Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

Speaking about EB... think if Ineos wins and he challenge with a Kiwi yacht club in AC38. Ahahahah just to piss off GD. Alinghi NZ.

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

So many cringe takes in this thread. ETNZ coffers are basically empty, with almost all the sponsors not returning due to Covid. The fact that this one off race is even being considered should make it obvious how dire ETNZs finances are. What else is dalts supposed to do? Just throw up his arms and let the team fold? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Doot Master Flex said:

So many cringe takes in this thread. ETNZ coffers are basically empty, with almost all the sponsors not returning due to Covid. The fact that this one off race is even being considered should make it obvious how dire ETNZs finances are. What else is dalts supposed to do? Just throw up his arms and let the team fold? 

Why not a Cup in 1 year but with all the teams involved? This would be good also for the AM that couldn't even be competitive.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, mako23 said:

One big problem that’s  worth considering ?

If AC38 is scheduled to happen 2025 and in 2023 ETNZ and GB have a one off challenge in AC37. 
 

other teams will not be disadvantaged in regards to schedule.  They will be racing in 2025 regardless of their being a DOG match. The only difference is Auckland or Portsmouth being the venue. By the way I lived 200 meters from the English Channel for 4 years and it’s not that much different to Auckland when it comes to choppy waves during the summer when close to the coast

The two cup AC75 rule will ensure outside challengers know what boat will be used. Regardless of RYS or RNZYS winning in AC37. The next cup AC38 will still be in AC75 class. Allows other challengers to continue design work on their AC75 yachts knowing their can’t be any change regardless of who wins the DOG match

 

The big issue is one boat per campaign 

Does this mean that Ineos and ETNZ can build one AC75 for DOG match in AC37 and then build another boat for AC38

This means that Ineos and ETNZ can build two boats in four years while teams like Prada can only build one

IF thats the case ...this isn’t an advantage it’s cheating plain and simple

To be fair the DOG race should not be in AC75 boats 

 

You are working on the assumption that whoever wins AC37 will abide by an agreement that is not enforceable. Why would the Brits, if they won, just give all the advantages back to NZ. Be idiots if they did and far from the worst shit that has happened.

So a dangerous gamble to spend time and money on a boat that may not be needed.

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

Why not a Cup in 1 year but with all the teams involved? This would be good also for the AM that couldn't even be competitive.

But that would be an expense for ETNZ, Strider not a revenue stream.

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

But that would be an expense for ETNZ, Strider not a revenue stream.

But sponsor are already there and could be willing to fund one more year. All the initial development has already be done. And in 1 year, without covid, NZ as a Country could have the return of their investment that struggled to have in this locked edition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could even  setup the old boats 1 updated to be a little bit competitive, and sell them as a package to new challengers willing to enter, in order to prepare a AC38

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Why not a Cup in 1 year but with all the teams involved? This would be good also for the AM that couldn't even be competitive.

In my opinion ETNZ know they can win vs Ineos and make enough to keep the team afloat for 2 years which will help bridge the gap until new major sponsors can be found.  Adding more teams to the mix will increase costs and the risk of losing the cup to a team who doesn’t want to use the AC75. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Doot Master Flex said:

In my opinion ETNZ know they can win vs Ineos and make enough to keep the team afloat for 2 years which will help bridge the gap until new major sponsors can be found.  Adding more teams to the mix will increase costs and the risk of losing the cup to a team who doesn’t want to use the AC75. 

This is the America's Cup. The winner decides all. But only up until the Cup has a new winner. Nobody should jeopardise this. The cup was donated with a purpose.

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

This is the America's Cup. The winner decides all. But only up until the Cup has a new winner. Nobody should jeopardise it. The cup was donated with a purpose.

Let us just hope the rumours are just rumours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah put it up for grabs at the Isle of Wight with the proviso that if the UK wins they still have to defend it in auckland in 2024

unlikely ineos would beat nz given their form in the prada cup final but if they did then they would have no serious racing till the americas cup final whereas TNZ would run through the challenger series in their home town. They might lose that but it would sure attract attention 

I think it would work

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

Speaking about EB... think if Ineos wins and he challenge with a Kiwi yacht club in AC38. Ahahahah just to piss off GD. Alinghi NZ.

Alinghi New Zealand................If they won all would be forgiven 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Doot Master Flex said:

So many cringe takes in this thread. ETNZ coffers are basically empty, with almost all the sponsors not returning due to Covid. The fact that this one off race is even being considered should make it obvious how dire ETNZs finances are. What else is dalts supposed to do? Just throw up his arms and let the team fold? 

Seems to me he’s in an impossible situation 

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

Yeah put it up for grabs at the Isle of Wight with the proviso that if the UK wins they still have to defend it in auckland in 2024

unlikely ineos would beat nz given their form in the prada cup final but if they did then they would have no serious racing till the americas cup final whereas TNZ would run through the challenger series in their home town. They might lose that but it would sure attract attention 

I think it would work

Except the proviso isn't enforceable. So if the Poms won, why would they go back to NZ to race. The solent here we come while Dalts looks like a wanker.

Maybe a good thing. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Seems to me he’s in an impossible situation 

If you are in an impossible situation, better to forfeit than to stoop to Bertarellis level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mako23 said:

The big issue is one boat per campaign

I don't think that's such a big deal. Most know now the sort of requirements for the hull. The more poignant issue will be the foil allocation. How many wings can they make? We don't know this yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2021 at 12:45 PM, mako23 said:

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

A DoG match is a normal Americas Cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for Lord Dalton to show some solidarity with the Kiwi public who stumped up the thick end of $250m to assist and support TNZ in their endeavours.

This thing cuts both ways how many other syndicates reach into the public’s bank account to the extent TNZ does.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the press release is just a vehicle to try and get the media to become the arbitrator. They (ENTZ and INEOS) will paint it as being the greatest thing for the Cup and the media will lap it up, so when a competitor questions it the media will come out against them.

The release is bullshit and many here have cited why. Hell, I even think someone could give the Nationality clause a legal crack.

The one boat rule is a crap way of keeping costs down. Far more effective would be to limit the design team to 10 or something like that with support/design staff. That would also make people available for more teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The loser of the 2022 match will immediately present a challenge for the following, multi-challenger match, in the expectation of being the CoR for the 2024 match."

It is this kind of bullshit that is why the NYSC needs to be more progressive in their thinking. To date they have refused, as best I recall, to make decisions on anything but the intent of the deed. I think it would be wise of them to accept that the application of the Deed has changed and they should be putting provisions in place to better protect the Deed from those changes in how the event is now.

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

This is the America's Cup. The winner decides all. But only up until the Cup has a new winner. Nobody should jeopardise this. The cup was donated with a purpose.

The winner is deciding, and you and jaysper have a fit over what they are deciding, no one has donated to cup 

NOTHING has been decided. 

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

This is the America's Cup. The winner decides all. But only up until the Cup has a new winner. Nobody should jeopardise this. The cup was donated with a purpose.

The winner is deciding, and you and jaysper have a fit over what they are deciding, no one has donated to cup 

NOTHING has been decided. 

Wrong. The current winner is trying to decide what the next winner does, and by doing so they are jeopardizing the event, that is what Strider is saying. He is also saying the Cup was donated for a purpose, not that people are donating to the cup.

I really didn't think what he wrote was that hard to understand.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doot Master Flex said:

 What else is dalts supposed to do? Just throw up his arms and let the team fold? 

Rather than do something clearly wrong, yes, that's what he should do. No AC team lasts for ever.

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

Rightly or wrongly I have faith that when the actual rules etc come out ETNZ/GD won’t be shitting over the AC

Same.

They won't be hiring on brad as team liaison. Dumb

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, dogwatch said:
2 hours ago, Doot Master Flex said:

 What else is dalts supposed to do? Just throw up his arms and let the team fold? 

Rather than do something clearly wrong, yes, that's what he should do. No AC team lasts for ever.

Was thinking the same thing.

Perhaps he should just go rob some banks or something, that would be justified to keep an AC afloat, wouldn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a few possibilities I think have been overlooked here.

1) If the protocol says that as a condition of entry for AC37 you have to agree to use AC75 for two cup cycles that's all that might be, an agreement. They may not intend for it to be enforceable. After all, Oracle changed the protocol from the AC60 to the AC50 after agreeing to use the AC60, so why not lay it out as a statement of intent that you are going to run two cup cycles in the AC75?

2) That the protocol, or rather the entries and other documentation form a contract, which may not prevent someone from winning the cup and changing the class, but would be legally enforceable in terms of penalties. They switch class and the Kiwis sue for breach of contract and get a big pay out. Like what happened with Oracle when they cut out ACWS Auckland.

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

Theres a few possibilities I think have been overlooked here.

1) If the protocol says that as a condition of entry for AC37 you have to agree to use AC75 for two cup cycles that's all that might be, an agreement. They may not intend for it to be enforceable. After all, Oracle changed the protocol from the AC60 to the AC50 after agreeing to use the AC60, so why not lay it out as a statement of intent that you are going to run two cup cycles in the AC75?

At best, it is a suggestion, nothing more. The Orifice example doesn't fit.

Just now, JonRowe said:

2) That the protocol, or rather the entries and other documentation form a contract, which may not prevent someone from winning the cup and changing the class, but would be legally enforceable in terms of penalties. They switch class and the Kiwis sue for breach of contract and get a big pay out. Like what happened with Oracle when they cut out ACWS Auckland.

That isn't how contract law works under the terms of the Deed of Gift, as soon as the Match is decided the existing contract is complete. Again, your example is flawed as that was a commercial agreement outside the Deed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the relevant clause

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened, or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat. And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided.

The last sentemce seems to prevent the proposed arrangement. Wait for the court case if they are foolish enough to attempt it

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

Rather than do something clearly wrong, yes, that's what he should do. No AC team lasts for ever.

This statement is predicated on the rumours being true. But yes, rather than shitting all over the legacy of the team or the cup itself, pack the team up in a box and put it in the attic as a keep sake.

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

That isn't how contract law works under the terms of the Deed of Gift, as soon as the Match is decided the existing contract is complete. Again, your example is flawed as that was a commercial agreement outside the Deed.

You miss my point entirely.

Contract law is contract law. The Deed of Gift is in essence a contract for the cup itself, and in order to hold it the winner must comply with it. That says nothing about other contracts on top of it, my point is it is possible for both sides to be correct here. That there can be a legally enforceable (as in financial penalties) agreement that they'll use the AC75 for two cup, at the same time as the winner being legally able to hold the match in any class they like.

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

This statement is predicated on the rumours being true. 

Not exactly, the statement can be parsed without any assumptions about the actualities. However I agree there's an awful lot of premature hypothesising going on. You and I have both been here long enough to find that unsurprising. 

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

This is the relevant clause

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened, or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat. And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided.

The last sentemce seems to prevent the proposed arrangement. Wait for the court case if they are foolish enough to attempt it

Well pointed out, thank you.

Now watch the arguments over "vessel".

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JonRowe said:
21 minutes ago, The Advocate said:

That isn't how contract law works under the terms of the Deed of Gift, as soon as the Match is decided the existing contract is complete. Again, your example is flawed as that was a commercial agreement outside the Deed.

You miss my point entirely.

Contract law is contract law. The Deed of Gift is in essence a contract for the cup itself, and in order to hold it the winner must comply with it. That says nothing about other contracts on top of it, my point is it is possible for both sides to be correct here. That there can be a legally enforceable (as in financial penalties) agreement that they'll use the AC75 for two cup, at the same time as the winner being legally able to hold the match in any class they like.

I didn't miss your point at all, you are suggesting they write a contract to out contract the Deed contract. Good luck with that. Why do people assume that when someone disagrees they has missed the point?

Any contract that changes the terms of the Deed (not discussing MC in relation to a CoR event) would be tossed and unenforceable by the NYSC.

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

If this is true GD wants his cake and eat it too, greedy cunt.

If you win the cup, you are lord and master for exactly 1 cup cycle. If you want to be lord and master for another cup cycle, win the fucking thing again.

This basically says we won It once but want to be lord and master for 2 cycles.

Very Bertarelli-esque if you ask me.

Ran out of "likes" last night, so: +1 (as in the old days).

 

3 hours ago, Gissie said:

You are working on the assumption that whoever wins AC37 will abide by an agreement that is not enforceable. Why would the Brits, if they won, just give all the advantages back to NZ. Be idiots if they did and far from the worst shit that has happened.

So a dangerous gamble to spend time and money on a boat that may not be needed.

Especially if the relationship between INEOS and ETNZ falls foul. Has happened before that Defender and Challenger/CoR were best buddies at the time of the challenge and hate each other during the event. The RYC officials could hide during the 1:1 and accept a challenge by whomever when (if) their boat crosses the finish line first - and vice versa with ETNZ. 
This 1:1, if really sailed for the Cup, could be a rather dangerous thing.

1 hour ago, The Advocate said:

"The loser of the 2022 match will immediately present a challenge for the following, multi-challenger match, in the expectation of being the CoR for the 2024 match."

It is this kind of bullshit that is why the NYSC needs to be more progressive in their thinking. To date they have refused, as best I recall, to make decisions on anything but the intent of the deed. I think it would be wise of them to accept that the application of the Deed has changed and they should be putting provisions in place to better protect the Deed from those changes in how the event is now.

The NYSC decides based on the four corners of the Deed, not intent. Not sure if you wanted to say/write that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

The nationality rules are an abomination.  Why not all the design work to be covered by nationality. Dalton goes on about how he is happy to be going back to the origins with crew nationality, but the only thing that was covered by that was design and build. Crew, no one gave a toss.

But that would be bloody hard for ETNZ, so Dalton bullshits and makes up a lie to cover his assholeness. The Poms just go along with it, makes them just as big on the assholeness.

The above is from @Gissieon the ETNZ thread.

Spot fucking on.

The nationality issue has morphed so much it is nothing like what it was so who gives a flying fuck about it?

Oh GD, because it gives him an advantage. Make the nationality rule across the whole team and I would be more likely to buy it.

Another issue the NYSC should be addressing IMHO.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:
1 hour ago, The Advocate said:

"The loser of the 2022 match will immediately present a challenge for the following, multi-challenger match, in the expectation of being the CoR for the 2024 match."

It is this kind of bullshit that is why the NYSC needs to be more progressive in their thinking. To date they have refused, as best I recall, to make decisions on anything but the intent of the deed. I think it would be wise of them to accept that the application of the Deed has changed and they should be putting provisions in place to better protect the Deed from those changes in how the event is now.

The NYSC decides based on the four corners of the Deed, not intent. Not sure if you wanted to say/write that.

I understand that, but I think given how much the game has shifted, I really hope that they could see their way to adopted a wider view, given that they are the sole arbitrator of the Deed.

Might be wishful thinking, but meh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My sympathies to Kiwi and other ETNZ fans finding themselves not necessarily in love with what may (or may not) be going on. I went through similar alienation when BA decided to take Ineos sponsorship, so I know the feeling. 

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

My sympathies to Kiwi and other ETNZ fans finding themselves not necessarily in love with what may (or may not) be going on. I went through similar alienation when BA decided to take Ineos sponsorship, so I know the feeling. 

Nicely said mate. I just wish we had a team we could have issue with, we have to share all yours lol

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

My sympathies to Kiwi and other ETNZ fans finding themselves not necessarily in love with what may (or may not) be going on. I went through similar alienation when BA decided to take Ineos sponsorship, so I know the feeling. 

Thanks, Dog. I'm wondering if it's maybe time to put my SAAC involvement aside for another year - or two. Pretty sad after such a fantastic AC36 event.

Still, it wouldn't be the AC without all this shit would it?

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

I understand that, but I think given how much the game has shifted, I really hope that they could see their way to adopted a wider view, given that they are the sole arbitrator of the Deed.

Might be wishful thinking, but meh.

Ah, o.k., I understand. It could be court approved Interpretive Resolutions, like the ones implemented by the YCs since 1958. I think it was SNG/Alinghi that deleted them all from the regulations when they became the Defender.
Unfortunately, the AC is probably too unimportant for the NYSC to bother at all and throw resources at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IANAL, but I don't see why the Defender and Challenger couldn't agree on a valid contract outside and totally independent of the DOG.

This contract could stipulate that the loosing party will have the first opportunity to hand over the challenge documents for consideration by the Defender. It can further stipulate the proposed class and any other conditions "for consideration upon the presentation of the challenge documents". 

And then the parties agree to pay $100 million compensation if they wish to change their mind... :P.

The tinfoil madhatters and dogmoralist here must realise that, unlike Team Fiji, both TNZ and Team Ineos, and their respective Yacht Squadrons, have proper lawyers who know the intricacies of the DOG and the NYSC.

Go and DOG yourselves!

 

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

Ah, o.k., I understand. It could be court approved Interpretive Resolutions, like the ones implemented by the YCs since 1958. I think it was SNG/Alinghi that deleted them all from the regulations when they became the Defender.
Unfortunately, the AC is probably too unimportant for the NYSC to bother at all and throw resources at it.

Very interesting. Am quite glad I responded, thank you for doing the same.

Sounds like that is along the lines of what I am hoping for.

Yes I agree with your take on the NYSC and their time.

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

Thanks, Dog. I'm wondering if it's maybe time to put my SAAC involvement aside for another year - or two. Pretty sad after such a fantastic AC36 event.

Still, it wouldn't be the AC without all this shit would it?

Had the same thoughts!

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

IANAL, but I don't see why the Defender and Challenger couldn't agree on a valid contract outside and totally independent of the DOG.

This contract could stipulate that the loosing party will have the first opportunity to hand over the challenge documents for consideration by the Defender. It can further stipulate the proposed class and any other conditions "for consideration upon the presentation of the challenge documents". 

And then the parties agree to pay $100 million compensation if they wish to change their mind... :P.

The tinfoil madhatters and dogmoralist here must realise that, unlike Team Fiji, both TNZ and Team Ineos, and their respective Yacht Squadrons, have proper lawyers who know the intricacies of the DOG and the NYSC.

Go and DOG yourselves!

 

Because the DoG is the "higher" document when it comes to  the AC.

If regattas run under the DoG are so tedious, ineffective, have a bad RoI and are so detestable, why don't the teams/owners that hate the DoG so much set up an own regatta series, write their own rules or join Larry's SailGP? Why don't they just leave the DoG/AC alone? They can write their own DoG and go and DoG themselves.

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

Because the DoG is the "higher" document when it comes to  the AC.

If regattas run under the DoG are so tedious, ineffective, have a bad RoI and are so detestable, why don't the teams/owners that hate the DoG so much set up an own regatta series, write their own rules or join Larry's SailGP? Why don't they just leave the DoG/AC alone? They can write their own DoG and go and DoG themselves.

He's trolling B)

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

He's trolling B)

He may be, he's o.k. We met in Scheveningen when the VOR was there, an enjoyable encounter., with him and the VOR.
But that won't change my opinion about the Bs and teams with their "good" ideas of how to change the Deed :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's taken me a long time to catch up to this thread because I read a few posts and have to take a break to cool off my incandescent rage & then there are a bunch of new posts to catch up which rage me up again :angry:

 

This. Is. Not. OK.

 

32 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

I don't see why the Defender and Challenger couldn't agree on a valid contract outside and totally independent of the DOG.

Because doing so is a breach of

Quote

when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided.

This is crystal clear:

NO CONDITIONS OF SUBSEQUENT MATCHES MAY BE EVEN CONSIDERED WHILE THERE IS A CHALLENGE UNDECIDED.

That language is the controlling language, no AC related agreement can overrule it.

 

If they know that and are just trying it out to see if its accepted its cuntyness for the sake of being a fucking cunt.

If its some sort of negotiation tactic with the Govt/Council, I can't see how they think negotiation by being as cunty as possible is any kind of way to get a favourable outcome.

 

I am a kiwi, a TNZ fan and I have a huge amount of respect for GDs achievements.

But the DoG is more important than any of that.

Anybody who finds the DoG inconvenient should fuck off and go start their own 'F1 on the water' series or whatever under the rules they want to play by.

BUT STOP TRYING TO FUCK UP THE AMERICAS CUP.

THE AMERICAS CUP IS A PERIODIC CHALLENGE CUP NOT WHATEVER BULLSHIT YOU'RE TRYING TO SHOEHORN IT INTO BEING.


 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the bright side: With the nationality rules effectively locking out EB there is no need to go shopping around the hosting now right?

As they told us that large hosting fee they're seeking was necessary to get in early salary/retainers for key team members from being poached.

But now current teams are basically locked in/out so we don't need to worry about that anymore & GD can confidently announce Defense in Auckland tomorrow thus removing a large amount of cuntyness from the whole situation :wub:

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

Well pointed out, thank you.

Now watch the arguments over "vessel".

What is your opinion o  the matter? I admit I'm a little bit confused here. Reading that, I would imagine it refers to the specific boat used in the Match, let's say Britannia. Should the British lose the 1 - 1 match, what prevents them to use a new boat to mediately challenge again? 

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

What is your opinion o  the matter? I admit I'm a little bit confused here. Reading that, I would imagine it refers to the specific boat used in the Match, let's say Britannia. Should the British lose the 1 - 1 match, what prevents them to use a new boat to mediately challenge again? 

That is a really good question and I can see very good legal arguments from both sides of the debate.

Originally the "vessel" had to be sailed to the match on her own bottom, meaning there was a big lead time in challenging and that the yacht was probably already built. That has changed, for a number of reasons. The winner might argue that the loser has to have a new boat to challenge which would be old by the time of the match and they can't build another under the Press Release Terms (perhaps we should use PRT as it is not Protocol yet). I could see a whole shit fight about this.

I think the powers that be would be better to change the term "Vessel" to "Yacht Club" to overcome the potential issues many of us are seeing coming to the fore.

This further reinforces my opinion that the NYSC has to get a better grip on the modern aspects of the Cup. The PRT falls well short of a working concept to me.

Not sure if I answered you fully, let me know.

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

Thanks, Dog. I'm wondering if it's maybe time to put my SAAC involvement aside for another year - or two. Pretty sad after such a fantastic AC36 event.

Still, it wouldn't be the AC without all this shit would it?

Exactly, twas ever thus.

We've had a sniff but we don't know yet precisely what crap we'll have to swallow.

Hang on in there Sbd, the feast is yet to come!

Link to post
Share on other sites

W

11 minutes ago, The Advocate said:

That is a really good question and I can see very good legal arguments from both sides of the debate.

Originally the "vessel" had to be sailed to the match on her own bottom, meaning there was a big lead time in challenging and that the yacht was probably already built. That has changed, for a number of reasons. The winner might argue that the loser has to have a new boat to challenge which would be old by the time of the match and they can't build another under the Press Release Terms (perhaps we should use PRT as it is not Protocol yet). I could see a whole shit fight about this.

I think the powers that be would be better to change the term "Vessel" to "Yacht Club" to overcome the potential issues many of us are seeing coming to the fore.

This further reinforces my opinion that the NYSC has to get a better grip on the modern aspects of the Cup. The PRT falls well short of a working concept to me.

Not sure if I answered you fully, let me know.

Thanks! Another question. Let's assume for a while that ETNZ and INEOS produce a protocol with such a clause regarding AC38. Then someone appeals to the NYSC. What could the outcome be? The Court ask them to amend that part of the protocol? Or could they invalidate the whole challenge (I don't think so). What happens if the decision come after the  match has  been raced? I wonder if the RNZYS has received other challenges other than from ineos. All other subsequent challenges would not be obviously taken into account,  but what if the first one is for whatever reasons declared invalid?

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

W

Thanks! Another question. Let's assume for a while that ETNZ and INEOS produce a protocol with such a clause regarding AC38. Then someone appeals to the NYSC. What could the outcome be? The Court ask them to amend that part of the protocol? Or could they invalidate the whole challenge (I don't think so). What happens if the decision come after the  match has  been raced? I wonder if the RNZYS has received other challenges other than from ineos. All other subsequent challenges would not be obviously taken into account,  but what if the first one is for whatever reasons declared invalid?

I think 38 would be deemed invalid.

As far as a challenge being deemed invalid, or withdrawn, we have seen that.

I am tired of the back room bullshit regarding challenges. I would like the NYSC to look at this. I am sure in this day and age a less cloak and dagger process could be developed. Especially under a CoR process.

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

Yes a rubbish article. Deliberately obscures whatever it's trying to say.

I'd guess the outcome would be as you say,@marlowe
, which would be fun!

Question: what's the sea state around the Isle of Wight? Could these things hack it in any weather?

 

Anything from flat calm to boat destroying 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about the 1 vs 1 AC, the more it seems a meaningless choice. I mean, it would be bad also from a business point of view. I don't think a lot of sponsors will be keen to support it, or the teams involved. No problem for Ineos, but what for ETNZ ? And I can't see GD put the team in a situation where your opponent is paying for you. No way. 

So I think they'll try to organize a "normal" AC. But the location will be a great issue, with Ineos pushing for Isle of Wight and ETNZ divided between Auckland (and I'm sure they'll try to defend in their home waters) and UAE / whoever is willing to support the team. 

So what I really fear is that we'll see a DoG match.  ETNZ is in a tough situation. They need funds and have chosen the richest team as their CoR. Really dangerous. 

Imagine that Emirates stop funding the team, and they have to face a DoG match against a team with limitless budget. It could be a disaster for NZ. 

Again, I'll be worried until I see the Protocol. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jaysper said:

LOL! Don't apologize, otherwise this place will start showing signs of civility!

Did they end up finishing 101? 

Lol true, fuck you mate :P

Don't think so, EB announced the new class soon after

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

My sympathies to Kiwi and other ETNZ fans finding themselves not necessarily in love with what may (or may not) be going on. I went through similar alienation when BA decided to take Ineos sponsorship, so I know the feeling. 

Don't forget us Americans.  Personally, I skipped AC35 entirely.  My "home waters" were in San Francisco Bay, not Bermuda.

The Cup is the Cup, and I had already lowered my standards since 2003, but there are limits that can't be crossed.

Sad that the Kiwis are now also abandoning the high ground.

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

Don't forget us Americans.  Personally, I skipped AC35 entirely.  My "home waters" were in San Francisco Bay, not Bermuda.

The Cup is the Cup, and I had already lowered my standards since 2003, but there are limits that can't be crossed.

Sad that the Kiwis are now also abandoning the high ground.

Not to insist too much, but just a small reminder:
Don't you miss the Italians? :P

 

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

Completely variable. You’d need to pick your weather window to be off St Catherine’s Head in an AC75. Can be pretty lumpy and that isn’t so unusual, even in summer.

Wind over tide off Hurst Castle gets pretty gnarly, and off the Needles can be pretty lumpy as well, depending on tide and wind.

Some of our practice days prior to the AC Jubilee regatta were pretty interesting, even though the weather was good for the regatta itself. The Round the Island race was very light conditions, with a ripping foul tide from the Needles in.

A race around the Isle of Wight is full of opportunities for things to go horribly wrong, since you spend a lot of time ducking inshore to take advantage of or get out of current.  There is a small,  important book called 'Wight Hazards", by Peter Bruce,  that is the navigator/tactician's Bible for racing in these waters.

Racing in the area is affected by tidal currents as much as almost anyplace in the world where people race sailboats. You have to know the exact state of the tide at multiple places when you race around the island, as there are places you may want to go that are very tide-dependent, at least in conventional boats.

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

So many cringe takes in this thread. ETNZ coffers are basically empty, with almost all the sponsors not returning due to Covid. The fact that this one off race is even being considered should make it obvious how dire ETNZs finances are. What else is dalts supposed to do? Just throw up his arms and let the team fold? 

Part of the challenge associated with the cup is financial. Many may bemoan that but facts are stubborn things. Having won six of the last eight cups, the Kiwis have more than proven themselves equal to the task on the water. We'll see if they can navigate the finances.  

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

Part of the challenge associated with the cup is financial. Many may bemoan that but facts are stubborn things. Having won six of the last eight cups, the Kiwis have more than proven themselves equal to the task on the water. We'll see if they can navigate the finances.  

Your math seems a bit off here:

2021    NZ

2017    NZ

2013   USA

2010   USA

2007  SUI

2003  SUI

2000   NZ

1995   NZ

If you want to ignore the DoG Match of 2010, we'll go back one more and throw in:

1992  USA

Four out of eight is pretty damn good. Do you see a pattern above since 1995? Try:

win

defend

lose

This goes for NZ, SUI, and the USA. 

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

"The loser of the 2022 match will immediately present a challenge for the following, multi-challenger match, in the expectation of being the CoR for the 2024 match."

It is this kind of bullshit that is why the NYSC needs to be more progressive in their thinking. To date they have refused, as best I recall, to make decisions on anything but the intent of the deed. I think it would be wise of them to accept that the application of the Deed has changed and they should be putting provisions in place to better protect the Deed from those changes in how the event is now.

From the New York Court of Appeals in Mercury Bay:

"Questions of sportsmanship and fairness with respect to sporting contests depend largely upon the rules of the particular sport and the expertise of those knowledgeable in that sport; they are not questions suitable for judicial resolution . As sporting activities evolve in light of changing preferences and technologies, it would be most inappropriate and counterproductive for the courts to attempt to fix the rules and standards of competition of any particular sport. To do so would likely result in many sporting contests being decided, not in the arena of the sport, but in the courts." (Internal citations omitted; bold emphasis added.)

The NYCA will limit itself to attempting to apply the plain meaning of the words used in the Deed as the best evidence of what the grantor intended, and will not attempt to go beyond that. 

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

Your math seems a bit off here:

2021    NZ

2017    NZ

2013   USA

2010   USA

2007  SUI

2003  SUI

2000   NZ

1995   NZ

If you want to ignore the DoG Match of 2010, we'll go back one more and throw in:

1992  USA

My point (perhaps clumsily made) was that retaining the cup requires both prowess on the water and financial resources. The Kiwis have the former in abundance and, based on what others have said here, appear to struggle with the latter. They are fantastic sailors, and for that purpose was counting 2003 and 2007 as those teams were lead by Kiwis.

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

You miss my point entirely.

Contract law is contract law. The Deed of Gift is in essence a contract for the cup itself, and in order to hold it the winner must comply with it. That says nothing about other contracts on top of it, my point is it is possible for both sides to be correct here. That there can be a legally enforceable (as in financial penalties) agreement that they'll use the AC75 for two cup, at the same time as the winner being legally able to hold the match in any class they like.

We've plowed that ground earlier in this thread. Yes, the parties could have a separate agreement talking about future cups that imposes financial penalties for failing to abide by those terms. That would not run afoul of the Deed as nothing in that separate agreement would prevent a party from complying with the Deed.

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

What is your opinion o  the matter? I admit I'm a little bit confused here. Reading that, I would imagine it refers to the specific boat used in the Match, let's say Britannia. Should the British lose the 1 - 1 match, what prevents them to use a new boat to mediately challenge again? 

The commodore of the RNZYS being locked away in Auckland with commodore of another club

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

My point (perhaps clumsily made) was that retaining the cup requires both prowess on the water and financial resources. The Kiwis have the former in abundance and, based on what others have said here, appear to struggle with the latter. They are fantastic sailors, and for that purpose was counting 2003 and 2007 as those teams were lead by Kiwis.

Winning the AC is a team effort involving a complete program, including  management, design, construction, and sailing (among a bunch of other things, including a strong financial base).

More often than not, the winner is the one who puts all those things together at the right time.

The TNZ program in 1995 did that as well as or better than any team in the modern era, and is still the benchmark

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

W

Thanks! Another question. Let's assume for a while that ETNZ and INEOS produce a protocol with such a clause regarding AC38. Then someone appeals to the NYSC. What could the outcome be? The Court ask them to amend that part of the protocol? Or could they invalidate the whole challenge (I don't think so). What happens if the decision come after the  match has  been raced? I wonder if the RNZYS has received other challenges other than from ineos. All other subsequent challenges would not be obviously taken into account,  but what if the first one is for whatever reasons declared invalid?

The NYCA would invalidate the Protocol as violating the Deed (and would probably say something along the lines that the parties cannot use the "mutual consent" clause of the Deed to override other requirements of the Deed). The NYCA would not invalidate the entire challenge as the challenge met the requirements of the Deed.

If the contest hadn't occurred yet, the court would probably not tell the parties what to do -- the court would just confirm that the Protocol before the court was invalid. The parties would then have to agree to a revised Protocol or sail under the terms of the Deed.

If the contest already occurred, the court would confirm that nothing in the AC37 Protocol could bind the AC38 match, and that any attempts to do so would be invalid. 

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

From the New York Court of Appeals in Mercury Bay:

"Questions of sportsmanship and fairness with respect to sporting contests depend largely upon the rules of the particular sport and the expertise of those knowledgeable in that sport; they are not questions suitable for judicial resolution . As sporting activities evolve in light of changing preferences and technologies, it would be most inappropriate and counterproductive for the courts to attempt to fix the rules and standards of competition of any particular sport. To do so would likely result in many sporting contests being decided, not in the arena of the sport, but in the courts." (Internal citations omitted; bold emphasis added.)

The NYCA will limit itself to attempting to apply the plain meaning of the words used in the Deed as the best evidence of what the grantor intended, and will not attempt to go beyond that. 

Yes, I have recognised that and stated as such. Times have moved on though and it would be good for the NYSC to revisit their thinking.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, accnick said:

Winning the AC is a team effort involving a complete program, including  management, design, construction, and sailing (among a bunch of other things, including a strong financial base).

More often than not, the winner is the one who puts all those things together at the right time.

The TNZ program in 1995 did that as well as or better than any team in the modern era, and is still the benchmark

I certainly didn't mean to imply that winning the AC was limited to only sailors and money. You are of course correct that many other things go into that equation (design, management, construction etc.).  Perhaps I should have said there is money and then everything else. The Kiwis have excelled at everything else. 

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

Yes, I have recognised that and stated as such. Times have moved on though and it would be good for the NYSC to revisit their thinking.

Courts don't really work that way here. They are bound by prior decisions and can only rarely change them. The words I quoted and the approach of the court are binding precedent on any future courts that may have to deal with interpreting the Deed.  Moreover, the court is frankly right in saying that courts are unsuitable to resolve matters relating to the fairness of sporting contests.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and your wish as to what would happen. I was merely pointing out that there is nothing in our jurisprudence here that would really allow that to happen. 

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

He's trolling B)

Maybe a little bit, but the opinions in this thread are very one sided, and sometimes factual wrong or historically incorrect. Besides there are also some real trolls, and some that just keep repeating themselves endlessly. 

Of course I do appreciate all the serious and well meant posts , and the funny ones too, thank you very much.

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I fully understand the "higher" position of the DOG, absolutely. What I tried to make clear is how there is a way around it, to nevertheless agree in principle on the next (2nd) challenge, all within the 4 corners. If you think that some smart lawyers cannot do this, then you are pretty naive.

And indeed, a pre-agreement will not be DOG enforceable, but a considerable compensation clause, in a totally separate contract, will stand up in a regular civil court, and not be ultra vires. This has been made clear by Porthos and JonRowe too, isn't it?

Now, do I really like the idea of an interum Round Wight challenge, just like a one off official AC Cup regatta?  Well, as long as there is no harm to all other potential challengers, why not. The subsequent regular AC has already been brought forward by 1 year, and will be in the AC75 that almost everybody loves, so don't get too emotional, don't worry, be happy!

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

Courts don't really work that way here. They are bound by prior decisions and can only rarely change them. The words I quoted and the approach of the court are binding precedent on any future courts that may have to deal with interpreting the Deed.  Moreover, the court is frankly right in saying that courts are unsuitable to resolve matters relating to the fairness of sporting contests.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and your wish as to what would happen. I was merely pointing out that there is nothing in our jurisprudence here that would really allow that to happen. 

Yes, my partner is American and I spend time there, I understand that common sense is not your country's strong point, but arse covering is.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh wait, the schooner America was American, and the DOG was written by an American "genius", and it's called the America's Cup. 

And BTW, the Americans defended the Cup merciless for a long time with every possible restriction for the Challengers. Everything 100% strict nationality rules, no discussion! Only some court cases... -_-.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some here that are suggesting involving involving the NYSC.

I am not quite clear which role they are suggesting:

1) Resolving litigation.   Thus far nobody is suing anybody else.  Let us hope it stays that way. Litigation has always been bad for the cup.

2) Approving a proposed amendment to the DoG.    The NYYC has applied for and received 2 amendments to the deed subsequent to the passing of the original donor.  I believe a 3rd amendment would need to be submitted by NYYC.

There has historically been a tradition of selecting a measurement rule for the cup and keeping that class for several cycles or even several decades.  The J Class (20+ years) was followed by the 12 meter class (30+ years) was followed by the IACC (15+ years).   It has been noticeable that participation picks up when the AC sticks with a class for several cycles. 

I do not think that Defender and CoR agreeing to staying with the AC75 for one subsequent event after 37 is a blatant breach of the DoG.  Nor do I think that the NYYC will seek an amendment to prevent that.  

The tricky question will be enforcement of that entry requirement. In theory a challenger for AC 38 could be a club which did not participate in AC 37 and did not sign the entry contract.

For the time being, it is an academic and somewhat fruitless debate. The AC 37 is going to be held in AC75s because the defender and CoR have so decided. Any agreement on the AC75 for A C 38 will have a clause "unless mutually decided otherwise". Most everyone who invests in a AC75 will likely want the same boat used for the next two cycles.

As to a one vs one match , the DoG clearly allows this. The court would likely not stand in the way of this for one cycle but if two clubs tried to turn it into a perpetual 2 club competition with the 2 clubs agreeing to challenge each other to the exclusion of other challenges, then this would likely be taken to court by another club that wants to challenge. Under paras 2 and 3 of the gift,  it was clearly intended to be open to more than 1 club from 1 country over time.

Again this is academic because the current challenge press release seems to envisage other entrants.                                                                                                                                                                                                  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, IPLore said:

There are some here that are suggesting involving involving the NYSC.

I am not quite clear which role they are suggesting:

1) Resolving litigation.   Thus far nobody is suing anybody else.  Let us hope it stays that way. Litigation has always been bad for the cup.

2) Approving a proposed amendment to the DoG.    The NYYC has applied for and received 2 amendments to the deed subsequent to the passing of the original donor.  I believe a 3rd amendment would need to be submitted by NYYC.

<snip>

The trustee has to request an amendment, so RYSNZ would have to do that. 

There is precedent for the trustee applying for an interpretive resolution of the Deed rather than an amendment. In 1985, the Royal Perth Yacht Club (as trustee) requested a confirmation from the NYSC that the "arm of the sea" requirement of the Deed allowed a challenge from the Chicago Yacht Club. The parties all stipulated that the "arm of the sea" could include the Great Lakes, so the court didn't really have to do any heavy lifting.

You are correct that nobody is suing right now.  Although this setup up -- if true -- is fertile grounds for litigation. If ETNZ/INEOS attempt to publish a protocol for AC38 before AC37 is done, watch for someone (perhaps like EB) to sue to invalidate it as violating the Deed (because no new challenge can be considered until AC37 is done).

Even if nobody sues in the event ETNZ/INEOS release the AC38 Protocol early, I will be interested to see how many teams are willing to start up an AC75 campaign for AC38 before AC37 is over, as until AC37 is over nobody can be sure that AC38 will be contested in AC75s.  That's a lot of time, effort, and most importantly money to expend without a guarantee that AC38 will be what it has been promised to be.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Protocol Governing AC37 will be published within eight months including the provisions outlined below:

  • It has been agreed the AC75 Class shall remain the class of yacht for the next two America's Cup cycles,This is likely a good thing. I say "likely" because in the past, staying with a class/rule for more than one cycle has increased participation. However the AC 75 is an expensive beast and if challengers remain low than hopefully this would be mutually revisited.  and agreement to this is a condition of entry.
  • The teams will be restricted to building only one new AC75 for the next event. Clear sign of desire for cost control but also a competitive disadvantage for new teams.
  • A single Event Authority will be appointed to be responsible for the conduct of all racing and the management of commercial activities relating to AC37.
  • The Defender and the Challenger of Record, will be investigating and agreeing a meaningful package of campaign cost reduction measures including measures to attract a higher number of Challengers and to assist with the establishment of new teams. Clear desire to increase participation.
  • A new Crew Nationality Rule will require 100% of the race crew for each competitor to either be a passport holder of the country the team's yacht club as at 19 March 2021 or to have been physically present in that country (or, acting on behalf of such yacht club in Auckland, the venue of the AC36 Events) for two of the previous three years prior to 18 March 2021. As an exception to this requirement, there will be a discretionary provision allowing a quota of non-nationals on the race crew for competitors from "Emerging Nations." Gives Spithill lots of options but it will exclude some of the top talent around the world .   I am not a fan of this rule. It helps ETNZ (and Team GBR) but also depresses market value of some of the world top professional sailors.
  • There are a number of different options but it is intended that the Venue for the Match will be determined within six months and the dates of racing announced in the Protocol, if not before. Open ended on location.
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a LR fan I would be very displeased if the ETNZ and INEOS will  actually consider the 1 - 1 match.This is something clearly against all the other challengers, especially LR that was the most competitive of them in this edition.

And I add that this would be a precedent that could easily backfire on the Kiwi Team in the future.

When one of the two buddies will lose the Cup, and sooner or later it will happen, the new defender could follow the very same path. Would ETNZ sourvive such a situation? Based on the financial struggle they usually have to retain their assets even beteween consecutive cups.. I think not.

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

As a LR fan I would be very displeased if the ETNZ and INEOS will  actually consider the 1 - 1 match.This is something clearly against all the other challengers, especially LR that was the most competitive of them in this edition.

And I add that this would be a precedent that could easily backfire on the Kiwi Team in the future.

When one of the two buddies will lose the Cup, and sooner or later it will happen, the new defender could follow the very same path. Would ETNZ sourvive such a situation? Based on the financial struggle they usually have to retain their assets even beteween consecutive cups.. I think not.

I hear you and agree, but I think 37 will likely go DoG. I can't see anyone wanting to sniff the turd these two are gestating.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, IPLore said:

There are some here that are suggesting involving involving the NYSC.

I am not quite clear which role they are suggesting:

1) Resolving litigation.   Thus far nobody is suing anybody else.  Let us hope it stays that way. Litigation has always been bad for the cup.

2) Approving a proposed amendment to the DoG.    The NYYC has applied for and received 2 amendments to the deed subsequent to the passing of the original donor.  I believe a 3rd amendment would need to be submitted by NYYC.

There has historically been a tradition of selecting a measurement rule for the cup and keeping that class for several cycles or even several decades.  The J Class (20+ years) was followed by the 12 meter class (30+ years) was followed by the IACC (15+ years).   It has been noticeable that participation picks up when the AC sticks with a class for several cycles. 

I do not think that Defender and CoR agreeing to staying with the AC75 for one subsequent event after 37 is a blatant breach of the DoG.  Nor do I think that the NYYC will seek an amendment to prevent that.  

The tricky question will be enforcement of that entry requirement. In theory a challenger for AC 38 could be a club which did not participate in AC 37 and did not sign the entry contract.

For the time being, it is an academic and somewhat fruitless debate. The AC 37 is going to be held in AC75s because the defender and CoR have so decided. Any agreement on the AC75 for A C 38 will have a clause "unless mutually decided otherwise". Most everyone who invests in a AC75 will likely want the same boat used for the next two cycles.

As to a one vs one match , the DoG clearly allows this. The court would likely not stand in the way of this for one cycle but if two clubs tried to turn it into a perpetual 2 club competition with the 2 clubs agreeing to challenge each other to the exclusion of other challenges, then this would likely be taken to court by another club that wants to challenge. Under paras 2 and 3 of the gift,  it was clearly intended to be open to more than 1 club from 1 country over time.

Again this is academic because the current challenge press release seems to envisage other entrants.                                                                                                                                                                                                  

There is no real new info in that. There are inaccuracies though, NYYC is not the current trustee. From my recollection, albeit vague, there are other parties that can request amendments. I would have to check that though.

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

I hear you and agree, but I think 37 will likely go DoG. I can't see anyone wanting to sniff the turf these two are gestating.

By DoG , do you mean with no measurement rules other than the DoG

Or do you mean 1 vs 1 with AC75s........

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

The NYSC decides based on the four corners of the Deed, not intent. Not sure if you wanted to say/write that.

While this is generally true, there are exceptions such as changing the deed to allow sailing during the summer in the Southern hemisphere. This was clearly a ruling based on intent and not the 4 corners. 

But larger issues about planning multiple Cups in advance will certainly be invalidated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites