Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Forourselves said:

....the AC needs to leave NZ.

I couldn't agree more!!!!

Please, 'Team (enter host country)', hurry up and lose the cup to a proper billionaire/steward that can afford to play the game!

Q: If Ireland funds Dalton's team, will the sailors need to be Irish nationals?

 

Nothing to see here until the venue announcement and we find out what other country's colors Dalton's team will be flying.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.7k
  • 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

4 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

GD is no saint - none of us are, I suspect.

And I've no reason to suspect he has ANY agenda, apart from an AC three-peat, despite the accusations levelled at him here, or by Dunphy, Farmer, Ross et al. 

The AC is a tough game. It demands tough players. I sure that's why GD has been so successful.

Seriously? Dalton’s motivation is not a three peat. It’s just money. He’ll be taking his percentage of all funds raised off the top, then a percentage of all the ancillary businesses wherever he can. I’d guess he’s going to own, or at least share in the ownership of this company that’s going to build his hydrogen powered tenders. He’s probably looking to take another $20 million out of this Cup cycle.

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

Seriously? Dalton’s motivation is not a three peat. It’s just money. He’ll be taking his percentage of all funds raised off the top, then a percentage of all the ancillary businesses wherever he can. I’d guess he’s going to own, or at least share in the ownership of this company that’s going to build his hydrogen powered tenders. He’s probably looking to take another $20 million out of this Cup cycle.

Yes, seriously. And thank you for demonstrating my point so precisely. ;-)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Gissie said:

So earlier you said that there are nationality rules in the Deed that need to be followed. Which there aren't. Now you are saying anything in the deed can be changed by mutual consent.

I bet you can't even lie straight in bed.

No I didn’t say that, I said the DoG has been respected, which it has. Challenger and Defender make the rules, as is their right under the DoG. MC is granted to C and D to make any satisfactory arrangements (protocol) Meaning C and D are the ONLY teams with any say. They make the rules whether it be the boat, the courses or Nationality. And yes they must be respected as the MC clause exists in the Deed.

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

GD is no saint - none of us are, I suspect.

And I've no reason to suspect he has ANY agenda, apart from an AC three-peat, despite the accusations levelled at him here, or by Dunphy, Farmer, Ross et al. 

The AC is a tough game. It demands tough players. I sure that's why GD has been so successful.

Unsurprisingly Dunphy's 40m offer has strings.

'The $40m NZDUSD convertible from the KHD is contingent on Team New Zealand’s ability to raise a further $80-$120m (pick a number) or else the CoCo reverts to parity and is annulled. "

https://rule69.blog/2021/11/25/turkeys/

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

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.

As I said, don’t give up your day job. Bosman is, among other things, evidence that sport is not above EU law and therefore doesn’t have discretion within the law. So, it is the president that shows sport has to operate within EU law.

As for your notion that a nationality clause doesn’t restrict freedom of movement, that is exactly what it does. As you like football, here’s another one. Before Bosman, certain football leagues in the EU had nationality clauses, setting limits on the number of “overseas” (non nationals of home country) players in each team. This had to be modified so that there was no restrictions on players from other EU countries.

3 hours ago, Forourselves said:

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

that’s better because at least you are 50% right. The nationality rule will not be challenged, but not for the reason you give, which is wrong. It specifically does restrict movement. For instance, it prevents a French sailor working as a sailor for an Italian team. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Worse, it specifically states that if you are a national of the team, you can join at any time but if you aren’t, you have to pre-qualify. EU law doesn’t allow for a different set of conditions for nationals and EU non nationals. It is made worse because the deadline was retrospective. If it had been that you could gain “residency” by a certain date, it would probably have been OK based on the  FIBA ruling on transfer deadlines, another sports case under EU law.

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

As I said, don’t give up your day job. Bosman is, among other things, evidence that sport is not above EU law and therefore doesn’t have discretion within the law. So, it is the president that shows sport has to operate within EU law.

As for your notion that a nationality clause doesn’t restrict freedom of movement, that is exactly what it does. As you like football, here’s another one. Before Bosman, certain football leagues in the EU had nationality clauses, setting limits on the number of “overseas” (non nationals of home country) players in each team. This had to be modified so that there was no restrictions on players from other EU countries.

that’s better because at least you are 50% right. The nationality rule will not be challenged, but not for the reason you give, which is wrong. It specifically does restrict movement. For instance, it prevents a French sailor working as a sailor for an Italian team. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Worse, it specifically states that if you are a national of the team, you can join at any time but if you aren’t, you have to pre-qualify. EU law doesn’t allow for a different set of conditions for nationals and EU non nationals. It is made worse because the deadline was retrospective. If it had been that you could gain “residency” by a certain date, it would probably have been OK based on the  FIBA ruling on transfer deadlines, another sports case under EU law.

It doesn’t prevent a French sailor working for a Spanish team though does it. No. It doesn’t. If a French sailor resides in Spain for the time specified in the protocol or has a Spanish passport, they can sail for that team. Or if both those teams are classed as emerging nations, they also may be eligible for those teams. So no, it doesn’t restrict movement. I’m sure you’d like it to, but it doesn’t. 

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

The nationality rule will not be challenged, but not for the reason you give, which is wrong. It specifically does restrict movement. For instance, it prevents a French sailor working as a sailor for an Italian team. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Worse, it specifically states that if you are a national of the team, you can join at any time but if you aren’t, you have to pre-qualify.

I favor strong nationality rules. But this new AC structure is even more restrictive in that there are so few “non-cyclor” roles on the boat. There are few on-the-boat opportunities for the up and coming NZ (or other country) sailing talents. 

When Coutts left at least his action created opportunities for the up and comers to move around and get paid at professional rates.

This time it seems the only up and comers on the boat will be top notch bicycle riders or jacked up gym rats. I can’t see Grant Dalton being beloved by the younger NZ sailors after this if he takes it away from there and few are elevated.

The whole thing is just so damn weird.

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

Now, that is a true (American) Thanksgiving prayer, and it makes Magnus smell like roses.

Stuff that in your filthy turkeys, you naysayers, and deplorable lot.

And to celebrate, I've just donated a cool 40 million of my personal wealth, in cash and gold, straight from my Monaco account into Dalt's, as a token of my appreciation for what he has done for New Zealand and the 100+ people of his team. And BTW, I'm not a Kiwi, not even a supporter as such, as I support all the teams to some extend. Neither do I want anything back from Dalts, other than a ride on the AC40, and maybe some champagne on his stinkpot.

And I've got more news for all you immoral anoninous and Husless posters, that I will shortly serve defamation suits to all of you cunts, unless you apologize publicly on SA for your libelous and slanderous behavior. I've hacked the Ed's data base, and know where you"re posting from, and the Mark of the Beast will personaly serve the papers in your jurisdiction.

Oh, and if you think I'm joking, I have owned 5 yachts, raced them, even won some races, and most importantly also helped some youngsters on their way to blistering careers, (:D, for insiders).

And my turkey is bigger than yours...

 

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

It doesn’t prevent a French sailor working for a Spanish team though does it. No. It doesn’t. If a French sailor resides in Spain for the time specified in the protocol or has a Spanish passport, they can sail for that team. Or if both those teams are classed as emerging nations, they also may be eligible for those teams. So no, it doesn’t restrict movement. I’m sure you’d like it to, but it doesn’t. 

Nice try, but wrong again. Let's start with the easy one. A French sailor isn't French if they have a Spanish passport. They may be of French origins, but by any definition, they are citizens of Spain. If they don't have a Spanish passport, they cannot sail for a Spanish team, unless by luck they happen to have lived in Spain at the required time. EU law has an issue with that, because while it potentially allows for such restrictions, it only does so when the restriction allows all EU citizens the opportunity to qualify. Retrospective rules don't allow that. At the point the rules were announced, it was too late for your French sailor not living in Spain to qualify to sail for the Spanish team. Therefore there is no freedom of movement. It is why the nationality rule for the previous cup was OK under EU law. Ever EU citizen reading the rule when it came out still had the opportunity to "qualify" to sail on the Spanish boat.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Nice try, but wrong again. Let's start with the easy one. A French sailor isn't French if they have a Spanish passport. They may be of French origins, but by any definition, they are citizens of Spain. If they don't have a Spanish passport, they cannot sail for a Spanish team, unless by luck they happen to have lived in Spain at the required time. EU law has an issue with that, because while it potentially allows for such restrictions, it only does so when the restriction allows all EU citizens the opportunity to qualify. Retrospective rules don't allow that. At the point the rules were announced, it was too late for your French sailor not living in Spain to qualify to sail for the Spanish team. Therefore there is no freedom of movement. It is why the nationality rule for the previous cup was OK under EU law. Ever EU citizen reading the rule when it came out still had the opportunity to "qualify" to sail on the Spanish boat.

Wait, so if Glenn Ashby has a NZ passport, he’s no longer an Aussie? If Pete Burling has a chat to Ernesto and is handed a Swiss passport, that no longer makes him a Kiwi? 
The Nationality rule only states you have to be a passport holder, as it did last time, which is why guys like Joey Newton were able to sail for INEOS Team UK. If they don’t have a Spanish passport they have to reside there for the specified time that the Protocol defines. Take Phil Robertson, he could sail for Team NZ or a Swedish team because he holds a Kiwi passport but lives in Sweden. Jimmy Spithill lived in Sardinia which allowed him to sail for Italy, so freedom of movement is not restricted.

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

Unsurprisingly Dunphy's 40m offer has strings.

'The $40m NZDUSD convertible from the KHD is contingent on Team New Zealand’s ability to raise a further $80-$120m (pick a number) or else the CoCo reverts to parity and is annulled. "

https://rule69.blog/2021/11/25/turkeys/

Yes, apparently the $40M is contingent upon it being held in Auckland AND on it being successfully-enough funded past that. No big surprise there.

 

The $40m NZDUSD convertible from the KHD is contingent on Team New Zealand’s ability to raise a further $80-$120m (pick a number) or else the CoCo reverts to parity and is annulled. In banking and broking terms, the CoCo might still be running but if Grant can’t raise the money from sponsors for a defence in New Zealand and has to take it overseas to gain the valuable venue fee in order to sustain the team and get to the start line, then the KHD CoCo isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, loneshark64 said:

Well whatever the quality of his sailing, he makes a sound case. He is stretching a bit in a few areas but he puts numbers to his argument like few have done here. And I think he is correct that if ETNZ truly wanted to campaign and win in Auckland again, and pursued it with a will, there was most certainly a financial path to do it.

With the new protocol that opportunity may be gone now, and ETNZ has ceded much of their Defender’s advantage to INEOS in order to seek higher funding levels.

Don't you lot realise that Farmer has his own agenda?!

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

Seriously? Dalton’s motivation is not a three peat. It’s just money. He’ll be taking his percentage of all funds raised off the top, then a percentage of all the ancillary businesses wherever he can. I’d guess he’s going to own, or at least share in the ownership of this company that’s going to build his hydrogen powered tenders. He’s probably looking to take another $20 million out of this Cup cycle.

Your point is?  Are you saying he is more interested in what he can earn than winning I think you are wrong.  They are not mutually exclusive objectives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, loneshark64 said:

Of course. Everybody has an agenda, it’s the America’s Cup. But it doesn’t mean he is wrong about all of it.

So far his agenda is to somehow try and force the RNZYS to hold the cup in NZ, even though the DoG does not require or mandate it, and even if it means losing the cup.

It seems Farmers agenda is to ignore the DoG, as well as the protocol, and force his agenda on the RNZYS and Team NZ.

So yes, he is wrong about all of it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, loneshark64 said:

Of course. Everybody has an agenda, it’s the America’s Cup. But it doesn’t mean he is wrong about all of it.

What do people think MD's 'agenda' is? The guy is offering to underwrite a check for $40 fucking million! Yes, on condition there is a Kiwi Home Defense but is there really any other crazy agenda? What, is he the 'Antifa' or whatever?? :D

MD could and probably is being just perfectly honest, with millions to back all that up.

And again to some of the GD-worshippers here: What if that IS true? Where in that case is the excuse to go offshore? 'He hurt my feelings' BS? C'mon... grow the f up.

 

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

Where in that case is the excuse to go offshore?

GDs main sponsors, Emirates, Omega, Toyota probably want more exposure for ongoing funds. An offshore defense might achieve that.

For all the talk of ETNZ's solvency or lack thereof, it's a pretty big vision Cup Dalts has set out. The AC40s the hydrogen thingys, signing on another high profile skipper, retaining Glen, Dan etc. It seems to indicate they're not broke, but will require a significant budget to make it all happen. GD obviously feels he can't achieve that in NZ, thus the move offshore. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stingray~ said:

And again to some of the GD-worshippers here: What if that IS true? Where in that case is the excuse to go offshore? 'He hurt my feelings' BS? C'mon... grow the f up.

Are you paying attention, at all?

Go back 5 pages, and see what was being said, please.

And FWIW, this is what I said at the time:

On 9/22/2021 at 5:47 PM, Fiji Bitter said:

...

I've said right from the beginning that Dumfuck was a horse fucker. On monday I called a good friend in Auckland who is a pretty good yachtie, member of the RNZYS, and a player in the Superyacht world, and asked him what he thought of Dunphy. He answered straight away that he was a joke!

The many posters here that didn't see this, better get a brain transplant before posting anyfurther...

 

 

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

And again to some of the GD-worshippers here: What if that IS true? Where in that case is the excuse to go offshore? 'He hurt my feelings' BS? C'mon... grow the f up.

 

Why does anyone need an "excuse" to go offshore? The rules don't prevent it and other teams have done it in the past as well, so history hasn't even been broken, they needed no excuses.

There is no requirement ANYWHERE to hold the Americas Cup in Auckland.

If Dalton prefers an offshore venue, thats his right as the Cup holder. His team is the Defender. The Defender under the DoG by mutual consent gets to choose the venue.

No excuses are needed.

End of story.

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

GDs main sponsors, Emirates, Omega, Toyota probably want more exposure for ongoing funds. An offshore defense might achieve that.

Yes, I could see those affecting it to some degree. The emphasis in the Prot on TV production suggests connections to the likes of Netflix (is that where Drive to Survive is?) is a factor too and maybe Netflix wants it Euro-time based.

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

GDs main sponsors, Emirates, Omega, Toyota probably want more exposure for ongoing funds. An offshore defense might achieve that.

For all the talk of ETNZ's solvency or lack thereof, it's a pretty big vision Cup Dalts has set out. The AC40s the hydrogen thingys, signing on another high profile skipper, retaining Glen, Dan etc. It seems to indicate they're not broke, but will require a significant budget to make it all happen. GD obviously feels he can't achieve that in NZ, thus the move offshore. 

Plus potentially three very strong challengers who have plenty of data on their AC

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chesirecat said:

Unsurprisingly Dunphy's 40m offer has strings.

'The $40m NZDUSD convertible from the KHD is contingent on Team New Zealand’s ability to raise a further $80-$120m (pick a number) or else the CoCo reverts to parity and is annulled. "

https://rule69.blog/2021/11/25/turkeys/

A MW piece that actually has real information and has taught me something I didn’t already know. Essential reading. Blimey.

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

A MW that actually has real information and has taught me something I didn’t already know. Essential reading. Blimey.

MW retired recently from banking, plus he has the ear of a bunch of AC people he tries to balance the stories from. He must have heard details about the deal MD offered to ETNZ, to come up with that interesting piece.

MW is TE's guest tomorrow but, while as fun as he always is, I imagine he will be a touch circumspect when it comes to this. ETNZ's Greene has agreed to be a guest too, but not quite yet.

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

Why does anyone need an "excuse" to go offshore? The rules don't prevent it and other teams have done it in the past as well, so history hasn't even been broken, they needed no excuses.

There is no requirement ANYWHERE to hold the Americas Cup in Auckland.

If Dalton prefers an offshore venue, thats his right as the Cup holder. His team is the Defender. The Defender under the DoG by mutual consent gets to choose the venue.

No excuses are needed.

End of story.

It's because prior to AC35 bermuda GD was all about bringing it home for the benefits of the country.

covid or not that hasn't changed

 

46125651_hypocrisygif.gif.06f59dcff18911e67586f7eaf5b15cd9.gif

 

being on a european timezone, it was a pain in the butt getting up at 4am to watch the racing, but i'd still rather see a home defense.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago I got a FB friend request from Sclarke and clicked on it briefly before (as with most FB friend requests) i just ignored it. Normal enough guy with normal stuff going on, S Auckland iirc, a touch cross-eyed, but whatever. Am not into the personal-attack 'enemies list' thing that some are, bigger subjects are more worthwhile for yakking about.

 

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

It's because prior to AC35 bermuda GD was all about bringing it home for the benefits of the country.

covid or not that hasn't changed

 

46125651_hypocrisygif.gif.06f59dcff18911e67586f7eaf5b15cd9.gif

 

being on a european timezone, it was a pain in the butt getting up at 4am to watch the racing, but i'd still rather see a home defense.

 

 

 

And last I checked, the last AC was in Auckland was it not? 

He's done what he said he was going to do.

So whats the problem?

You loved Bermuda yet hate the fact that it might AGAIN go offshore.

46125651_hypocrisygif.gif.06f59dcff18911

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

And last I checked, the last AC was in Auckland was it not? 

He's done what he said he was going to do.

So whats the problem?

You loved Bermuda yet hate the fact that it might AGAIN go offshore.

46125651_hypocrisygif.gif.06f59dcff18911

AC35 - we want to win to defend at home, it makes sense

AC36 - we don't really want to defend at home anymore, but will string you along for 3 months since you've stumped up some money for this one.

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

AC35 - we want to win to defend at home, it makes sense

AC36 - we don't really want to defend at home anymore, but will string you along for 3 months since you've stumped up some money for this one.

AC35 - we want to win to defend at home.

AC36 - we defended at home.

AC37 - After being accused of fraud, and investigated by a Government department which came up with nothing, and now wants to offer us peanuts to stay while taking credit for "NZs innovation" on the global stage, nah we're going to go get what we know we're worth.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Well that's where we may differ.  I don't agree with his agenda.

Are you are against making sure it is held in NZ?   You are against the members having a say in where the cup is held?

What actual part of Farmer's agenda are you against?  

Dalton created this shit storm by deciding to move the cup away from NZ and blaming it upon a lack of funding that he never actually checked to see if it existed!   He threw out a cost estimate and when NZ sources came up with the money, he will not talk to them because they "hurt his feelings".  Dalton has lost all credibility because he has not making a genuine effort to keep the cup at home.   The leadership of RNZYS really wants all of the credit and prestige of being the home of the AC without any of the responsibilities that go with it.  They are neglecting their fiduciary responsibilities and alienating their members and the citizens of NZ by allowing Dalton to do what ever he wants to do.  The RNZYS board serves at the will of the members and need to get an official response from the members.  Skewing the possible outcome of the vote by having restrictions on the attendance or not providing all of the information shows a degree of corruptness in the leadership.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Horn Rock said:

GDs main sponsors, Emirates, Omega, Toyota probably want more exposure for ongoing funds. An offshore defense might achieve that.

For all the talk of ETNZ's solvency or lack thereof, it's a pretty big vision Cup Dalts has set out. The AC40s the hydrogen thingys, signing on another high profile skipper, retaining Glen, Dan etc. It seems to indicate they're not broke, but will require a significant budget to make it all happen. GD obviously feels he can't achieve that in NZ, thus the move offshore. 

If his sponsors want more exposure than give the team more money.

The irony that is lost on many is that the team that is complaining about the excessive costs is the team that created the cost structure!  Be honest, the more we find out the more it looks like GD never really tired to get the funding in NZ.  Yes, he may have had a few discussions with his old networks, but you have to constantly think outside the box.  Where was his "throw the ball farther" approach to getting NZ funding to host the cup?  He already had the search firm and material to shop the cup all ready to go before he even won the cup.

This assumption that GD is infallible is comical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Are you paying attention, at all?

Go back 5 pages, and see what was being said, please.

And FWIW, this is what I said at the time:

 

If GD is so brilliant and Dunphy is such an idiot.  Why doesn't GD just put on his big boy pants, talk with Dunphy and and fleece him of his $40 million?   

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

If GD is so brilliant and Dunphy is such an idiot.  Why doesn't GD just put on his big boy pants, talk with Dunphy and and fleece him of his $40 million?   

Because there’s nothing to fleece. That’s what we’ve been saying the whole time.

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

And last I checked, the last AC was in Auckland was it not? 

He's done what he said he was going to do.

So whats the problem?

You loved Bermuda yet hate the fact that it might AGAIN go offshore.

46125651_hypocrisygif.gif.06f59dcff18911

Haven't heard any of that sentiment. Just don't have it in a brutal dictatorship or a non-windy place like Auckland. Cork sounds good if you aren't a Corkonian. 

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

If his sponsors want more exposure than give the team more money.

The irony that is lost on many is that the team that is complaining about the excessive costs is the team that created the cost structure!  Be honest, the more we find out the more it looks like GD never really tired to get the funding in NZ.  Yes, he may have had a few discussions with his old networks, but you have to constantly think outside the box.  Where was his "throw the ball farther" approach to getting NZ funding to host the cup?  He already had the search firm and material to shop the cup all ready to go before he even won the cup.

This assumption that GD is infallible is comical.

There is no way to cut costs unless a spending cap is introduced, which is near impossible to enforce, and frankly, would be a joke.

Costs as an excuse that cry babies like you use to support your argument because you know it’s low hanging fruit. 
Costs are high, but that’s not the issue. The issue is you want it held in Auckland when nothing in the DoG states it must be held here. There are no rules or traditions being broken here, just your feelings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Are you are against making sure it is held in NZ?   You are against the members having a say in where the cup is held?

What actual part of Farmer's agenda are you against?  

Dalton created this shit storm by deciding to move the cup away from NZ and blaming it upon a lack of funding that he never actually checked to see if it existed!   He threw out a cost estimate and when NZ sources came up with the money, he will not talk to them because they "hurt his feelings".  Dalton has lost all credibility because he has not making a genuine effort to keep the cup at home.   The leadership of RNZYS really wants all of the credit and prestige of being the home of the AC without any of the responsibilities that go with it.  They are neglecting their fiduciary responsibilities and alienating their members and the citizens of NZ by allowing Dalton to do what ever he wants to do.  The RNZYS board serves at the will of the members and need to get an official response from the members.  Skewing the possible outcome of the vote by having restrictions on the attendance or not providing all of the information shows a degree of corruptness in the leadership.

Where in the DoG does it state the defence must be held in the home waters of the defender? Where? No where, that’s where.

”NZ sources” who? Dunphy, who has come up with nothing and has changed his story every 5 minutes! He has nothing, zip, zero, naught. He says he has it so he can try and “get around the table” and convince the Govt to up their offer that they’ve already said was final.

You’ve been duped, had, sucked in by Dunphy. The guys total net worth is around $200mil, and he’s going to give away 40 of it? Lol laughable. 
He doesn’t have the money, and even if he has $40 mil, that won’t even pay the hosting fee! 

You’re a sucker! You’ve fallen for Dunphys crap hook line and sinker.

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

Haven't heard any of that sentiment. Just don't have it in a brutal dictatorship or a non-windy place like Auckland. Cork sounds good if you aren't a Corkonian. 

Really? I’m sure Stingray can enlighten about how great a venue and event Bermuda was, but that it can never happen again lol

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

The irony that is lost on many is that the team that is complaining about the excessive costs is the team that created the cost structure!

He's not complaining, he's just being a realist about what's required. GD staged a pretty remarkable event during a global pandemic - no mean feat. Going forward post pandemic requires something different according to GD. I trust and have faith in his judgement - he's a proven performer....why wouldn't I?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fiji Bitteris right! Mark Dunphy is a Clown and Joke, a Disgrace for the America's Cup. Sending letters to ETNZ & Dalton claiming he is defamed is hilarious. Dunphy better watch the Rittenhouse Trail before he claims ETNZ/Dalton defamed him.

What the corporate liberal Media did with Kyle Rittenhouse is looking more like defaming to me.

Meanwhile...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/127115927/bid-to-force-team-nz-to-defend-americas-cup-in-auckland-teetering

That is what happens when you sent in the LAWYERS!

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

@Fiji Bitteris right! Mark Dunphy is a Clown and Joke, a Disgrace for the America's Cup. Sending letters to ETNZ & Dalton claiming he is defamed is hilarious. Dunphy better watch the Rittenhouse Trail before he claims ETNZ/Dalton defamed him.

What the corporate liberal Media did with Kyle Rittenhouse is looking more like defaming to me.

Meanwhile...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/127115927/bid-to-force-team-nz-to-defend-americas-cup-in-auckland-teetering

That is what happens when you sent in the LAWYERS!

“getting marginal”  for 25 member requirement says a lot with a membership of over 3000.

Puts JF and HR in an awkward corner.

Having been the film industry raising money I've come across these MD types and they are a complete waste of time. To be the least bit credible he needs to put  some actual cash (10 bucks will do) on the table no strings attached. 

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

“getting marginal”  for 25 member requirement says a lot with a membership of over 3000.

Puts JF and HR in an awkward corner.

Having been the film industry raising money I've come across these MD types and they are a complete waste of time. To be the least bit credible he needs to put  some actual cash (10 bucks will do) on the table no strings attached. 

From that article it appears Aaron Y is again actively campaigning on GD's behalf to sway the votes, ahead of the meeting. MW said today he thinks the membership will back 'offshore' and TE guessed the opposite.

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

@Fiji Bitteris right! Mark Dunphy is a Clown and Joke, a Disgrace for the America's Cup. Sending letters to ETNZ & Dalton claiming he is defamed is hilarious. Dunphy better watch the Rittenhouse Trail before he claims ETNZ/Dalton defamed him.

What the corporate liberal Media did with Kyle Rittenhouse is looking more like defaming to me.

Meanwhile...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/127115927/bid-to-force-team-nz-to-defend-americas-cup-in-auckland-teetering

That is what happens when you sent in the LAWYERS!

Rittenhouse is a fucked up trigger happy little cunt that murdered people. 
 

you supporting him is no surprise 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

From that article it appears Aaron Y is again actively campaigning on GD's behalf to sway the votes, ahead of the meeting. MW said today he thinks the membership will back 'offshore' and TE guessed the opposite.

Of course he is. RNZYS wants a successful Defence, as does TNZ. Obviously they back GD's proven skills and strategic thinking, over KHD's. 

Don't know who is calling strategy and tactics for KHD, but so far they've NOT put a foot right. 

 

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

Obviously they back GD's proven skills and strategic thinking, over KHD's. 

Do you honestly think KHD is trying to run the team, when MD has said absolutely not? 

The only issue there seems to be about the event-run. That's not a new subject.

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

Rittenhouse had to defend himself otherwise he would have been DEAD!

But did he need to take a rifle to a protest rally? And if so, why didn't the opposition take their rifles along?

Could have been a re-enactment of the shoot-out at the, OK Corral. All perfectly legal in the, USA it would appear.

Guns are for personal protection, don't ya know. ;-)

painting-shoot-out.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be the day that hell freezes over, because I think I agree with 4himself........

Dunphy is all smoke and mirrors. His proposal has little substance, loads of conditions and is totally unrealistic. I might not like Dalton, but he is a great fund raiser and if he says that he cannot make an NZ defence work financially, I believe him. For all of his faults and hypocrisy, I am 100% certain that Dalton's preferred option would be to defend in NZ and he would do so if he felt that it didn't compromising the team's funding. 

So far, all Dunphy seems to have done is offer $40m with so many conditions attached that no right minded person would base their AC defence on. He hasn't provided any evidence of other money being available or that enough money can be raised in NZ, and why anybody would believe him over Dalton is beyond me. I doubt he even knows what budget is required, because Dalton certainly hasn't made that public and an outsider like Dunphy wouldn't have a clue.

The only problem I have with what 4himself writes is this

6 hours ago, Forourselves said:

and even if he has $40 mil, that won’t even pay the hosting fee! 

I have searched the DoG I cannot find any reference to hosting fees. Worse, they are not required to run an AC event. The only reason why Dalton is pushing for a high hosting fee is that he wants that money to fund his team.

The reality is that Dalton has 2 needs. The first is enough money to make a potentially successful defence. Then there is having enough money to run the event. They are 2 separate requirements. Worst case, you don't need huge sums to run the event - you need a race officer, some staff, a committee boats and some support boats, plus a small office and a dock. Those are the essentials and everything else is nice to have. Teams can pay for their own bases, there is no need for a village, TV can be awarded either for a fee or not, depending on proposal. And most of all, it should be possible to find a main event sponsor to cover the costs of running the regatta. In other words, it shouldn't cost a defender anything to put the event on.

So this is all about funding the team. What Dalton is saying is that without a hosting fee, ETNZ will not have enough money to fund the team. I also suspect that it would be easier for him to raise more money for the team if the event wasn't in NZ. That's just the reality of these Covid times.

I support the view put out by the officers of the club that hosting the event in NZ would mean that the defence wasn't financially viable. They might have got it wrong about what would happen if they couldn't defend (handing the Cup back vs handing the Cup over to the challenger), but they know the reality and anybody who thinks that they would allow Dalton to take the event overseas if there was a viable alternative is crazy.

So what you have is a group of people who have the best intentions but who haven't really got a clue trying to force through something that is likely to badly hurt or even sink ETNZ.

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

But did he need to take a rifle to a protest rally? And if so, why didn't the opposition take their rifles along?

Could have been a re-enactment of the shoot-out at the, OK Corral. All perfectly legal in the, USA it would appear.

Guns are for personal protection, don't ya know. ;-)

painting-shoot-out.jpg

Sure, that kid shouldn't have a gun at all I agree with that!

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

It must be the day that hell freezes over, because I think I agree with 4himself........

Dunphy is all smoke and mirrors. His proposal has little substance, loads of conditions and is totally unrealistic. I might not like Dalton, but he is a great fund raiser and if he says that he cannot make an NZ defence work financially, I believe him. For all of his faults and hypocrisy, I am 100% certain that Dalton's preferred option would be to defend in NZ and he would do so if he felt that it didn't compromising the team's funding. 

So far, all Dunphy seems to have done is offer $40m with so many conditions attached that no right minded person would base their AC defence on. He hasn't provided any evidence of other money being available or that enough money can be raised in NZ, and why anybody would believe him over Dalton is beyond me. I doubt he even knows what budget is required, because Dalton certainly hasn't made that public and an outsider like Dunphy wouldn't have a clue.

The only problem I have with what 4himself writes is this

I have searched the DoG I cannot find any reference to hosting fees. Worse, they are not required to run an AC event. The only reason why Dalton is pushing for a high hosting fee is that he wants that money to fund his team.

The reality is that Dalton has 2 needs. The first is enough money to make a potentially successful defence. Then there is having enough money to run the event. They are 2 separate requirements. Worst case, you don't need huge sums to run the event - you need a race officer, some staff, a committee boats and some support boats, plus a small office and a dock. Those are the essentials and everything else is nice to have. Teams can pay for their own bases, there is no need for a village, TV can be awarded either for a fee or not, depending on proposal. And most of all, it should be possible to find a main event sponsor to cover the costs of running the regatta. In other words, it shouldn't cost a defender anything to put the event on.

So this is all about funding the team. What Dalton is saying is that without a hosting fee, ETNZ will not have enough money to fund the team. I also suspect that it would be easier for him to raise more money for the team if the event wasn't in NZ. That's just the reality of these Covid times.

I support the view put out by the officers of the club that hosting the event in NZ would mean that the defence wasn't financially viable. They might have got it wrong about what would happen if they couldn't defend (handing the Cup back vs handing the Cup over to the challenger), but they know the reality and anybody who thinks that they would allow Dalton to take the event overseas if there was a viable alternative is crazy.

So what you have is a group of people who have the best intentions but who haven't really got a clue trying to force through something that is likely to badly hurt or even sink ETNZ.

I trend to agree with all of what you've said here!

And some RNZYS Members are backtracking anyways on that Meeting and "So-Called Proposal"

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

Do you honestly think KHD is trying to run the team, when MD has said absolutely not? 

The only issue there seems to be about the event-run. That's not a new subject.

I personally wouldn't believe a thing, Dunphy has to say, based on my own assessment of his 'dealings' thus far. You are free to believe whatever reality you choose, Stinger.

And if all Dunphy has to offer, TNZ is the 'promise' of $40 million and suggestions about a better way to run the event....

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

I personally wouldn't believe a thing, Dunphy has to say, based on my own assessment of his 'dealings' thus far. You are free to believe whatever reality you choose, Stinger.

And if all Dunphy has to offer, TNZ is the 'promise' of $40 million and suggestions about a better way to run the event....

Dunphy has shot himself in the Foot by getting "Lawyers" involved. He used the word "Defamation". Lot's of RNZYS Members are backtracking now on the General Meeting and the Proposal!

He & his Attorneys should all enlighted us in what way did ETNZ/Grant Dalton defamed him? All what ETNZ said is that he did try to get TNZ rightfully chosed CoR replaced. THAT IS A FACT. I dunno what else we could call "Defamation".

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

Dunphy has shot himself in the Foot by getting "Lawyers" involved. He used the word "Defamation". Lot's of RNZYS Members are backtracking now on the General Meeting and the Proposal!

He & his Attorneys should all enlighted us in what way did ETNZ/Grant Dalton defamed him? All what ETNZ said is that he did try to get TNZ rightfully chosed CoR replaced. THAT IS A FACT. I dunno what else we could call "Defamation".

Dunphy didn't like being called out as a fuckwhit, in national media, I suppose. Not something any of us would enjoy, perhaps. But who's fault was that?

TNZ response to his litigation threat:-

'Team New Zealand say they are willing to defend Dunphy’s allegations where he has asked that “certain inaccurate statements be corrected and that apologies be given”. "While it creates unnecessary cost and distraction for the team, we welcome the opportunity to contest it and to further detail the evidence which lays bare his true intentions and highlights the conflicting behaviour of someone who is masquerading in public as simply wanting to help the ETNZ defence,” the syndicate told Stuff.'

As per @dg_sailingfanpost above.

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

'Team New Zealand say they are willing to defend Dunphy’s allegations where he has asked that “certain inaccurate statements be corrected and that apologies be given”. "While it creates unnecessary cost and distraction for the team, we welcome the opportunity to contest it and to further detail the evidence which lays bare his true intentions and highlights the conflicting behaviour of someone who is masquerading in public as simply wanting to help the ETNZ defence,” the syndicate told Stuff.'

Really weird. Sure seems like MD's true intention is to hold the Cup in home waters, not any other 'masquerading' true intentions - wtf are they on about?

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

Really weird. Sure seems like MD's true intention is to hold the Cup in home waters, not any other 'masquerading' true intentions - wtf are they on about?

Probably has a lot to do with Dunphy thinking the Challengers had his ear, when in reality, they were recording every conversation and every meeting Dunphy was involved with behind the Defenders back, from wanting Dalton gone, to the Hamish Ross/ NYYC saga, to lobbying against the current venue options to now supporting Jim Farmer and his attempt to drag the next cycle through the courts instead of having it play out on the water.

Those challengers clearly trust Dalton more than they trust Dunphy, and they've handed all the evidence of Dunphy's true intentions to Dalton.

Dunphy is toast, and so is Jim Farmer, Hamish Ross, and I wouldn't be surprised if Tom Ehman is also in the mix. 

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

Really weird. Sure seems like MD's true intention is to hold the Cup in home waters, not any other 'masquerading' true intentions - wtf are they on about?

As far as I can tell, MD has no record of an active interest in high end sailing. He isn’t $B wealthy. He isn’t on positive terms with the team or anyone in it. Yet out of the blue, he offers $40M. Now that is weird.

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

As far as I can tell, MD has no record of an active interest in high end sailing. He isn’t $B wealthy. He isn’t on positive terms with the team or anyone in it. Yet out of the blue, he offers $40M. Now that is weird.

Not quite. First he offered "funding" as long as Dalton was no longer involved in TNZ. Then he said that was some of his financial backers' idea, not his. Then he denied trying to discredit RYSL as a bonafide Challenger (according to evidence held by GD). Then he admitted he'd not made any attempts to raise actual funds from his financial backers. Then he offered to underwrite the funding to the value of $40 million.

All the while, feeding shit to the media and getting, Farmer to pressure RNZYS.

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

Not quite. First he offered "funding" as long as Dalton was no longer involved in TNZ. Then he said that was some of his financial backers' idea, not his. Then he denied trying to discredit RYSL as a bonafide Challenger (according to evidence held by GD). Then he admitted he'd not made any attempts to raise actual funds from his financial backers. Then he offered to underwrite the funding to the value of $40 million.

All the while, feeding shit to the media and getting, Farmer to pressure RNZYS.

Sorry forgot his latest play: Now, Dunphy intends to sue the arse off anyone who called him out as a fuckwhit.

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

It must be the day that hell freezes over, because I think I agree with 4himself........

Dunphy is all smoke and mirrors. His proposal has little substance, loads of conditions and is totally unrealistic. I might not like Dalton, but he is a great fund raiser and if he says that he cannot make an NZ defence work financially, I believe him. For all of his faults and hypocrisy, I am 100% certain that Dalton's preferred option would be to defend in NZ and he would do so if he felt that it didn't compromising the team's funding. 

So far, all Dunphy seems to have done is offer $40m with so many conditions attached that no right minded person would base their AC defence on. He hasn't provided any evidence of other money being available or that enough money can be raised in NZ, and why anybody would believe him over Dalton is beyond me. I doubt he even knows what budget is required, because Dalton certainly hasn't made that public and an outsider like Dunphy wouldn't have a clue.

The only problem I have with what 4himself writes is this

I have searched the DoG I cannot find any reference to hosting fees. Worse, they are not required to run an AC event. The only reason why Dalton is pushing for a high hosting fee is that he wants that money to fund his team.

The reality is that Dalton has 2 needs. The first is enough money to make a potentially successful defence. Then there is having enough money to run the event. They are 2 separate requirements. Worst case, you don't need huge sums to run the event - you need a race officer, some staff, a committee boats and some support boats, plus a small office and a dock. Those are the essentials and everything else is nice to have. Teams can pay for their own bases, there is no need for a village, TV can be awarded either for a fee or not, depending on proposal. And most of all, it should be possible to find a main event sponsor to cover the costs of running the regatta. In other words, it shouldn't cost a defender anything to put the event on.

So this is all about funding the team. What Dalton is saying is that without a hosting fee, ETNZ will not have enough money to fund the team. I also suspect that it would be easier for him to raise more money for the team if the event wasn't in NZ. That's just the reality of these Covid times.

I support the view put out by the officers of the club that hosting the event in NZ would mean that the defence wasn't financially viable. They might have got it wrong about what would happen if they couldn't defend (handing the Cup back vs handing the Cup over to the challenger), but they know the reality and anybody who thinks that they would allow Dalton to take the event overseas if there was a viable alternative is crazy.

So what you have is a group of people who have the best intentions but who haven't really got a clue trying to force through something that is likely to badly hurt or even sink ETNZ.

The assumption is that due to performance failures, not necessarily the fault of the team, Emirates gets to stay as main sponsor without supplying any cash. If this is correct, then there is no way a new sponsor will front up with hundreds of millions just to play second fiddle to a company that is paying nothing. It would make no commercial sense, no matter where in the world it is held.

This has forced Dalton to try and leverage the cup to pay for both running the event, plus running the team. A big ask and one that hasn't been quite as easy as he first thought. In fact it may prove a step to far, with no city being dumb enough to fall for the crazy sums they are predicted to make from the cash they would need to front with.

Time will tell I guess. Only 4 plus months to go...

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

You mean “not all” then. Not “not quite”.

No. You said, '...out of the blue...'

I responded, Not quite (out of the blue - because history).

But I'll concede, I could have worded it more succinctly. :-)

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

The assumption is that due to performance failures, not necessarily the fault of the team, Emirates gets to stay as main sponsor without supplying any cash. If this is correct, then there is no way a new sponsor will front up with hundreds of millions just to play second fiddle to a company that is paying nothing. It would make no commercial sense, no matter where in the world it is held.

This has forced Dalton to try and leverage the cup to pay for both running the event, plus running the team. A big ask and one that hasn't been quite as easy as he first thought. In fact it may prove a step to far, with no city being dumb enough to fall for the crazy sums they are predicted to make from the cash they would need to front with.

Time will tell I guess. Only 4 plus months to go...

Time will tell, indeed, Gissie. And, assuming GD gets his cash and you, being the honourable fellow you are, will be one of the first to put up your hand and admit that you seriously doubted GD would come through. Or not..... 

Of course, if It all turns to shit, I'll be heading for the hills. ;-)

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

“Out of the blue” referred to his lack of previous known interest in sailing or the team. 

OK, Doggie. I get it. Thanks for the clarification. And the English comprehension lesson. ;-)

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

As far as I can tell, MD has no record of an active interest in high end sailing. He isn’t $B wealthy. He isn’t on positive terms with the team or anyone in it. Yet out of the blue, he offers $40M. Now that is weird.

As far as I can tell from what MD has actually stated, he has had an active interest in ETNZ since '87.  He mentioned on a recent TE show that (due to other commitments) he missed attending the AC in Bermuda but it was the ONLY ONE he's missed attending, in almost 3 decades since '83.  

Some folks here think that his offer, raised from $20M to $40M recently, is somehow 'bogus' but you give no good argument to counter for why MD is willing to go so deep on this. To all evidence he is the biggest 'Kiwi Homer' in all of this.

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

“Out of the blue” referred to his lack of previous known interest in sailing or the team. 

Do your homework instead of just making shit up.  Dunphy has been involved with the NZ AC efforts since the beginning and he was asked by the RNZYC to solicit local funding for hosting the cup.

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

Time will tell, indeed, Gissie. And, assuming GD gets his cash and you, being the honourable fellow you are, will be one of the first to put up your hand and admit that you seriously doubted GD would come through. Or not..... 

Of course, if It all turns to shit, I'll be heading for the hills. ;-)

Being an honourable fellow I no longer care about the team or Dalton. In fact, I think it would be best for the cup if they lose the coming event.

I find these boats ugly and not that exciting to watch, but any support I do give will be to Prada. This last cycle they had that bit of mongrel, courtesy of Spithall, without losing their fairness. So for now it is Prada, probably forever, as it is unlikely there will ever be another NZ in the cup.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Horn Rock said:

He's not complaining, he's just being a realist about what's required. GD staged a pretty remarkable event during a global pandemic - no mean feat. Going forward post pandemic requires something different according to GD. I trust and have faith in his judgement - he's a proven performer....why wouldn't I?

Why would you blindly trust GD and not question his motives for moving the cup away from NZ.  GD has done a great job in the past in association with the Sailing team, but he raised some serious questions with the organization of the last cup (in-breading of the hosting organization and the sailing team, money flow, use of government funding, unpaid debt, not having the approval to use the primary courses, etc...   GD's management of the cup activities was not top notch.    

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

Being an honourable fellow I no longer care about the team or Dalton. In fact, I think it would be best for the cup if they lose the coming event.

I find these boats ugly and not that exciting to watch, but any support I do give will be to Prada. This last cycle they had that bit of mongrel, courtesy of Spithall, without losing their fairness. So for now it is Prada, probably forever, as it is unlikely there will ever be another NZ in the cup.

Sad to hear that. But, I think LRPP has a very good chance this time around. They've been bridesmaid now a couple of times and they won't have CoR stuff/duties this time around to distract them. Not that they were THAT distracted by their fellow Challengers' needs during AC36. But that's another story.

Still, they've got to be favourites I think. Assuming they challenge of course. Good luck.

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

Sad to hear that. But, I think LRPP has a very good chance this time around. They've been bridesmaid now a couple of times and they won't have CoR stuff/duties this time around to distract them. Not that they were THAT distracted by their fellow Challengers' needs during AC36. But that's another story.

Still, they've got to be favourites I think. Assuming they challenge of course. Good luck.

Thanks, all good. No real animosity to the team, their behaviour just doesn't appeal to me any more.

As for LRPR, it could be a good chance for them. Kiwi struggling with funds, the Poms learning what it is like to be COR, the Italians having Spithall to fire them up and give them the mongrel needed. It could be interesting, sort of.

Link to post
Share on other sites