Jump to content

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

You cannot split the two, because he needs hosting $$$ to fund the team.

It will be interesting to see if anyone enters on Dec 1st. I tend to doubt it. Might as well wait to know when and when it is all happening.

Can't hire someone to do it?

I can't understand how a person who puts together a super design team with Verdier, Bernasconi & Co. then relies on a Tyna S. to manage the event. Maybe running events is out of his expertise, that's my point. Far from me to criticize him for the ability to win ACs, his results speak for themselves. 

Anyway, I think LR will challenge as soon as possible, even just to secure the third AC40. Design team was already working in Cagliari. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 698
  • 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

21 minutes ago, Zaal said:

Anyway, I think LR will challenge as soon as possible, even just to secure the third AC40. Design team was already working in Cagliari. 

 

But the moment they challenge, they have to stop sailing (which I assume they’re doing right now) until 17 Sept 2022, no?

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

But the moment they challenge, they have to stop sailing (which I assume they’re doing right now) until 17 Sept 2022, no?

An interesting trade-off. How much can they gain from sailing their boat more?

Getting an AC40 ASAP and start testing foils etc seems a bigger gain to me.

Unless they play some loophole where the design and test foils how the hell they want for now, then form a new team which buys the data and happens to have the same sponsors and personnel. This is the AC after all

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

Unless they play some loophole where the design and test foils how the hell they want for now,

You said it. And they’d have until 31st July to test gen 1 new foils on LR2 ...

Edit: and what strikes me, this is an opportunity both ETNZ and INEOS don’t have. Cannot be, they must have thought about this ...

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

You said it. And they’d have until 31st July to test gen 1 new foils on LR2 ...

Edit: and what strikes me, this is an opportunity both ETNZ and INEOS don’t have. Cannot be, they must have thought about this ...

They probably assume Luna Rosa won’t go to the effort and expense of running full scale testing now. What’s the burn rate per month? How many people times an average of $500 a day (and that’s probably light), plus operating costs. And if they do, then Dalton will just change something to negate any advantage they might have gained.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Xlot said:

You said it. And they’d have until 31st July to test gen 1 new foils on LR2 ...

Edit: and what strikes me, this is an opportunity both ETNZ and INEOS don’t have. Cannot be, they must have thought about this ...

But until the protocol was published they had complete freedom did they not? So who knows what tank testing they have done - already having a good idea on the rule

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

You said it. And they’d have until 31st July to test gen 1 new foils on LR2 ...

Edit: and what strikes me, this is an opportunity both ETNZ and INEOS don’t have. Cannot be, they must have thought about this ...

Or even, by paying the (negligible, 100k$/month) late entry fee, until 31st May 2023. Who cares about the AC40 then?

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

But the moment they challenge, they have to stop sailing (which I assume they’re doing right now) until 17 Sept 2022, no?

no I think they have to abide by the rules once the protocol is announced, no matter when you enter.

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

no I think they have to abide by the rules once the protocol is announced, no matter when you enter.

Seems doubtful to me

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

no I think they have to abide by the rules once the protocol is announced, no matter when you enter.

Hence my suggestion of a loophole if someone really wanted to play the game. Don't enter. Then a "completely new and unrelated team that happens to have the same personnel and sponsors" enters, the old one sells the data it collected.

I doubt it would happen in that form, but this is the AC, we know there will be some dirty work. Not sure how you audit that no-one does any tank testing anyway

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, loneshark64 said:

Very interesting indeed. Hard figures put together, difficult to escape from conclusion

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

Or even, by paying the (negligible, 100k$/month) late entry fee, until 31st May 2023. Who cares about the AC40 then?

Hats off. That would be genius. Also because so ETNZ and Ineos would be bound by their own Protocol not to do the same. ROFL

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

Hence my suggestion of a loophole if someone really wanted to play the game. Don't enter. Then a "completely new and unrelated team that happens to have the same personnel and sponsors" enters, the old one sells the data it collected.

I doubt it would happen in that form, but this is the AC, we know there will be some dirty work. Not sure how you audit that no-one does any tank testing anyway

Yeah, or lets say that Prada creates two teams. One is LRPP, that Challenge for the AC, and is bound to the Protocol. The other one is Luna Verde, a TP52 / 69F team that - by pure chance - sails with LR AC75 B2 to "train". Luna Verde could test and sail whatever/whenever they please. It would be a little expensive, maybe, but it could be a revolution: goodbye 2 boat testing, welcome two teams testing program :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And in any case, the rule that forbids training with other foiling monohulls seems to me to be really made on purpose to go against the Persico 69F (Moths also, maybe?) and sell the AC40 more to private individuals. I can't be sure, as that rule isn't a rule either. Defender and COR decide, on what basis it is not known.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the silence from Prada/LR since the Prot was announced I am convinced LR will Challenge again... At some later date, as Xlot suggests could be a beneficial move.

I also think EB will enter somehow.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

So hey @Stingray~ I wasn't reading SA back then. What's the story with Alinghi and the plastic chair? 

Some background here:

 

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

So hey @Stingray~ I wasn't reading SA back then. What's the story with Alinghi and the plastic chair? 

Lol, epic story there! It began with watching camera footage from gliders who were cliff jumping from mountains :D Eventually I narrowed in on a fresh new concrete pad that was laid next to Lak Leman on what was a Bombardier parking lot property, big but suspiciously in the A shape of the skeletal structure of Alinghi's earlier cat whose name escapes me at the moment (le Black?) MoFuzz helped to scale up a model that fitted - as it turned out, perfectly! A spy team arrived less than a day later.

A silly-vid from early during the search before things 'got real' :D

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is handy and semi-related.. The Deep Purple song Smoke on the Water is about the casino in Montreux (seen in the vid above, near where Alinghi got built) getting burnt down, so kinda fun. edit: I named the boat DoGZilla here on SAAC and the name DZ was used by the team, by everyone else here, and was published in newspapers even including the NY Times :D

 

 

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

Ok, thanks.  I am not smart enough to find a plastic chair in any of the posts or photos.

You really are an unthankful person, even I enjoyed those 2 videos.

 

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

Ok, thanks.  I am not smart enough to find a plastic chair in any of the posts or photos.

A female sailor took the white plastic chair photo shortly after the Alinghi build tent went up, it was the only item in there at that moment. The photo was published on the FP. We used it to help triangulate the tent dimensions and more importantly the concrete dimensions that were to be used for tensioning Alinghi 5's frame. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2021 at 5:51 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

Born in Wellington, NZ.  Educated at Canterbury University, Christchurch, NZ.

Yeah Na - born a Kiwi, always a Kiwi.

You neglected to mention that he only spent one year as Canterbury University and that his education at CalTech gave him the expertise in the field that the poster was claiming credit for?

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

You cannot split the two, because he needs hosting $$$ to fund the team.

It will be interesting to see if anyone enters on Dec 1st. I tend to doubt it. Might as well wait to know when and when it is all happening.

That in lies a major part of the problem.  No other team is funded by hosting money.  Also Dalts gets a personal cut of the money.  And x% of the Hosting & Team costs is much greater than x% of just the Team costs.  Follow the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, shebeen said:

no I think they have to abide by the rules once the protocol is announced, no matter when you enter.

Do not be silly.  If you have not submitted a challenge they have no restrictions over what you do.   Wait as long as possible and then make them reject your challenge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And my turkey is bigger than yours...

 

 

6 hours ago, Forourselves said:

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

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

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

No excuses are needed.

End of story.

 

9 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

A female sailor took the white plastic chair photo shortly after the Alinghi build tent went up, it was the only item in there at that moment. The photo was published on the FP. We used it to help triangulate the tent dimensions and more importantly the concrete dimensions that were to be used for tensioning Alinghi 5's frame. 

There was a "Y" on the concrete too that helped you guys to figure out where the mast will be stepped. 

Glorious times! 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

You really are an unthankful person, even I enjoyed those 2 videos.

 

Try hearing about Nu during the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When will the cameras start recording for this behind the scenes look? To my mind some of the more interesting bits would be know. I know what its like come race time more or less, but less so in the early stages of design. Would be facsinating at some point in the future to see how Merc-AMG came together with the sailing side to produce the winning design

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

When will the cameras start recording for this behind the scenes look? To my mind some of the more interesting bits would be know. I know what its like come race time more or less, but less so in the early stages of design. Would be facsinating at some point in the future to see how Merc-AMG came together with the sailing side to produce the winning design

call me confused, but wasn't merc f1 partnered with Ineos last cycle too? Where did that get them?

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

When will the cameras start recording for this behind the scenes look? To my mind some of the more interesting bits would be know. I know what its like come race time more or less, but less so in the early stages of design. Would be facsinating at some point in the future to see how Merc-AMG came together with the sailing side to produce the winning design

I doubt Dalton will want to be on film taking the Dear John call from Cork...

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

Would love to be a fly on the wall when Cork is announced.

Watch you get all salty and start calling Dalts a conman etc lol

 

Why would I care. I would feel a bit sorry for the Irish that will get to pay for this folly, but accuse Dalton of being a con man? No way.

Pissed with the way he is going, certainly, but conman, no way.

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

Why would I care. I would feel a bit sorry for the Irish that will get to pay for this folly, but accuse Dalton of being a con man? No way.

Pissed with the way he is going, certainly, but conman, no way.

Ah the back tracking has begun lol

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

Ah the back tracking has begun lol

Really? Let me be clear. I do not think Dalton is a conman. Fucking good salesman if he can get Cork to fund him.

He is a total cunt in the way he is behaving with the rules and taking it offshore. This I will never backtrack on.

Pretty simple, even an ignorant bellend like yourself should be able to follow this.

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

Really? Let me be clear. I do not think Dalton is a conman. Fucking good salesman if he can get Cork to fund him.

He is a total cunt in the way he is behaving with the rules and taking it offshore. This I will never backtrack on.

Pretty simple, even an ignorant bellend like yourself should be able to follow this.

Doing what with what rules? 

There are no rules being broken. There are no rules full stop.

The DoG does not require them to defend in their home waters.

The only rules are the ones Team NZ make because they won.

Pretty simple, even an ignorant bellend like yourself should know.

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

Doing what with what rules? 

There are no rules being broken. There are no rules full stop.

The DoG does not require them to defend in their home waters.

The only rules are the ones Team NZ make because they won.

Pretty simple, even an ignorant bellend like yourself should know.

Nationality, one design, morality.

You don't care, it is all about winning. Fine, please go for it.

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

No win, no future. Its that simple. So yes, win.

And the day they lose is the last day there will ever be an NZ team, assuming there is one now.

Lose in Auckland and it would probably survive. Not that you care, it is all about the win.

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

And the day they lose is the last day there will ever be an NZ team, assuming there is one now.

Lose in Auckland and it would probably survive. Not that you care, it is all about the win.

Wrong. Lose in Auckland, which is far more likely than offshore, it probably wouldn't survive.

Lose offshore it probably won't survive either.

So where does that leave us? 

The same place it always has. Win or its game over.

 

 

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

Wrong. Lose in Auckland, which is far more likely than offshore, it probably wouldn't survive.

Lose offshore it probably won't survive either.

So where does that leave us? 

The same place it always has. Win or its game over.

 

 

A couple more months and we will get cicadas, meantime crickets is what we put up with.

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

You mean the cup that brings out the hypocrisy of those that go from challenger to defender.

Like yourself.

You cant have hypocrisy without reality.

The reality defines the context, and the context defines the situation and whether or not hypocrisy exists.

Without reality or context you simply can not accuse someone of hypocrisy.

 

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

You cant have hypocrisy without reality.

The reality defines the context, and the context defines the situation and whether or not hypocrisy exists.

Without reality or context you simply can not accuse someone of hypocrisy.

 

:lol:

Are you a speech writer for Jacinda?

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

Like her or not, she makes the calls. She's the PM, she makes the rules, and you follow them.

Sounds familiar?

 

It does. Hitler, Stalin, Te Rauparaha.

Follow orders or have onefourtheteam dob you in to the authorities.

All thoughts are welcome as long as they follow the official thoughts of the day.

Nice work if you can get it.

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

You cant have hypocrisy without reality.

The reality defines the context, and the context defines the situation and whether or not hypocrisy exists.

Without reality or context you simply can not accuse someone of hypocrisy.

 

Well now, that's an interesting bit of sophistry unconnected to reality.

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

It does. Hitler, Stalin, Te Rauparaha.

Follow orders or have onefourtheteam dob you in to the authorities.

All thoughts are welcome as long as they follow the official thoughts of the day.

Nice work if you can get it.

Bahaha you really are a troll if you're comparing Jacinda to Hitler and Stalin lol

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

Bahaha you really are a troll if you're comparing Jacinda to Hitler and Stalin lol

You made the statement, I just answered your question.

There was a couple of hours in between though, so I must make allowance for your very short attention span. Maybe you should get checked out, it could be a sign of something serious.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The piece by James Farmer includes what I believe is a telling point to any attempt to ask where the Cup will be defended:

 

As to (1), the Flag Officers’ Statement is silent on the key issue of whether the decision as to the venue of the Defense is that of ETNZ or of RNZYS. The legal answer to that, in my opinion, is clear. RNZYS is the current Trustee for the Cup under the Deed of Gift by which it was bequeathed.

 

Farmer correctly asks a question the Flag Officer seems not to know is there for the asking: To whom does the Deed grant the authority to select a venue for a coming defense?  Such a selection would involve multiple sites, each in the defending club’s home waters.  This is the sort of quandary anticipated by the authors of the Deed.  By this reading, the process of selecting a site could not take in Cork or an arm of the sea in the Middle East and that process be open to resolution.  That is, should Emirates Team New Zealand take themselves to Cork, Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron is not obliged to recognize the outcome of racing there as a basis for bequeathing the Cup.

 

Practical considerations would intervene in time to prevent anyone from being surprised when RNZYS ignores the outcome of what only ETNZ and its acolytes call America’s Cup 37.  In contrast to Golden Gate Yacht Club’s extorted complicity, representatives of these competing yacht clubs will step in to assure the situation never deteriorates to such an end.  From Farmer’s piece:

 

Trustees cannot delegate their fiduciary obligations. Management functions, Yes. Fiduciary obligations, No.

 

Dalton acts and talks as though the authors of the Protocol are free to fill the blank they created in a Protocol that does not state where the agreed defense will be held.  He and the Flag Officer treat site selection as one of many management functions.  It is not.  As Farmer ably points that we may see it too, it is for the club that holds the Cup to say where among its various home waters they will defend the Cup.  The considerations Dalton would make predominant – cost, fiscal liability and reward – pertain to such a selection.  The fact a team, acting in representation of a yacht club, is obliged to be competitive and fiscally sound does not put the team where Dalton would have it.  ETNZ and INEOS Team UK are not in a position to tell RNZYS that conditions have changed from what they were when RNZYS took possession of the Cup.  Then, as now, a yacht club comes to possess the Cup by way of the effort of its representative team.  The effort called for here will take place at a site of the yacht club’s choosing.  Racing there is one of several conditions which, if met, resolve which yacht club is to hold the Cup next.  As such, selecting a home water is a fiduciary duty that falls uniquely to the defending yacht club.  Representation is not needed here and it is not permitted to a trustee.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So you're saying, Young shot himself in the foot by admitting RNZYS contracted out all aspects of the Defence to TNZ?

He should have said, "RNZYS has decided to Defend offshore, because we believe TNZ can raise a bigger war chest there? Would that make a difference?

 

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

What if there are more variants of concern before AC events?  Nah.  Just postpone and keep the trophy for a couple of decades.

History tells us something similar has happened before, Clew. ;-)

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

 

Practical considerations would intervene in time to prevent anyone from being surprised when RNZYS ignores the outcome of what only ETNZ and its acolytes call America’s Cup 37.  

I see. Enquiring minds wonder what others are calling it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the two positions James Farmer criticizes:

I (Farmer) have read the statement made by the Flag Officers as to why they oppose the Motion (Appendix One to the Notice of SGM). They come down to (1) The Squadron has delegated to ETNZ “all aspects of AC37 organization, management, and fundraising”, in return for full indemnification “from any liability, financial or otherwise”; (2) ETNZ, it is suggested though not confirmed categorically, cannot fund the defense in New Zealand and therefore offshore venues must be considered.

My interest here is in learning how the Flag Officers of Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron came to conclude that ETNZ “cannot fund the defense in New Zealand and therefore offshore venues must be considered.”  There is a direct approach to solving the fiscal problem ETNZ claims for itself.  Such an approach has RNZYS work with their chosen representative to pare back items ETNZ believes are essential to retaining the Cup.  Failing agreement here, RNYS has the discretion to choose a representative that has the capability to keep the Cup in New Zealand while working within a budget that is capped at the total amount of fiscal support New Zealanders and their government are willing to provide.  Farmer speaks to this amount in enough detail that he makes a persuasive case for saying the amount available in support to an AC37 defense in New Zealand exceeds what was spent in the previous round.

Farmers reply to alleged fiscal deficiencies that cannot be overcome has him treat Dalton’s protestations to RNZYS as if the deficiencies Dalton presents were a practical matter and so open to solution through budgeting.  I disagree.  The leadership of RNZYS accepts that they have no choice but to acquiesce in Dalton’s account of the current fiscal situation.  Leadership accepts this because their paramount desire is to retain the Cup.  What team is ETNZs better in this regard?

The imperative to consider offshore venues is no more a matter of funding a defense than was Golden Gate Yacht Club’s agreement to locate their clubs defense in Bermuda.  San Francisco would not agree to further support an event that left a deficit.  Bermuda was imprudent in that regard and, to the best of my knowledge, the country has not recovered financially.  Cork seems a likely candidate to step in where Bermuda languishes.

The practice of chasing the easiest dollar is common in promoting events spectators applaud, free of concern for fiscal responsibility.  Sport lends itself to such nonchalance.  Should the price of victory be better born by enthusiasts and hotel owners in Cork, well, that’s of no concern to New Zealanders.  Their concern seems to be, at least partly, one of prudence.  Public dollars in concert with private sources should be enough but not so much as to invite profligacy.  The discipline implied by this approach, and the accountability it demands, are anathema to the self-direction Dalton would exercise on behalf of ETNZ.  He’s prepared to spend what it takes to win.  RNZYS will have him spend New Zealander's and other people's dollars to this end.

Confronted with hard questions, Dalton would have RNZYS join him in looking for a Bermuda.  In the words of RNZYS’s First Officers, “... therefore offshore venues must be considered.”  Farmer tells us RNZYS cannot take this step without violating a legal bound that is inherent to a fiduciary duty.
 

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

Here are the two positions James Farmer criticizes:

I (Farmer) have read the statement made by the Flag Officers as to why they oppose the Motion (Appendix One to the Notice of SGM). They come down to (1) The Squadron has delegated to ETNZ “all aspects of AC37 organization, management, and fundraising”, in return for full indemnification “from any liability, financial or otherwise”; (2) ETNZ, it is suggested though not confirmed categorically, cannot fund the defense in New Zealand and therefore offshore venues must be considered.

My interest here is in learning how the Flag Officers of Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron came to conclude that ETNZ “cannot fund the defense in New Zealand and therefore offshore venues must be considered.”  There is a direct approach to solving the fiscal problem ETNZ claims for itself.  Such an approach has RNZYS work with their chosen representative to pare back items ETNZ believes are essential to retaining the Cup.  Failing agreement here, RNYS has the discretion to choose a representative that has the capability to keep the Cup in New Zealand while working within a budget that is capped at the total amount of fiscal support New Zealanders and their government are willing to provide.  Farmer speaks to this amount in enough detail that he makes a persuasive case for saying the amount available in support to an AC37 defense in New Zealand exceeds what was spent in the previous round.

Farmers reply to alleged fiscal deficiencies that cannot be overcome has him treat Dalton’s protestations to RNZYS as if the deficiencies Dalton presents were a practical matter and so open to solution through budgeting.  I disagree.  The leadership of RNZYS accepts that they have no choice but to acquiesce in Dalton’s account of the current fiscal situation.  Leadership accepts this because their paramount desire is to retain the Cup.  What team is ETNZs better in this regard?

The imperative to consider offshore venues is no more a matter of funding a defense than was Golden Gate Yacht Club’s agreement to locate their clubs defense in Bermuda.  San Francisco would not agree to further support an event that left a deficit.  Bermuda was imprudent in that regard and, to the best of my knowledge, the country has not recovered financially.  Cork seems a likely candidate to step in where Bermuda languishes.

The practice of chasing the easiest dollar is common in promoting events spectators applaud, free of concern for fiscal responsibility.  Sport lends itself to such nonchalance.  Should the price of victory be better born by enthusiasts and hotel owners in Cork, well, that’s of no concern to New Zealanders.  Their concern seems to be, at least partly, one of prudence.  Public dollars in concert with private sources should be enough but not so much as to invite profligacy.  The discipline implied by this approach, and the accountability it demands, are anathema to the self-direction Dalton would exercise on behalf of ETNZ.  He’s prepared to spend what it takes to win.  RNZYS will have him spend New Zealander's and other people's dollars to this end.

Confronted with hard questions, Dalton would have RNZYS join him in looking for a Bermuda.  In the words of RNZYS’s First Officers, “... therefore offshore venues must be considered.”  Farmer tells us RNZYS cannot take this step without violating a legal bound that is inherent to a fiduciary duty.
 

If I am any Cork government official that has to sign off on giving TNZ any amount of money I say no way.  This says San Fran lost money, Bermuda lost money, we know NZ lost money.  Valencia said they lost money. 

Who is the next elected idiot to agree to host this event?

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

If I am any Cork government official that has to sign off on giving TNZ any amount of money I say no way.  This says San Fran lost money, Bermuda lost money, we know NZ lost money.  Valencia said they lost money. 

Who is the next elected idiot to agree to host this event?

Many, if not all host venues lose money when hosting major sports events. Comes with the territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Chobani Sailor said:

If I am any Cork government official that has to sign off on giving TNZ any amount of money I say no way.  This says San Fran lost money, Bermuda lost money, we know NZ lost money.  Valencia said they lost money. 

Who is the next elected idiot to agree to host this event?

we get why KSA would pay for it - they are desperate for the PR. But Cork - although it looks a likely sailing venue - does seem a small city for the central government to throw tens of millions at. Idk much about Ireland - but venues with big chunks of the economy based on tourism (like SF for example) bowed out. so, as you say, who will choose to ignore history and boldly step forward to repeat it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2021 at 4:53 PM, enigmatically2 said:

Hence my suggestion of a loophole if someone really wanted to play the game. Don't enter. Then a "completely new and unrelated team that happens to have the same personnel and sponsors" enters, the old one sells the data it collected.

I doubt it would happen in that form, but this is the AC, we know there will be some dirty work. Not sure how you audit that no-one does any tank testing anyway

@Stingray~'s post over in the LRPP thread would suggest you may have nailed it with this suggestion:

Patrizio Bertelli sells to Prada Luna Rossa Challange, the company that owns the Luna Rossa sailing team.

While the Luna Rossa brand was already owned by Prada, the sailing team was held by Pa Be 1 srl, a company controlled by Patrizio Bertelli, president of Luna Rossa

This is surely nothing more than legal wrangling's to bypass some parts of the new protocol? I don't have the mental capacity right now to figure out which parts, but I like it..... 

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

I don't have the mental capacity right now to figure out which parts, but I like it..... 

Neither do I, at 21.00 after a long and busy day, but my take is that it is not related to what Enematic and you are thinking. More like intercompany accounting and tax related, just guessing really.

Was proven right today, that something fishy had been going on for a year, with Immigration here. Nothing to do with the AC, but I'm a happy poster.

 

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

Neither do I, at 21.00 after a long and busy day, but my take is that it is not related to what Enematic and you are thinking. More like intercompany accounting and tax related, just guessing really.

Was proven right today, that something fishy had been going on for a year, with Immigration here. Nothing to do with the AC, but I'm a happy poster.

 

FWIW I think that was more tax related too. Though it did make me wonder and I wouldn't rule it out

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2021 at 11:15 PM, scassani said:

The practice of chasing the easiest dollar is common in promoting events spectators applaud, free of concern for fiscal responsibility.  

"Fiscal" means related to tax. You mean "financial".

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

 But Cork - although it looks a likely sailing venue - does seem a small city for the central government to throw tens of millions at. 

AFAIK Cork and islands in the Harbour still have  a lot of decaying waterfront left over from the days of the Royal Navy and the period transatlantic steamers stopped-over there. An opportunity therefore to fix some of it up, tied into a revenue-generating event and not as random as you seem to believe. Would I be supporting it if I was an Irish taxpayer? Probably not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, floater said:

we get why KSA would pay for it - they are desperate for the PR. But Cork - although it looks a likely sailing venue - does seem a small city for the central government to throw tens of millions at. Idk much about Ireland - but venues with big chunks of the economy based on tourism (like SF for example) bowed out. so, as you say, who will choose to ignore history and boldly step forward to repeat it?

Cork = 2nd largest "city" in Ireland.

 

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

AFAIK Cork and islands in the Harbour still have  a lot of decaying waterfront left over from the days of the Royal Navy and the period transatlantic steamers stopped-over there. An opportunity therefore to fix some of it up, tied into a revenue-generating event and not as random as you seem to believe. Would I be supporting it if I was an Irish taxpayer? Probably not.

Good info. and as a point of parallel interest, there are at least three locations in SF Bay that fit this pattern as well: Treasure Island (which at one point in time berthed a small fleet of Cup boats). Richmond, and Alameda also have decaying old waterfronts that could use a boost. For that matter, so does SF proper. But the fact that the SF city council rejected Larry meant he felt free to forgo home waters. 

(please excuse my rant here..) But what has freed GD from his obligation to home waters? Larry doing it first?

6 hours ago, shebeen said:

Cork = 2nd largest "city" in Ireland.

Didn't know. thanks. Given teams seem to be signing up for this fiasco - it does smell like some Irish tea is brewing..

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

Cork = 2nd largest "city" in Ireland.

 

Ranking of size is a red herring. Actual size is what matters. Cork is smaller than Wellington - NZ's third largest city. It would be unusual for the economics to add up, but stranger things have happened.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Ranking of size is a red herring. Actual size is what matters. Cork is smaller than Wellington - NZ's third largest city. It would be unusual for the economics to add up, but stranger things have happened.

Am trying to remain open-minded about Cork but on the 'size' thing? I keep mentioning how Auckland already has the newly-built, perfect infrastructure for AC37 and perhaps beyond but (given Dog's recent mention about tight accoms in Cork) it also strikes me that, even within a short distance of the Viaduct there are some really nice hotels, the likes of which (or the space anyway) that Cork could only dream of! Auckland is simply major-league by comparison in that sense too.

Cork is a quicker flight for me (something I value, because flying is so boring and uncomfortable) and it's obviously easier for a LOT of people, especially Europeans. But if there is a SY regatta etc then.. Where the hell does everyone sleep at night? Cork looks ancient (cool) but really tight. 

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

given Dog's recent mention about tight accoms in Cork) 

Understandable confusion there. The Royal Cork YC and Cork Week are based at Crosshaven, which is a village/small town just inside Cork Harbour. The city of Cork is several miles away. If you wanted a crew house for Cork Week, you’d want it in Crosshaven. However on an AC scale, I suspect accomodation in Cork itself would also be in short supply.

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

Understandable confusion there. The Royal Cork YC and Cork Week are based at Crosshaven, which is a village/small town just inside Cork Harbour. The city of Cork is several miles away. If you wanted a crew house for Cork Week, you’d want it in Crosshaven. However on an AC scale, I suspect accomodation in Cork itself would also be in short supply.

Thanks.

There's a good chance we are all going to get more intimately familiar with time, nice start.

An old-time coastal pub with tap-poured Guiness and a view out to that race course would be pretty cool for when not out there bouncing around.

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

Understandable confusion there. The Royal Cork YC and Cork Week are based at Crosshaven, which is a village/small town just inside Cork Harbour. The city of Cork is several miles away. If you wanted a crew house for Cork Week, you’d want it in Crosshaven. However on an AC scale, I suspect accomodation in Cork itself would also be in short supply.

https://www.airbnb.co.za/rooms/17921709?location=Crosshaven%2C Cork&federated_search_id=72bffec6-0960-4dad-8bb8-156222f6920c&source_impression_id=p3_1638517483_zkRxoElIo8u3QjKO&guests=1&adults=1

 

looks a bit fancy for my crew. 

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

Thanks was curious about ABnB prices there too.

That link shows up in ZAR when I click, so divide by about 16, the rate I got when sending $US to ZAR earlier today. So, around $1700 / night. Dang..

R26,966 / night
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Thanks was curious about ABnB prices there too.

That link shows up in ZAR, divide by about 16 (the rate I got when sending earlier today) for USD$. 

R26,966 / night
 

thought it would default to your own location as it wouldn't let me .com it. that's about 8 times our monthly minimum wage per night.

 

 

my wife spent 18 months down the road in Kinsale chasing yachties, She speaks about that time highly, maybe I can swallow pride and score a freebie

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

thought it would default to your own location as it wouldn't let me .com it. that's about 8 times our monthly minimum wage per night.

 

 

my wife spent 18 months down the road in Kinsale chasing yachties, She speaks about that time highly, maybe I can swallow pride and score a freebie

I looked up several ABnB spots recently on the Garden Route, perhaps that is why the link came up by default in R's. Anyway, very pricey! That place, anyway..

Smart thing for us all might be to rent something bigger. With a bar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites