality rules in national team sports are matters of ‘purely sporting interest’ which have ‘nothing to do with economic activity’ and are therefore outside the scope of EU law. It has in later cases considered that some rules are ‘inherent to the organisation and proper functioning of sport’ and therefore do not in law constitute restrictions of EU free movement rights even where the situation is otherwise within the scope of the EU treaty. Where the Court has found that a sporting practice has restricted freedom of movement rights, it has carefully considered the justifications put forward to examine whether such rules are both justified and proportionate. In so doing the Court of Justice has accepted a number of sports-specific justifications such as the need to educate and train young players and the need to ensure the regularity of competitions. It may even be argued that the Court might accept justifications for nationality rules in sport which would not be acceptable in the context of other activities, thereby recognising that the specific characteristics of sport require specific treatment within EU law.

 

The DoG nor the protocol restricts freedom of movement, as there are options available to sailors which do not prevent the from competing.

[enigmatically2 1,475]

If there is a French team but no Spanish team there is no option so it would be discriminatory. 

Residency rules are held to be indirectly discriminatory.

There is no justification for youth training or maintaining regular competition because neither are historically true of AC.

The MC is not a worl sport policy, merely an agreement between 2 nonEU  organisations.

Therefore if the event were held in the EU the nationality rule is likely to be overruled as it has been for some other sports.

But as it's unlikely there will be an EU team it probably won't matter. 

 

[Forourselves 1,691]

14 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

If there is a French team but no Spanish team there is no option so it would be discriminatory. 

Residency rules are held to be indirectly discriminatory.

There is no justification for youth training or maintaining regular competition because neither are historically true of AC.

The MC is not a worl sport policy, merely an agreement between 2 nonEU  organisations.

Therefore if the event were held in the EU the nationality rule is likely to be overruled as it has been for some other sports.

But as it's unlikely there will be an EU team it probably won't matter. 

 

It has accepted that nationality rules in national team sports are matters of ‘purely sporting interest’ which have ‘nothing to do with economic activity’ and are therefore outside the scope of EU law

[enigmatically2 1,475]

But may not count as a national team sport by EU laws. Not all do. And there are no national or international sporting organisations involved for example. Just clubs and conpanies

[Stingray~ 2,268]

2 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

WOW… 

America's Cup: Mark Dunphy serves legal letters on Grant Dalton and Team NZ

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/127092587/americas-cup-mark-dunphy-serves-legal-letters-on-grant-dalton-and-team-nz

GD mentioned 'legal papers filed' in this interview from over a week ago. If they are the same thing then this may not be 'new' except for it now being in the open.

Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right 

[Stingray~ 2,268]

3 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

But may not count as a national team sport by EU laws. Not all do. And there are no national or international sporting organisations involved for example. Just clubs and conpanies

"It's a business" - remember?

 

[Forourselves 1,691]

5 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

But may not count as a national team sport by EU laws. Not all do. And there are no national or international sporting organisations involved for example. Just clubs and conpanies

However the Deed does state "Friendly competition between countries" so it is by definition, a national team sport.

[SimonN 716]

While I don’t think anybody will challenge the nationality rules through the EU courts, there is something not being discussed. In the past, the EU has only supported strict nationality rules in cases where there is a national team. The AC teams are not national teams. They represent their yacht clubs, and you can have more than one from any given country. 
 

However, while sports teams from countries within the EU have to abide by freedom of movement of labour, that protection doesn’t apply to sports teams from non EU countries, even when they compete in the EU. So, for instance, EU employment law does not apply to an NZ team, or a Swiss team, based in their home countries, even when they compete overseas. 

[accnick 1,741]

12 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

However the Deed does state "Friendly competition between countries" so it is by definition, a national team sport.

And the countries were identified by the nationality of the club the boat represented, and the country where the boat was constructed.

No mention at all of the nationality of the crews in the DoG.

[Forourselves 1,691]

Just now, accnick said:

And the countries were identified by the nationality of the club the boat represents, and the country where the boat was constructed.

No mention at all of the nationality of the crews in the DoG.

Which is where the protocol comes in.

But the Deed takes precedence over the protocol. EU discrimination law only asks whether a sporting competition defines itself as a "national competition" which the Deed of Gift does. It doesn't ask how it defines itself it as a national competition, just whether or not it does.

 

 

 

[SimonN 716]

Unless the rules state only 1 team per country, any argument about national teams fail. In addition, for it to be a national team, it would need to be selected by the ruling body of the sport in question. America’s Cup competitors have never been national teams. 

[Forourselves 1,691]

22 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Unless the rules state only 1 team per country, any argument about national teams fail. In addition, for it to be a national team, it would need to be selected by the ruling body of the sport in question. America’s Cup competitors have never been national teams. 

Surely it would only need to satisfy what ever governing document/ rule (in this case) that particular sport defines a national team as being, which in this case is the nationality of the yacht club that team represents, which in most if not all cases is the country it is based in.

Does the law distinguish between a governing body and/ or a governing document?

The Deed mentions nothing about team selection.

 

[Sailbydate 3,607]

8 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Unless the rules state only 1 team per country, any argument about national teams fail. In addition, for it to be a national team, it would need to be selected by the ruling body of the sport in question. America’s Cup competitors have never been national teams. 

"...  it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

Nothin' to do with limiting numbers as, SimonN suggest. ALL about challenges by qualifying Yacht Clubs from foreign countries. 

[SimonN 716]

I have no idea why any of you would think that a document that is over 150 years old would have president over EU law in the EU. The EU defines what a national team is under EU law, not the DoG. There is no way that an AC team can be considered a national team under EU law and any team that is representing a club that is located within the EU has to abide by EU law. 

[Stingray~ 2,268]

7 minutes ago, SimonN said:

I have no idea why any of you would think that a document that is over 150 years old would have president over EU law in the EU. The EU defines what a national team is under EU law, not the DoG. There is no way that an AC team can be considered a national team under EU law and any team that is representing a club that is located within the EU has to abide by EU law. 

I think you are suggesting that LR's YC, or any YC in for example Italy (but not not-EU Switzerland) could field a team with whatever nationals they want on board. 

Would be an interesting legal test and could backfire on ETNZ and their Protocol, especially if it went on for a bunch of time. No problem if raced in Auckland.. 

[Chobani Sailor 195]

3 minutes ago, SimonN said:

I have no idea why any of you would think that a document that is over 150 years old would have president over EU law in the EU. The EU defines what a national team is under EU law, not the DoG. There is no way that an AC team can be considered a national team under EU law and any team that is representing a club that is located within the EU has to abide by EU law. 

And any team that is going to come into the EU and work is going to have to obtain work visas(just like AC36) and follow the rules and laws of the host country.  This is exactly when EB will challenge the Nationality rule.  Grant Dalton and Russell Green may feel like they have blocked EB from getting B&T or Slingsby, but it's going to get challenge.

 

[Stingray~ 2,268]

1 minute ago, Chobani Sailor said:

And any team that is going to come into the EU and work is going to have to obtain work visas(just like AC36) and follow the rules and laws of the host country.  This is exactly when EB will challenge the Nationality rule.  Grant Dalton and Russell Green may feel like they have blocked EB from getting B&T or Slingsby, but it's going to get challenge.

 

Have you heard rumors it will get challenged, or is it only your (very possibly correct) opinion?

[Forourselves 1,691]

1 minute ago, SimonN said:

I have no idea why any of you would think that a document that is over 150 years old would have president over EU law in the EU. The EU defines what a national team is under EU law, not the DoG. There is no way that an AC team can be considered a national team under EU law and any team that is representing a club that is located within the EU has to abide by EU law. 

First of all the age of the document is irrelevant, it is what is contained within that document that defines the rules within that particular sport.

This is the exact reason why the EU discrimination law is separated from the autonomy of sport, because within sport, rules made by any given ruling body, or document (in this case) govern how that sport should be played, otherwise the courts would end up in the business of sports team selection, which is not the duty a court is supposed to carry out.

 

[Chobani Sailor 195]

1 minute ago, Stingray~ said:

Have you heard rumors it will get challenged, or is it only your (very possibly correct) opinion?

luke-warm rumors - its still very early because teams cannot sail until September 2022.

[enigmatically2 1,475]

14 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

First of all the age of the document is irrelevant, it is what is contained within that document that defines the rules within that particular sport.

This is the exact reason why the EU discrimination law is separated from the autonomy of sport, because within sport, rules made by any given ruling body, or document (in this case) govern how that sport should be played, otherwise the courts would end up in the business of sports team selection, which is not the duty a court is supposed to carry out.

 

That would be true if there were a proper ruling body. Which there isn't.

So try stopping any EU national from sailing for Italy and I think the EU will tell you to jog on.

 

Btw football leagues (inter club competitions including clubs from different countries) are an example case where EU law does not allow nationality rules to prevent an EU player playing for whichever team they like.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/footballer-work-permits/

 

There are others. So sports are not exempt

 

[Forourselves 1,691]

3 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

That would be true if there were a proper ruling body. Which there isn't.

So try stopping any EU national from sailing for Italy and I think the EU will tell you to jog on

But there is a governing document which clearly states it is a competition between foreign countries.

Nope, no ones going to challenge the Nationality Rule with some airy fairy 50/50 discrimination law that doesn't apply anyway.

[enigmatically2 1,475]

Just now, Forourselves said:

But there is a governing document which clearly states it is a competition between foreign countries.

Nope, no ones challenging going to challenge the Nationality Rule with some airey fairy 50/50 discrimination law that doesn't apply anyway.

The European club trophies are between clubs from different countries. No nationality restrictions allowed. Very comparable case

[Forourselves 1,691]

12 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

The European club trophies are between clubs from different countries. No nationality restrictions allowed. Very comparable case

Emphasis being "Club" trophies.

The DoG clearly states "Friendly competition between foreign countries" not foreign clubs.

[enigmatically2 1,475]

1 minute ago, Forourselves said:

Emphasis being "Club" trophies.

The DoG clearly states "Friendly competition between foreign countries" not foreign clubs.

Who holds the trophy? The national sailing authority or the club?

Who issued the challenge, national sailing authority or a club?

Who signed the protocol agreeing nationality rules?

 

 

[Stingray~ 2,268]

2 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Who holds the trophy? The national sailing authority or the club?

Who issued the challenge, national sailing authority or a club?

Who signed the protocol agreeing nationality rules?

 

 

How does SailGP get around this? Because nobody is taking it to court? Or maybe because of their association with World Sailing - something AC37 will likely have too?

[Forourselves 1,691]

9 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Who holds the trophy? The national sailing authority or the club?

Who issued the challenge, national sailing authority or a club?

Who signed the protocol agreeing nationality rules?

 

 

Irrelevant.

The GOVERNING DOCUMENT of the Americas Cup, defines what the Americas Cup competition is, in this case the Deed of Gift.

The Deed of Gift defines the AC as "Friendly competition between foreign countries"

The Yacht clubs are simply the representatives of those countries, just as

the NZRU is NZ's representative to world rugby.

the ARU is Australia's representative to world rugby.

The England Rugby Football Union is Englands representative etc.

The RNZYS is NZ's representative as it pertains to the Deed of Gift.

 

 

[sunseeker 457]

8 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Irrelevant.

The GOVERNING DOCUMENT of the Americas Cup, defines what the Americas Cup competition is, in this case the Deed of Gift.

The Deed of Gift defines the AC as "Friendly competition between foreign countries"

The Yacht clubs are simply the representatives of those countries, just as

the NZRU is NZ's representative to world rugby.

the ARU is Australia's representative to world rugby.

The England Rugby Football Union is Englands representative etc.

The RNZYS is NZ's representative as it pertains to the Deed of Gift.

 

 

The only reason RNZYS is the representative of NZL is because RNZYS won't let another team from inside NZL compete for the right to be the defender.  Challengers can have as many teams from a country as the market will bear.  Remember in '87 when the US had six challengers?

[accnick 1,741]

11 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Irrelevant.

The GOVERNING DOCUMENT of the Americas Cup, defines what the Americas Cup competition is, in this case the Deed of Gift.

The Deed of Gift defines the AC as "Friendly competition between foreign countries"

The Yacht clubs are simply the representatives of those countries, just as

the NZRU is NZ's representative to world rugby.

the ARU is Australia's representative to world rugby.

The England Rugby Football Union is Englands representative etc.

The RNZYS is NZ's representative as it pertains to the Deed of Gift.

 

 

From the deed:

Any organized yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match for this Cup with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup. 

[Forourselves 1,691]

12 minutes ago, accnick said:

From the deed:

Any organized yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match for this Cup with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup. 

Exactly. 

National teams.

One thing that stands out, is "sails only" does a wing constitute a "sail"? So then are aeroplanes classed as boats propelled by sails?

Just a thought.

[Stingray~ 2,268]

1 hour ago, sunseeker said:

Remember in '87 when the US had six challengers?

True. And AUS (RPYC) had, I think, 4 Defender candidates? 

[Horn Rock 1,712]

5 hours ago, Chobani Sailor said:

The pressure is continually building for Mr. Dalton to respectfully resign.  Take the high road victory and step down.  You come out as the winner when TNZ loses in March of 2024.  

Fuck off with that shit.

[terrafirma 1,339]

The shit fight continues.! Loving the Kiwi fanboys defending the cause at all costs..! Whilst the event leaving the shores of NZ may satisfy financial criteria I can't help thinking it may hurt the longevity of the Team New Zealand franchise and brand. Never a dull day in AC world and never short of Egos.! 

 

[SimonN 716]

Some of you seem unable to understand EU law and its relationship with the DoG. The EU, through its laws, cannot and would not stop the America's Cup from having a rule that stipulates sailors must be of the nationality of the club their team represents. However, EU law can and would come down hard on a complaint about an EU team refusing employment to a sailor of another EU country. In simple terms, EU law does not make exceptions to allow an employer to "do business". If you cannot do business with the EU employment rules, tough.

And I repeat again, it doesn't matter what any of you believe the DoG or anything else might imply, it is the EU law that determines what a national team is, and a professional sailing team representing a yacht club doesn't come close to what the EU considers to be a national team. Even in other jurisdiction, an AC team isn't considered a national team. For instance, this was made clear by the RYA when BAR tried to use the term "Team GBR", with them stating it could only be used by the national team. 

[Gissie 1,757]

3 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Some of you seem unable to understand anything. 

FIFY Simon.

[Forourselves 1,691]

12 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Some of you seem unable to understand EU law and its relationship with the DoG. The EU, through its laws, cannot and would not stop the America's Cup from having a rule that stipulates sailors must be of the nationality of the club their team represents. However, EU law can and would come down hard on a complaint about an EU team refusing employment to a sailor of another EU country. In simple terms, EU law does not make exceptions to allow an employer to "do business". If you cannot do business with the EU employment rules, tough.

And I repeat again, it doesn't matter what any of you believe the DoG or anything else might imply, it is the EU law that determines what a national team is, and a professional sailing team representing a yacht club doesn't come close to what the EU considers to be a national team. Even in other jurisdiction, an AC team isn't considered a national team. For instance, this was made clear by the RYA when BAR tried to use the term "Team GBR", with them stating it could only be used by the national team. 

INEOS couldn't use the "Team GBR" name because it was/ is a brand name which is trademarked by the Great Britain Olympic team, who uses the brand to trade on. It was a Trademark infringement for INEOS to use the Team GBR name, not because they weren't a National team.

If you're challenging in the AC, you're a national team simply because the AC by virtue of the DoG, is a competition contested between teams which satisfy the Nationality requirement set out in the DoG.

No they aren't the National Rugby team, or the national olympic team, but they are the National team by definition of the DoG in the Americas Cup.

You can say "I don't care what anyone says" all you like but you're still factually incorrect. 

[bigrpowr 268]

I heart this thread.

[SimonN 716]

4 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

INEOS couldn't use the "Team GBR" name because it was/ is a brand name which is trademarked by the Great Britain Olympic team, who uses the brand to trade on. It was a Trademark infringement for INEOS to use the Team GBR name, not because they weren't a National team.

You are only partly right. It was also made very clear that in addition to the use of the brand name issues, they were not the national team and therefore had no right to the name, because only national teams could use the term "Team GBR". 

Quote

 

If you're challenging in the AC, you're a national team simply because the AC by virtue of the DoG, is a competition contested between teams which satisfy the Nationality requirement set out in the DoG.

No they aren't the National Rugby team, or the national olympic team, but they are the National team by definition of the DoG in the Americas Cup.

 

EU law decides what is a national team in anything that pertains to EU law. If you think that an EU court would accept a definition in a sporting trophy's Deed of Gift over their own definition, you are really beyond help.

 

[Sailbydate 3,607]

3 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

I think you are suggesting that LR's YC, or any YC in for example Italy (but not not-EU Switzerland) could field a team with whatever nationals they want on board. 

Would be an interesting legal test and could backfire on ETNZ and their Protocol, especially if it went on for a bunch of time. No problem if raced in Auckland.. 

Or, GB presumably, since Brexit.

Meddling in internal affairs, which is exactly why they told the EU to fuck off, IIRC.

[Gissie 1,757]

34 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

INEOS couldn't use the "Team GBR" name because it was/ is a brand name which is trademarked by the Great Britain Olympic team, who uses the brand to trade on. It was a Trademark infringement for INEOS to use the Team GBR name, not because they weren't a National team.

If you're challenging in the AC, you're a national team simply because the AC by virtue of the DoG, is a competition contested between teams which satisfy the Nationality requirement set out in the DoG.

So I could just write some DoD, naming all those that play are national teams and that's it?

As for the last bit, there is no nationality requirement set out in the Deed. There never was a nationality requirement for the sailors. There was a sort of nationality clause for the boat with it being required to be constructed in the country. Until now of course. Now it is the other way around, nationality for crew but supplied parts for the boats.

What a strange world we live in.

[Forourselves 1,691]

11 minutes ago, Gissie said:

So I could just write some DoD, naming all those that play are national teams and that's it?

As for the last bit, there is no nationality requirement set out in the Deed. There never was a nationality requirement for the sailors. There was a sort of nationality clause for the boat with it being required to be constructed in the country. Until now of course. Now it is the other way around, nationality for crew but supplied parts for the boats.

What a strange world we live in.

From the deed:

Any organized yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match for this Cup with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup. 

While the DoG does not make reference to the sailors, the MC clause in the DoG does.

 

 

[Stingray~ 2,268]

53 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Or, GB presumably, since Brexit.

Yep, would not apply if the Match were held in Auckland (the obvious f'ing place) or in GB, instead of in UE-Ireland. Not sure where Chobani is hearing the current rumor from but this subject has come up before and there could be something to it.

More broadly, I think GD, Greene et al are about to get cornered by the real heavy-hitters. They will be allowed (even encouraged) to run the team - but not be allowed to choose an off-shore venue or even run the event's Auckland publicly-provided finances. Too much local public and private investment already sunk into it over the long term. My current prediction is that the NZ long-timer home-boys will win out. KHD filing legal 'warning' papers is an indication of what's about to drop down.

 

 

[Sailbydate 3,607]

22 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

More broadly, I think GD, Greene et al are about to get cornered by the real heavy-hitters. They will be allowed (even encouraged) to run the team - but not be allowed to choose an off-shore venue or even run the event's Auckland publicly-provided finances. Too much local investment already sunk into it over the long term, my current prediction is that the NZ long-timer home-boys will win out. KHD filing legal papers is an indication of what's about to come.

Not a chance, KHD will get a look in.

And thank goodness for that. They couldn't organise a hand job in a hore house between them, let alone a successful AC Defence.

Stupid old codgers, living in the past. They were asked by GD to shit, or get off the pot - and all they've managed is a rather turgid excuse for a litigation fart.

[Forourselves 1,691]

1 hour ago, SimonN said:

You are only partly right. It was also made very clear that in addition to the use of the brand name issues, they were not the national team and therefore had no right to the name, because only national teams could use the term "Team GBR". 

EU law decides what is a national team in anything that pertains to EU law. If you think that an EU court would accept a definition in a sporting trophy's Deed of Gift over their own definition, you are really beyond help.

 

EU Sports law and Freedom of movement has more to do with stopping transfer fees than preventing Nationality rules.

The Helsinki report recommended that Sport should be given a degree of autonomy.

The Bosman ruling meant extravagant fees being asked of potential clubs, for transfers of players from their previous clubs prevented those players from moving clubs.

The ruling stopped that, and meant players like Beckham and Ronaldo could go anywhere they want. 

Thats what is meant by freedom of movement.

 

[Forourselves 1,691]

38 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Yep, would not apply if the Match were held in Auckland (the obvious f'ing place) or in GB, instead of in UE-Ireland. Not sure where Chobani is hearing the current rumor from but this subject has come up before and there could be something to it.

More broadly, I think GD, Greene et al are about to get cornered by the real heavy-hitters. They will be allowed (even encouraged) to run the team - but not be allowed to choose an off-shore venue or even run the event's Auckland publicly-provided finances. Too much local public and private investment already sunk into it over the long term. My current prediction is that the NZ long-timer home-boys will win out. KHD filing legal 'warning' papers is an indication of what's about to drop down.

 

 

Dunphy is toast.

As is Farmer.

[Stingray~ 2,268]

15 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Not a chance, KHD will get a look in.

And thank goodness for that. They couldn't organise a hand job in a hore house between them, let alone a successful AC Defence.

Nobody, MD included, has suggested they want to run the Defense. The ETNZ statements being made about him being a wolf in sheep's clothing, despicable, deceitful, etc, are just for public posturing - and perhaps to try protect their bigger pot-of-gold aspirations. Both MD and Farmer have been unequivocal about their desire to hold a successful NZ Defense... In home-town Auckland. 

Neither of them is going to back down, very obviously, and I seriously doubt Greene is up for a match against these big-moneyed and big-legal collective home-town Auckland power-forces. 

[Forourselves 1,691]

6 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Nobody, MD included, has suggested they want to run the Defense. The ETNZ statements being made about him being a wolf in sheep's clothing, despicable, deceitful, etc, are just for public posturing - and perhaps to try protect their bigger pot-of-gold aspirations. Both MD and Farmer have been unequivocal about their desire to hold a successful NZ Defense... In home-town Auckland. 

Neither of them is going to back down, very obviously, and I seriously doubt Greene is the match of these big-moneyed and big-legal collective forces.

Dunphy and Farmer have no leg to stand on. Their lawsuits are a concession that they've lost and now intend to fight Dalton for the scraps of whatever they can get.

[Stingray~ 2,268]

Whatever the F 4braincells is arguing nowadays, or whoever he is adding to his long 'enemies list' or whatever the F?

2021.11.23-Release-Royal-New-Zealand-Yacht-Squadron-must-engage-on-Auckland-Cup-Defence.pdf (kiwihomedefence.com) 

[Stingray~ 2,268]

4 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Whatever the F 4braincells is arguing nowadays, or whoever he is adding to his long 'enemies list' or whatever the F?

2021.11.23-Release-Royal-New-Zealand-Yacht-Squadron-must-engage-on-Auckland-Cup-Defence.pdf (kiwihomedefence.com) 

“The Commodore says there is no viable New Zealand defence proposition. With the greatest of respect, given his agent’s refusal to engage with New Zealanders, how would he know?”

Edited November 25, 2021 by Stingray~

[Gissie 1,757]

1 hour ago, Forourselves said:

From the deed:

Any organized yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match for this Cup with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup. 

While the DoG does not make reference to the sailors, the MC clause in the DoG does.

 

 

So what is the nationality requirement you were rabbiting on about? And do you really think, just because someone writes a deed then governments will bow down before it?

As for your quote, nothing about one design, supplied parts of the boat either. 

[Forourselves 1,691]

5 minutes ago, Gissie said:

So what is the nationality requirement you were rabbiting on about? And do you really think, just because someone writes a deed then governments will bow down before it?

As for your quote, nothing about one design, supplied parts of the boat either. 

None of it matters except what is written in the DoG.

Funny how everyone is suddenly "screw the DoG" because Dalton is respecting it more than anyone else lol

[Sailbydate 3,607]

40 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Whatever the F 4braincells is arguing nowadays, or whoever he is adding to his long 'enemies list' or whatever the F?

2021.11.23-Release-Royal-New-Zealand-Yacht-Squadron-must-engage-on-Auckland-Cup-Defence.pdf (kiwihomedefence.com) 

Nothing new here, apart from the revelation that Dunphy hasn't secured any funding at all and expects TNZ to do it for him. 

[Sailbydate 3,607]

40 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

“The Commodore says there is no viable New Zealand defence proposition. With the greatest of respect, given his agent’s refusal to engage with New Zealanders, how would he know?”

See above.

[Forourselves 1,691]

1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

Whatever the F 4braincells is arguing nowadays, or whoever he is adding to his long 'enemies list' or whatever the F?

2021.11.23-Release-Royal-New-Zealand-Yacht-Squadron-must-engage-on-Auckland-Cup-Defence.pdf (kiwihomedefence.com) 

I was right - again. Dunphy doesn't have $40M. He wants the government or the team to pay for it.

And now Dunphy thinks the Squadron has to do what he tells them to do!?

He doesn't have the cash, thinks he can order the Squadron to do what he tells them or his friend Jim Farmer will sue the entire world? 

He lives in the same fake world that you live in!

[Stingray~ 2,268]

27 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Nothing new here, apart from the revelation that Dunphy hasn't secured any funding at all and expects TNZ to do it for him. 

Where on earth do you get the idea that Dunphy will not put up the $40M --  IF it is agreed the NZ Defense will be held in NZ? Christ, how hard are you supposed to try to give away money that freaking big?

It's ridiculous.

 

[Forourselves 1,691]

1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

“The Commodore says there is no viable New Zealand defence proposition. With the greatest of respect, given his agent’s refusal to engage with New Zealanders, how would he know?”

How would he know? Because he's fucking done it three times before!

how does Dunphy know? He hasn't done it once!

But good old Stingray trusts Dunphy with his life right now lol

[amc 101]

9 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Except that if the event is in Ireland then EU law on non-discrimination of EU countries could override any contract. So (say) a French team could use Spanish sailors

So I guess they will never be able to host any World Cup sporting event or Olympic Games etc 

[dogwatch 1,314]

Sorry but you guess wrong. National team are allowed to have nationality rules. It is however unlikely that an AC team would be regarded as a national team. Quite honestly, all this stuff about an EU non-discrimination lawsuit is so much hyper-active wittering at this point as there is no indication at all that anyone is contemplating such an action.

[Sailbydate 3,607]

2 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Where on earth do you get the idea that Dunphy will not put up the $40M --  IF it is agreed the NZ Defense will be held in NZ? Christ, how hard are you supposed to try to give away money that freaking big?

It's ridiculous.

 

What is ridiculous is your naive belief that Dunphy would actually hand over $40 million. 

[dogwatch 1,314]

11 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

What is ridiculous is your naive belief that Dunphy would actually hand over $40 million. 

Is it? I've no way to assess whether he would or he wouldn't. If he's now in alliance with Farmer, was the latter not a serious person?

[barfy 1,302]

4 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Not a chance, KHD will get a look in.

And thank goodness for that. They couldn't organise a hand job in a hore house between them, let alone a successful AC Defence.

Stupid old codgers, living in the past. They were asked by GD to shit, or get off the pot - and all they've managed is a rather turgid excuse for a litigation fart.

They must be mates of butterballs, who soured the relationship with LR. Fuck I hope sir Ben doesn't hire big bad brad.

[enigmatically2 1,475]

One of the problems in this arguments is that 4 is like a petulant child who cannot separate what he wants from what the evidence suggests. And then assumes that everyone else is the same

Whereas in fact, for example

1) I like and want the nationality rules. I think they favour the UK - look at the Olympics as an example of our strength in sailing ability. It's just that the EU would rule against them in the context I described

2) If/when the UK when I want it to be held in UK waters. Until then I don't really care (but please not KSA). Cork might be good, I just can't see any way Ireland will stump up the money being asked - though I can see GD accepting less than NZ offered just to avoid losing face

3) I want to beat NZ on the water, but with all the kiwi in-fighting and legal issues being raised I can seem ETNZ unravelling long before that happens

[Gissie 1,757]

4 hours ago, Forourselves said:

None of it matters except what is written in the DoG.

Funny how everyone is suddenly "screw the DoG" because Dalton is respecting it more than anyone else lol

So there is no nationality for crew in the DoG, yet Dalton is insisting there is for this event.

There is a constructed in country clause in the DoG, yet Dalton wants one design, supplied parts built elsewhere used.

Yet Dalton is respecting it more than anyone else? Yeah, right.

[Mozzy Sails 953]

6 hours ago, SimonN said:

You are only partly right. It was also made very clear that in addition to the use of the brand name issues, they were not the national team and therefore had no right to the name, because only national teams could use the term "Team GBR". 

As I recall it was INEOS Team GB who were politely asked to change to INEOS Team UK after the BOA pointed out that "Team GB" is the name for the team the UK sends to the Olympics. I don't really think this had anything to do with it being a national team or not, but purely the BOA's trademark. 

https://www.teamgb.com/legal/2gF98htIPgcfO3UgKxpthz

Is there a similar issue with Team GBR? I don't think BAR or INEOS ever tried using that? 

[Sailbydate 3,607]

32 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

Is it? I've no way to assess whether he would or he wouldn't. If he's now in alliance with Farmer, was the latter not a serious person?

It's pretty obvious to me that KHD are a bunch of amateurs, albeit possibly well meaning in their desire to see the Defence held in Auckland.

But what have they actually produced except suggestions that funding for TNZ is available. Is there any seeding money in the bank? Are there promissory notes? Has there been a formal offer or undertaking of financing arrangements? I don't know, but I doubt it.

When asked these questions by TNZ there was no satisfactory answer from Dunphy and his cronies. He is even on record as saying he hasn't tried to raise any actual funds but would underwrite $40 million himself. Yeah, right.

TNZ has no trust in guy, or in any of his utterances. I understand they also believe him to be duplicitous in his dealings with Ross and NYYC.

You tell me if you think that sounds like someone you'd be willing to do business with.

[dogwatch 1,314]

If some who, by apparently reliable accounts, has several $100Ms says he'd underwrite $40M, I might take it seriously. I return to asking, if Dunphy is working with Farmer, does the latter not have a history of being a serious player? I have asked: does Dunphy have any history in sailing and is he an RNZYS member? Nobody answered.

This is 15 months old but as a summary of Farmer's critique of GD at the time, it's an interesting read.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/james-farmer-whatever-the-result-is-this-the-last-time-the-americas-cup-event-is-held-in-nz/ERADHKFHZ4AKBIUQPI66EW4QNM/

I don't know what to make of it all, quite honestly. If Dunphy seems a loose cannon, so at this point does GD. Anyone who has been around business for a while will have come across someone who had a track record but has now lost it.

Back in AC33, when Clean interviewed GD a number of times with questions raised here, he seemed the quintessential straight-talking bloke.  That person, alas, seems long gone.

[shebeen 471]

15 hours ago, Forourselves said:

Hypothetically, if the Swiss win, are we going to force them to defend on lake Geneva?

no. it wouldn't satisfy the DoG. 

and it's happened before which is how we got Valencia.

 

 

On 11/24/2021 at 8:30 AM, shebeen said:

There's a chance he's fucked this one up. You might not think so, but you can't say it's non-zero.

What happens if the offshore venue doesn't work out, for financial or other reasons, and he HAS to bring it back to Auckland scaled down budget wise?

 

What happens then, will you concede that his game of poker didn't play the cards he wanted?

Will you concede he was wrong in the end?

 

@Forourselves I'll take a simple yes/no answer on this one.

[sunseeker 457]

5 hours ago, Forourselves said:

None of it matters except what is written in the DoG.

Funny how everyone is suddenly "screw the DoG" because Dalton is respecting it more than anyone else lol

Oh please. If Dalton is respecting the deed so much, then why is he requiring one design parts? What of constructed in country? Start there, the list is longer.

You know what Kiwi respected the Deed more than anyone. Michael Fay. He just didn’t fully understand it and built the wrong boat. 

[SimonN 716]

7 hours ago, Forourselves said:

EU Sports law and Freedom of movement has more to do with stopping transfer fees than preventing Nationality rules.

The Helsinki report recommended that Sport should be given a degree of autonomy.

The Bosman ruling meant extravagant fees being asked of potential clubs, for transfers of players from their previous clubs prevented those players from moving clubs.

The ruling stopped that, and meant players like Beckham and Ronaldo could go anywhere they want. 

Thats what is meant by freedom of movement.

 

If you are considering a career advising on EU employment law, please don’t give up your day job because you are clueless.

First, what is known as the Bosman ruling is a court interpretation of EU employment law as it applies to football transfers, and only football transfers at the point where a player is out of contract. If the player is still in contract, a team can demand and is paid a transfer fee.

The Bosman ruling had nothing to do with EU sports law, because there is no such thing. As said, it interprets general employment law and was the first time a court ruling was made in favour of the general principal of freedom of movement of labour within the EU. That same law gives that right in all employment situations, not just sport.

[sunseeker 457]

1 hour ago, SimonN said:

If you are considering a career advising on EU employment law, please don’t give up your day job because you are clueless.

First, what is known as the Bosman ruling is a court interpretation of EU employment law as it applies to football transfers, and only football transfers at the point where a player is out of contract. If the player is still in contract, a team can demand and is paid a transfer fee.

The Bosman ruling had nothing to do with EU sports law, because there is no such thing. As said, it interprets general employment law and was the first time a court ruling was made in favour of the general principal of freedom of movement of labour within the EU. That same law gives that right in all employment situations, not just sport.

There you go again, confusing 4skin with facts.

[loneshark64 1,181]

6 hours ago, dogwatch said:

If some who, by apparently reliable accounts, has several $100Ms says he'd underwrite $40M, I might take it seriously. I return to asking, if Dunphy is working with Farmer, does the latter not have a history of being a serious player? I have asked: does Dunphy have any history in sailing and is he an RNZYS member? Nobody answered.

This is 15 months old but as a summary of Farmer's critique of GD at the time, it's an interesting read.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/james-farmer-whatever-the-result-is-this-the-last-time-the-americas-cup-event-is-held-in-nz/ERADHKFHZ4AKBIUQPI66EW4QNM/

I don't know what to make of it all, quite honestly. If Dunphy seems a loose cannon, so at this point does GD. Anyone who has been around business for a while will have come across someone who had a track record but has now lost it.

Back in AC33, when Clean interviewed GD a number of times with questions raised here, he seemed the quintessential straight-talking bloke.  That person, alas, seems long gone.

I posted this on the other AC thread as well but it is Jim Far er yesterday and also an interesting read

https://www.jamesfarmerqc.co.nz/Legal-Commentary/america-s-cup-home-defence-requisition-for-special-general-meeting-of-members-of-royal-new-zealand-yacht-squadron-to-discuss-venue-for-next-defence?fbclid=IwAR0KX0dJY8g2sb1yGHTipYxjqhxjmdjoRvrWzP2eOvBGEEdIZWu8EZIDqfU

[Fiji Bitter 1,974]

I think it's the same as Stirray posted a day ago.

Never mind, it's TLTR for me, anyway.

[enigmatically2 1,475]

8 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

I think it's the same as Stirray posted a day ago.

Never mind, it's TLTR for me, anyway.

But no doubt you disagree with all of it. Whatever it says.

I imagine the RNZYS meeting will be quite animated whatever the result

[Fiji Bitter 1,974]

Just now, enigmatically2 said:

But no doubt you disagree with all of it. Whatever it says.

I imagine the RNZYS meeting will be quite animated whatever the result

Well, I was so impressed by his sailing achievements, that I'm gone vote for his proposition, whatever is says.

Oh, wait...

 

[Forourselves 1,691]

5 hours ago, SimonN said:

If you are considering a career advising on EU employment law, please don’t give up your day job because you are clueless.

First, what is known as the Bosman ruling is a court interpretation of EU employment law as it applies to football transfers, and only football transfers at the point where a player is out of contract. If the player is still in contract, a team can demand and is paid a transfer fee.

The Bosman ruling had nothing to do with EU sports law, because there is no such thing. As said, it interprets general employment law and was the first time a court ruling was made in favour of the general principal of freedom of movement of labour within the EU. That same law gives that right in all employment situations, not just sport.

Which is why sport, even in the EU, has a certain amount of autonomy.

The 6-5 rule satisfied EU lawmakers that freedom of movement wasn't restricted, just as residency/ passport/ emerging nation clauses in the Nationality rule satisfy no restriction of movement. 

Pretty simple really, sport has discretion within the law.

The Nationality rule won't be challenged because it does not restrict movement.

[Forourselves 1,691]

4 hours ago, sunseeker said:

There you go again, confusing 4skin with facts.

You wouldn't know what a fact is if it kicked you in the balls, but i guess since you don't have any, thats completely understandable.

[Forourselves 1,691]

6 hours ago, sunseeker said:

Oh please. If Dalton is respecting the deed so much, then why is he requiring one design parts? What of constructed in country? Start there, the list is longer.

You know what Kiwi respected the Deed more than anyone. Michael Fay. He just didn’t fully understand it and built the wrong boat. 

Lol because the Deed says what ever isn't covered in the Deed, is covered in the Protocol.

The boats are still constructed in country.

Michael Fay didn't understand the Deed.

He completely misunderstood the Deed right from the start.

His biggest misconception was he thought somewhere in the Deed it said the competition was, or had to be fair. No where does the deed specify the match must be fair. 

He thought a Defender should "behave like a Defender" according to who? You as a challenger?

Michael Fay misunderstood the fundamentals of the Deed where those fundamentals are understood and respected by Dalton.

[Forourselves 1,691]

8 hours ago, Gissie said:

So there is no nationality for crew in the DoG, yet Dalton is insisting there is for this event.

There is a constructed in country clause in the DoG, yet Dalton wants one design, supplied parts built elsewhere used.

Yet Dalton is respecting it more than anyone else? Yeah, right.

FFS. Mutual consent. There is a mutual consent clause in the Deed which is signed by both Challenger and Defender. Thats how the Deed works.

[pusslicker 664]

8 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Lol because the Deed says what ever isn't covered in the Deed, is covered in the Protocol.

The boats are still constructed in country.

Michael Fay didn't understand the Deed.

He completely misunderstood the Deed right from the start.

His biggest misconception was he thought somewhere in the Deed it said the competition was, or had to be fair. No where does the deed specify the match must be fair. 

He thought a Defender should "behave like a Defender" according to who? You as a challenger?

Michael Fay misunderstood the fundamentals of the Deed where those fundamentals are understood and respected by Dalton.

You Kiwi's and your fairness bullshit again. Michael Fay has never done a fair thing in his life and the '88 challenge wasn't intended to be the first. He understood the deed just fine. He just underestimated an even more chickenshit move from DC.

[Forourselves 1,691]

12 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Lol because the Deed says what ever isn't covered in the Deed, is covered in the Protocol.

The boats are still constructed in country.

Michael Fay didn't understand the Deed.

He completely misunderstood the Deed right from the start.

His biggest misconception was he thought somewhere in the Deed it said the competition was, or had to be fair. No where does the deed specify the match must be fair. 

He thought a Defender should "behave like a Defender" according to who? You as a challenger?

Michael Fay misunderstood the fundamentals of the Deed where those fundamentals are understood and respected by Dalton.

If you don't understand something, you can't fully respect it for what it is. Fay saw the Deed as an opportunity, an ambush. What it turned out to be, was his undoing.

[Forourselves 1,691]

10 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

You Kiwi's and your fairness bullshit again. Michael Fay has never done a fair thing in his life and the '88 challenge wasn't intended to be the first. He understood the deed just fine. He just underestimated an even more chickenshit move from DC.

I agree Fay has never done anything fair in his life, I absolutely agree with you there.

But, he never understood the Deed, never. He said it himself "Its really just a rulebook of how to challenge"

What he didn't understand is its not a rulebook on how to challenge, it mentions how to challenge, but its a rulebook on how to defend. 

He saw the Deed as an opportunity, an ambush. What he should've done was read the Deed in its entirety before lodging his challenge. Instead he lodged a challenge and then hoped the Deed would back him up.

It didn't, because he thought the Deed stipulated a "fair match" where no where does it stipulate the match must be fair.

Then he went to court, moaning about it being unfair, he made his team race a boat he knew would get absolutely destroyed, hoping to win the feelings of the public watching, and hoping the court would see it as unfair and hand the cup over.

Connor won because he respected the Deed more than Fay did, because he understood it better than Fay did. You can't respect it if you don't understand it.

[Forourselves 1,691]

18 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

You Kiwi's and your fairness bullshit again. Michael Fay has never done a fair thing in his life and the '88 challenge wasn't intended to be the first. He understood the deed just fine. He just underestimated an even more chickenshit move from DC.

No one cares about what you think is "chickenshit"

Does calling someone a "chickenshit" make you feel tough or something?

Connor is a winner, and a legend.

I