Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, accnick said:

You seem to have some time, so why don't you do a summary of these changes for everyone?

Like you say, a comparison is a touch complicated; but yes, maybe I will try summarize or copy/paste some of the relevant to-be, once at a laptop instead of phone. The formatting gets screwy pasting from the Prot using what I tried recently on Win10 but might try something else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 800
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What a clusterfuck this is. Kiwis have taken all the shitty bits of Larry's vision and added pure incompetence to the mix.

We’re an autonomous collective.    (We’re still doing Monty Python, right?)

Something like this: NYYC after begging back AM wins AC37. Terry H. attributes the victory to the innovative use of Cross-Fit-clors, who were a bunch of meatheads from a New Jersey gym. Rather th

Posted Images

22 hours ago, Schakel said:

I 'll explain 100 times more if you want..

why not - endless screeds on solar powered whatever are surely welcomed by everyone. However, speaking for myself only, I'll take my boats wind powered.

21 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

And they now have a pretty good idea how much money they have to give ETNZ for 2 superfluous chase boats and a toy version they have to give to the kids and women when they are finished with it

backing up here a bit - aren't these the toys destined for the RNZYS. iow - what the club gets out of this circus?

10 hours ago, trt131 said:

I doubt it will be Olympic cyclists, more likely Pro road racers.

no. given brute strength is the goal - stringy climbers with descending skills not exactly the thing.

9 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Heroes have a short shelf life in NZ don't they? 6 months ago we were being told that B&T were the best sailors in the world, without compare. Essential for their inputs into the design which is why ETNZ won.

Now they are just insignificant bumps in the road to an offshore venue (well at least hopefully, this road doesn't appear to have any signs and no-one has a map)

ooph. I've gotta believe most people would honor a commitment to the Olympics far higher than where ETNZ seem to be going with this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2021 at 9:04 AM, dogwatch said:

There's a thread on Cork with quite a bit of discussion from those who have been there. Yes it's a small city but also a great sailing venue.

thank you for that - being a great sailing venue is a bit encouraging anyway. Although a bit startling to imagine a small city as proper destination for the mega-yachts GD seems so thirsty for.

as for opening another thread in this forum - yikes.

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

This made me look. NZ has C02 emissions per capita almost 30% higher than UK (source)

And "New Zealand burned more coal for electricity production in the first quarter of this year than any quarter in nearly a decade" (source)

So probably will be even worse this year

But why so? don't get me wrong, you are well ahead of US, China and the ME states, but how come so far behind Europe? I thought you guys were supposed to be very pro-green?

Well, we like to think we're green, but we have issues too. About 60% of our base load electricity comes from hydro generation, mostly in the South Island. We have a few geothermal generators in the North Island, but these are not big producing plants. In addition there are a few wind farms on both islands, as well. So, green electricity accounts for about 80% of our total generation.

The problems occur when we have dry years (well below average rainfall), where the hydro storage lakes basically run out of water.

The remaining, high-demand electricity generation came mainly from natural gas and coal burning stations in the upper North Island. Our 'GREEN' Government decided to stop gas exploration and coal mining - so effectively, we were then in the shit with an inevitable energy shortfall in high demand and dry weather. Something which happens more and more with global warming.

But, then, because we had no local coal or natural gas, we had to import poor quality, brown coal from Indonesia, to keep the lights burning. Go figure. 

Our high CO2 emissions are exacerbated by methane emissions from intensive dairy farming and transportation. We have poor public transport infrastructure as well.

Not a pretty picture

 

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

Our high CO2 emissions are exacerbated by methane emissions from intensive dairy farming and transportation.

Dairy farming is a net zero contributor.  Grass keeps capturing CO2 and cows eat it and convert it to milk and meat.  No grass = no cows.  

We'd achieve more by getting rid of the 50million Ozzie immigrants named Trichosurus vulpecula - the common bush tail opossum.   

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

Absolute bullshit. It's a huge contributor.

Not true.  NZ Dairy farming is pasture based.  It's carbon footprint is 76% less than the Global average.

Most emission measurement is based on kg of CO2 or total GHG produced and doesn't deduct the carbon capture of pasture based farming.

Most dairy farms are net zero as all they do is convert CO2 captured by plants into milk and meat.  It is in the interest of dairy farmers to minimise carbon inputs from off farm as it adds cost and inefficiency.  Due to low relative returns (the milk fat price has fallen well behind the Farm CPI) farmers strive for a closed system.

The biggest carbon footprint in livestock farming is that which supports the petfood industry.

I might add that if it wasn't for our efficient Dairy Farmers NZ would be economically in far worse strife than it is.

 

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

What effect will the (venue-related) Match date have on permissible sailing periods, and perhaps favored hemispheres for those sailing periods? Any? 

Interesting, on this exact point. From America’s Cup, Checco Bruni: “I hope for a rematch with Luna Rossa against the Kiwis” – Breaking Latest News

 

Let’s start with the new rules of the Cup, Checco. What impressed you the most about the Protocol?

“The times when you can’t navigate. They are different, fluctuating with respect to the date and therefore to the location of the America’s Cup, with twenty days more for those teams who will buy a used Ac75, but still something I had never seen before. And designed to give Team New Zealand an advantage where possible “.

Because? Where is it?

“Because if you say for example that you can sail from September 2022 to March 1st 2023 it means our winter and their summer, therefore with better conditions. Furthermore, there is also the obligation to sail in the location where the Cup is held from 1 June to 30 September 2023… “.

What do you mean?

“That if the Kiwis exported the Cup they would guarantee the host country the presence of the teams well in advance of the selection of the challenger and the final match, and therefore of money”.

Why do you say they are floating dates?

“It is written in the Protocol. They think the Match will be held in June 2024, but if the date changes, depending on the hemisphere or whatever, then all the other dates change too “.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I might add that if it wasn't for our efficient Dairy Farmers NZ would be economically in far worse strife than it is.

No denying this.

 

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

Ha! :)

I have to say that James Allison struck me as impressive in the presser, he's very sharp.

Indeed he is. I was impressed too. But I also have to say, DB will be welcoming JA's challenge, rather than running away from it, IINM.

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

Amusing as usual

https://rule69.blog/2021/11/18/hopping-mad/

Wake me up, I must be dreaming. Is this really happening?

The article was the usual, Magnus ejaculate. But the comments were priceless. ;-)

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

Interesting, on this exact point. From America’s Cup, Checco Bruni: “I hope for a rematch with Luna Rossa against the Kiwis” – Breaking Latest News

 

Let’s start with the new rules of the Cup, Checco. What impressed you the most about the Protocol?

“The times when you can’t navigate. They are different, fluctuating with respect to the date and therefore to the location of the America’s Cup, with twenty days more for those teams who will buy a used Ac75, but still something I had never seen before. And designed to give Team New Zealand an advantage where possible “.

Because? Where is it?

“Because if you say for example that you can sail from September 2022 to March 1st 2023 it means our winter and their summer, therefore with better conditions. Furthermore, there is also the obligation to sail in the location where the Cup is held from 1 June to 30 September 2023… “.

What do you mean?

“That if the Kiwis exported the Cup they would guarantee the host country the presence of the teams well in advance of the selection of the challenger and the final match, and therefore of money”.

Why do you say they are floating dates?

“It is written in the Protocol. They think the Match will be held in June 2024, but if the date changes, depending on the hemisphere or whatever, then all the other dates change too “.

Yes, I know, every defender has the right to craft the rule to their advantage (that's their right because they won) but note what Checco say "something i have never seen before". So often in the past Dalton has bitterly complained about defenders using their position to gain advantage from which I think we all expected a new era of fairness from the defender, but it hasn't happened.

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

Yes, I know, every defender has the right to craft the rule to their advantage (that's their right because they won) but note what Checco say "something i have never seen before". So often in the past Dalton has bitterly complained about defenders using their position to gain advantage from which I think we all expected a new era of fairness from the defender, but it hasn't happened.

Why expect "fairness"?

Would it be fair to say that ETNZ have been "fairer" than other defenders?

It's all part of the strategic game that is the AC.

Personally that's why I like it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Why expect "fairness"?

Would it be fair to say that ETNZ have been "fairer" than other defenders?

It's all part of the strategic game that is the AC.

Personally that's why I like it. 

In some ways, I agree with you, but having put up for years ofthe constant complaints by Grant Dalton, backed up by many of the NZ group on, plus comments from Dalton after winning in Bermuda that the next edition would be fair, I had high expectations. Did I expect clear fairness? Probably not but I didn't expect Dalton to do the very things he complained about as being unfair.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an argument to be made (and GD at some point made it) that the best design team is who should design the next Rule. My argument is that if you do pursue that idea, then at least keep everyone else who is interested fully informed as you progress through it, even if you don't take any of their input. It's a design competition and time is priceless, this head-start crap is ugly.

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

There's an argument to be made (and GD at some point made it) that the best design team is who should design the next Rule. My argument is that if you do pursue that idea, then at least keep everyone else who is interested fully informed as you progress through it, even if you don't take any of their input. It's a design competition and time is priceless, this head-start crap is ugly.

All it needed was an announcement that ETNZ were looking at the impact of weight reduction and bigger foils and everybody would have been happy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SimonN said:

Yes, I know, every defender has the right to craft the rule to their advantage (that's their right because they won) but note what Checco say "something i have never seen before". So often in the past Dalton has bitterly complained about defenders using their position to gain advantage from which I think we all expected a new era of fairness from the defender, but it hasn't happened.

We did not ALL expect 'fairness'. This is the AC after all. It's all about winning, not how you play the game. 

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

We did not ALL expect 'fairness'. This is the AC after all. It's all about winning, not how you play the game. 

There have been large gaps in AC history between Challenges. If you look at it as 'a business' (GD) then without challenges then... how do you make it profitable? 

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

^ we don't know that at least the COR was not onboard for some broad stroke design direction that you mention. Ben talks about a process of communication, this may include more than just the protocol.

Of course it does.

I would bet my pension on the Zoom and email channels having been hot over the past 8 months.

And many of the comments up above seem to assume the Protocol is a RNZYS document just signed off by RYS.

WRONG!

It is a jointly crafted mutual agreement between the challenger and the defender, or at least their teams. Both will have got enough of what they want and the advantages they believe it gives them otherwise the smiles and body language on both sides would not have been so positive.

Also don't forget that although Dalton is a wily old dog, the guys in INEOS are no mugs either and I would be surprised if Jim Ratcliffe's legal team didn't have at least some input.

If anything the Protocol favours the most recent 'Challenger's Club' with the nationality rules. GBR & NZL already have a deep enough pool of NATIONAL talent through either of the first two definitions in the Protocol, as do USA & ITA.

What the Protocol does prevent is another 'Coutts' type raping of a team by attracting members away with huge salaries or other payoffs because those sailors would not qualify to actually sail in The Cup or related events under the Protocol's nationality rules.

I suppose this does rather knock on the head the rumours of Burling & Tuke potentially going elsewhere for a start - don't know who started that one.

So if Alinghi comes back, as has been suggested by some, (and it would unlikely Switzerland would get "Emerging Nations" status) it would have to be with a rather more home grown team than the one with which he previously won the cup.

One area where Mr Wheatley pretty much got it right is that the Protocol gives GBR perhaps the best opportunity to bring the Auld Mug home in more than a generation for no other reason than it appears to be fair to both COR & Defender.

If it came down to just the sailors (which of course it doesn't) would anyone bet Ainslie & Scott's 6 Olympic Golds against Burling & Tuke's 1. In fact the Brits could fill the whole boat with Olympic medallists as their cyclists don't exactly have a shabby record either.

It will be interesting to say the least.

SS

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

There have been large gaps in AC history between Challenges. If you look at it as 'a business' (GD) then without challenges then... how do you make it profitable? 

How do you make the AC profitable? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

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

How do you make the AC profitable? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

And once you solve that one you can go on and prevent global warming, bring peace to the world and provide food and clean water to everyone without Elon Musk's $6Bn

 

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

How do you make the AC profitable? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

By taking the 'it is a business' approach (GD) when the goal of any business is to maximize profits, it does seem to explain a lot.. Whether it can be done as a profit-maker or not remains to be seen - much like with the SGP franchises.

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

I’ve forgotten, remind me, which section of the DoG sets out the objective of being a profitable business?

Through the MC bit, presumably. :D

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

Through the MC bit, presumably. :D

The argument being made about campaign cost-cutting 'for the benefit of new competitors' may actually be a push by GD to reduce his own costs. And the TV series and Recon thing as positives to his balance, Netflix contract-wise or whatever. I doubt Ineos cared much.

Anyway.. an audio here

RNZ Audio Player

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

Through the MC bit, presumably. :D

Oh dear, you are going to make me write a serious answer?
 

The DoG provides none of the certainty, governance or continuity that would be necessary for the AC to develop as a profitable business. That is its charm.

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

The argument being made about campaign cost-cutting 'for the benefit of new competitors' may actually be a push by GD to reduce his own costs. 

Anyway.. an audio here

RNZ Audio Player

Very likely and INEOS Great Britain's too, I shouldn't wonder.

Not sure if $quillionaires are careful with their money. But I suspect if there's a few million to be saved, why not?

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

Oh dear, you are going to make me write a serious answer?
 

The DoG provides none of the certainty, governance or continuity that would be necessary for the AC to develop as a profitable business. That is its charm.

No. Really? 

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

Very likely and INEOS Great Britain's too, I shouldn't wonder.

Not sure if $quillionaires are careful with their money. But I suspect if there's a few million to be saved, why not?

There’s a possibility that Ineos agreed the ‘cost cutting’ thing (one boat, limited foils, etc) to corner GD into that kinda budget, while knowing they themselves can outspend ETNZ in those areas and in a lot more areas too. Cornered? 

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

There’s a possibility that Ineos agreed the ‘cost cutting’ thing (one boat, limited foils, etc) to corner GD into that kinda budget, while knowing they themselves can outspend ETNZ in those areas and in a lot more areas too. Cornered? 

More likely, GD suggested/agreed to one boat, as he does not have the budget for the development of two. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2021 at 9:31 PM, SimonN said:

What do you think powered the old monohulls? It seems that you would rather have a load of grinders that spent much of the time lying in the bottom of the boat, doing nothing. The reality is that for most of the time upwind, you had only 3/4 guys sailing the old monohulls and the rest were hiding out of the wind, pressed to the deck. There were guys on board who. during the course of a 2 hour race, has less than 2 minutes of work to do. You seem to forget that many teams used no sailors for grinding - Olympic rowers were favourites - while the idea of bikes and using professional cyclists was first done in the days of 12's.

There were like 2-3 dedicated grinders on the 12s and IACCs, not half the team.

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

Of course it does.

I would bet my pension on the Zoom and email channels having been hot over the past 8 months.

And many of the comments up above seem to assume the Protocol is a RNZYS document just signed off by RYS.

WRONG!

It is a jointly crafted mutual agreement between the challenger and the defender, or at least their teams. Both will have got enough of what they want and the advantages they believe it gives them otherwise the smiles and body language on both sides would not have been so positive.

Also don't forget that although Dalton is a wily old dog, the guys in INEOS are no mugs either and I would be surprised if Jim Ratcliffe's legal team didn't have at least some input.

If anything the Protocol favours the most recent 'Challenger's Club' with the nationality rules. GBR & NZL already have a deep enough pool of NATIONAL talent through either of the first two definitions in the Protocol, as do USA & ITA.

What the Protocol does prevent is another 'Coutts' type raping of a team by attracting members away with huge salaries or other payoffs because those sailors would not qualify to actually sail in The Cup or related events under the Protocol's nationality rules.

I suppose this does rather knock on the head the rumours of Burling & Tuke potentially going elsewhere for a start - don't know who started that one.

So if Alinghi comes back, as has been suggested by some, (and it would unlikely Switzerland would get "Emerging Nations" status) it would have to be with a rather more home grown team than the one with which he previously won the cup.

One area where Mr Wheatley pretty much got it right is that the Protocol gives GBR perhaps the best opportunity to bring the Auld Mug home in more than a generation for no other reason than it appears to be fair to both COR & Defender.

If it came down to just the sailors (which of course it doesn't) would anyone bet Ainslie & Scott's 6 Olympic Golds against Burling & Tuke's 1. In fact the Brits could fill the whole boat with Olympic medallists as their cyclists don't exactly have a shabby record either.

It will be interesting to say the least.

SS

Agreed, it would be interesting to know what corners Ineos was pushing for.

 

The change down to 8 sailors, a tonne off the mass and the larger foils is quite significant.

 

Who can take the most advantage from this knowledge, knowing that you can only build one boat?

 

Would be nice to know if you're expecting 8kts or 18kts average.

 

As for the nations restriction, I don't think it's that restrictive. If anything it just stops poaching talent and excludes experienced sailors who don't have the right passport. You need a good helm, wing trim and fight controller. And some muscle with sailing nous.

 

Switzerland for instance have got the resources, sailor experience and time to build that up. I don't see them at a much worse starting point than American magic who have got Dean Barker possibly in their hot seat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Amusing as usual

https://rule69.blog/2021/11/18/hopping-mad/

Wake me up, I must be dreaming. Is this really happening?

I found this banner funny:
598385688_HandgrenadeJournalism.PNG.1aeead018c9ccd34be2ba403f9cc4bba.PNG
Hand grenade Journalism, Like throwing a grenade when you write about something...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have been away from SA for 7 months hiding under a rock but as one of the most senior members, I feel obligated to comment now that the protocol has been released after months and months of useless jawboning and drivel.

"Lets keep costs down.  By the way we are also creating a new AC40 class so you can practice!!"

For fucks sake why aren't we racing the AC75s in the preliminary regattas??  You know the boats that were born in 2017!!!  Isn't there 8 8.5 hulls already constructed - ready to be bought and sold??  Drink for every person that says preliminary regattas aren't part of the AC.

Also is this the first protocol ever released that didn't state a venue??

What a shit show.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Enzedel92 said:

Well I have been away from SA for 7 months hiding under a rock but as one of the most senior members, I feel obligated to comment now that the protocol has been released after months and months of useless jawboning and drivel.

"Lets keep costs down.  By the way we are also creating a new AC40 class so you can practice!!"

For fucks sake why aren't we racing the AC75s in the preliminary regattas??  You know the boats that were born in 2017!!!  Isn't there 8 8.5 hulls already constructed - ready to be bought and sold??  Drink for every person that says preliminary regattas aren't part of the AC.

Also is this the first protocol ever released that didn't state a venue??

What a shit show.

 

It seems that the Kiwi's are trying to copy SailGP for some reason. This shit show is only going to get worse.

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

It seems that the Kiwi's are trying to copy SailGP for some reason. This shit show is only going to get worse.

Ernie, Larry and now the faceless Kiwis - all want to turn it into F1.

Doesn't seem to really work, because whoever wins gets to change the rules, etc, but good luck to them.

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

There have been large gaps in AC history between Challenges. If you look at it as 'a business' (GD) then without challenges then... how do you make it profitable? 

13 hours ago, dogwatch said:

I’ve forgotten, remind me, which section of the DoG sets out the objective of being a profitable business?

of course it doesn't, still, profits are to be had. Hence, GD has a business to run.

RC's golf course estate - yes, he owns the golf course too.

2GFSS32AANOMZ3AM7JNV5BRZH4.jpg

and his waterfront compound.

1555214263648.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=m

13 hours ago, dogwatch said:

The DoG provides none of the certainty, governance or continuity that would be necessary for the AC to develop as a profitable business. That is its charm.

hear, hear. its a sailboat race! with sailboats. Hence the fact I favor Prada - best looking boats - and perhaps the most wasteful spending. Pure folly, but serious sailing.

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

Why expect "fairness"?

Would it be fair to say that ETNZ have been "fairer" than other defenders?

It's all part of the strategic game that is the AC.

Personally that's why I like it. 

Kiwi's in the AC have always been the most self-serving in the post NYYC era. Started with helping the defender in '87 and got worse from their. Fairer than other defenders is absolute bullshit. 

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

The DoG provides none of the certainty, governance or continuity that would be necessary for the AC to develop as a profitable business. 

Yep - so why do they keep trying? Just line up some billionaires and get paid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Enzedel92 said:

"Lets keep costs down.  By the way we are also creating a new AC40 class so you can practice!!"

For fucks sake why aren't we racing the AC75s in the preliminary regattas?? 

idk. maybe something to do with the 40' standard on container ships?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chobani Sailor said:

and by the way each team needs to spend $4M on 2 hydrogen powered support vessels that cannot do anything except to help fund ETNZ the teams.

fify.

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

Kiwi's in the AC have always been the most self-serving in the post NYYC era. Started with helping the defender in '87 and got worse from their. Fairer than other defenders is absolute bullshit. 

More I hate Kiwis rhetoric lol

Loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sail-world.com/news/244082/Americas-Cup-Special-General-Meeting-on-Venue?fbclid=IwAR3iHeyVQC1o7EtNfHNjpwP1ntmhMX1QHdyyELr2-XIGW_Q-VxfSwOjl9Ik

America's Cup: RNZYS confirms Special General Meeting will be held over Home Venue

"

Ben Ainslie, CEO of INEOS Brittania, the team of the Challenger of Record, the Royal Yacht Squadron, spoke with a group of international sailing media earlier this week on the occasion of the announcement of the Protocol and America's Cup Class Rule for the 37th Match and Preliminary Events.

"It's always hard to be the Defender when there is a well-organised group of challengers against you, and that hasn't changed for Team NZ, " Ainslie noted. "But to Grant's credit, they have tried hard - I wouldn't say they have given up all the advantages of being Defender, but they have certainly given away a few in order to try and do the right thing for the sport."

"Grant has been very open with us as to the discussions he has been having, as to where the venue might be. We have to trust him and Team NZ to be open with the other competitors., and I think they will be."

"I think they are trying to do the right thing, but they obviously have to think about their own team. They are obviously trying to do the right thing by the event"

 

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

Amusing as usual

https://rule69.blog/2021/11/18/hopping-mad/

Wake me up, I must be dreaming. Is this really happening?

The AC is a billionaire's trophy.

Without the ability to backhand a few $100 million of your personal wealth for fun, please just fuck off away from the AC!

Good on the Kiwi's bootstrapped campaigns of yesteryear but that formula doesn't seem to work anymore....

From the above article:
The simple fact, reiterated a million times is that New Zealand can’t afford the Cup. It can’t be hosted in the country. There’s not enough money and the Kiwi Home Defence project is ‘unhelpful’ according to Grant Dalton. Nobody else is willing to step forward. It has to go overseas.

 

 

Who will hand the pocket challenge to the Brits in 2024?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Ernie, Larry and now the faceless Kiwis - all want to turn it into F1.

Doesn't seem to really work, because whoever wins gets to change the rules, etc, but good luck to them.

Except now their will be a 20 million penalty if the winner decides to exercise their right to change the rules.

This is the biggest asshole move ever made in the history of the cup and it is rather embarrassing that it is a supposedly Kiwi team doing it.

I wish them only doom and unmitigated disaster in the future.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Except now their will be a 20 million penalty if the winner decides to exercise their right to change the rules.

This is the biggest asshole move ever made in the history of the cup and it is rather embarrassing that it is a supposedly Kiwi team doing it.

I wish them only doom and unmitigated disaster in the future.

I have serious doubts that the $20M penalty would actually hold up based on the DoG but guess we'll find out in a few years.

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

I have serious doubts that the $20M penalty would actually hold up based on the DoG but guess we'll find out in a few years.

ya think? of late, I keep asking myself if it wouldn't be a better business move for GD to lose the cup..

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

I have serious doubts that the $20M penalty would actually hold up based on the DoG but guess we'll find out in a few years.

If you read some of the previous posts from some of our more erudite posters, it would seem the opposite.

It is part of the protocol that must be signed to enter. Unlike Oracle's attempt to continue in the same boats, which was purely voluntary. The team, correctly in my view, refused to sign as it prevented then having a choice should they win.

Secondly, it doesn't actually prevent a winner insisting on making their own choice of design. It just gives them a 20 million penalty payment. So the consensus is that it would be legally enforceable.

So an asshole of a move. Doing the very thing they railed against previously. But doing it in such a way there is now way out.

I do hope that someone wins it, pays the money and starts a new class. This would ensure that any small chance the team would survive is lost and they would fold completely.

Maybe it is the thought of losing that has created this clause. Hoping the winner would just pay, therefore de Nora could get his money back.

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

Except now their will be a 20 million penalty if the winner decides to exercise their right to change the rules.

This is the biggest asshole move ever made in the history of the cup and it is rather embarrassing that it is a supposedly Kiwi team doing it.

I wish them only doom and unmitigated disaster in the future.

The people that down vote this sort of comment just display their total lack of morals. Bitch when the opposition play fast and loose with the rules. Cheer and celebrate when their own team do it.

Sad little people, living their life vicariously through others. Anyway, I have just checked behind the couch and have been unable to find anyone that gives a fuck about them or their down votes.

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

This is the biggest asshole move ever made in the history of the cup and it is rather embarrassing that it is a supposedly Kiwi team doing it.

You have a short memory or your history of the AC is limited to one edition.

The US$20m is no big deal although I do see some irony in that haven't you argued in the past for the continuation of an AC class beyond one cycle?  

If this clause is an incentive to retain the same class for AC38 wouldn't all the participants be happy that their AC37 investment has a bit more life to it.

If your gripe is based on a belief that the AC is a design race and there should be no limits then it is another reason for you not to support Farmer, Dunphy and Ross.

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

Maybe it is the thought of losing that has created this clause. Hoping the winner would just pay, therefore de Nora could get his money back.

I can guarantee you it IS the thought of losing, why? Because the thought of losing is what EVERY team should be motivated by. There is no second, there's a winner. Thats it. 

You either win, become the CoR, or you shut up and do what you're told.

Thats how the AC works.

 

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

The people that down vote this sort of comment just display their total lack of morals. Bitch when the opposition play fast and loose with the rules. Cheer and celebrate when their own team do it.

What on earth does an AC Protocol have to do with morality?

As for cheering or bitching with regard to the rules I personally don't get that emotional about them.  However I do enjoy the strategic machinations involved.  Then of course there is the accompanying entertaining sideshow watching people get their knickers twisted.  I assume you have no real skin in the game and so belong to the latter group.

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

If you read some of the previous posts from some of our more erudite posters, it would seem the opposite.

I didn't realise that there were so many esteemed legal brains frequenting the hallowed halls of the Court of SA!

21 minutes ago, Gissie said:

I do hope that someone wins it, pays the money and starts a new class. This would ensure that any small chance the team would survive is lost and they would fold completely.

So you don't want NZ and one of the greatest teams in AC history to continue in the event?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You have a short memory or your history of the AC is limited to one edition.

The US$20m is no big deal although I do see some irony in that haven't you argued in the past for the continuation of an AC class beyond one cycle? 

No. Never.

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

I can guarantee you it IS the thought of losing, why? Because the thought of losing is what EVERY team should be motivated by. There is no second, there's a winner. Thats it. 

You either win, become the CoR, or you shut up and do what you're told.

Thats how the AC works.

 

It obviously takes some people more than 170 years of history to understand that.  Perhaps they might get it during AC40.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I didn't realise that there were so many esteemed legal brains frequenting the hallowed halls of the Court of SA!

So you don't want NZ and one of the greatest teams in AC history to continue in the event?

I can understand you not knowing much about others as your reading skills are rather limited.

As for NZ continuing in the event, personally they are no longer an NZ team. They are just a business that has no real links to the country. Even the new 40's are to be built by an Aussie company.

So the sooner they leave the better. The sooner they lose, even better.

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

I can understand you not knowing much about others as your reading skills are rather limited.

As for NZ continuing in the event, personally they are no longer an NZ team. They are just a business that has no real links to the country. Even the new 40's are to be built by an Aussie company.

So the sooner they leave the better. The sooner they lose, even better.

Being built in China to be exact.

 

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

As for NZ continuing in the event, personally they are no longer an NZ team. They are just a business that has no real links to the country. Even the new 40's are to be built by an Aussie company.

So the sooner they leave the better. The sooner they lose, even better.

The fact that you have, and you will watch says otherwise.

I'm sure Emirates Team NZ thanks you for your continued support of the team.

 

 

 

 

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

Actually, I am not a suppprter. I have no wish to see the team in NZ any more.

I heard that TNZ is getting evicted from their compound in Auckland and are looking for a new place to set up operations.  Anyone in NZ able to confirm?

Link to post
Share on other sites