Alinghi Challenge AC37

[Rennmaus]

@Rennmausexcept they have signed an agreement with Ineos/RYS that it will be in AC75s. Can't see why they would allow it to be in oppies.

RNZY and GD could defend in AKL in either of their existing boats though. Spend what money they have on foils and sails. Probably not even much of a handicap

Right, T(NZ) even has a boat. 

 

[dogwatch]

By ‘lofty goals’ I was suggesting that GD and whoever else any ‘brain trust’ at ETNZ thinking they can grow the event, rather than maintain the status quo at best, 

I see no particular signs of that. Usually by this point in the cycle there are multiple wannabes talking themselves up. Not much this time.

 

[Forourselves]

View attachment 468279

Not this again... there was nothing gracious about 2003.

 

[Forourselves]

Club and country that won the Cup may not be able to defend successfully or set-up a money making machine (haha), but they are able to defend. RNZYS could write a class rule/protocol that mandates 44ft Opties or whatever cheap boat can be built in country, make it a 1:1 match without a CSS, TV, regatta village etc., get any sailor on board (not the ones asking for horrendous salaries), and all you need in addition are a couple of buoys, some officials (RNZYS should have them) and off you go.
Even S+S could do this.

Its not 1851 anymore.

 

[Stingray~]

I see no particular signs of that. Usually by this point in the cycle there are multiple wannabes talking themselves up. Not much this time.

True. But they did try to run events in Cagliari and elsewhere in Europe last time and so ‘visibility’ may be on their agenda for eyeballs and sponsorship - moreso than for the 3 or 4 possible $B backed Challengers who may put the selling of AC37 much farther down the list of priorities. The AM and Ineos boats being still in AUK could be a good guess at the waters in which they are aiming to Challenge. 
 

Even before AC36 GD was reaching out to that Olympic place in Russia and to some other venues but ended up back in-country. 

 

[rh3000]

For said "especially here" look up definitions. Dictionary says specially is synonymous. Did say NZ was special.

But NZ is special, specifically in that it is one of the few remaining countries still on an elimination strategy - this impacts AC37.

Wierd flex on healthcare btw...

 

[Rennmaus]

Its not 1851 anymore.

And?

 

[Stingray~]

^ GD’s efforts to exclude AUK have not ever included COVID reasons except for when saying that the NZ money was ‘understandable’ and ( of course) therefore ‘too low.’ He does not want to Defend in NZ, it’s been made blatantly obvious by GD that it’s all about as much money as can be made, a ‘business.’

SailGP is in that long-term goal too but on a much smaller scale, arguably more efficient too. 
 

 

[Rennmaus]

^ GD’s efforts to exclude AUK have not ever included COVID reasons except for when saying that the NZ money was ‘understandable’ and ( of course) therefore ‘too low.’ He does not want to Defend in NZ, it’s been made blatantly obvious by GD that it’s all about as much money as can be made, a ‘business.’

SailGP is in that long-term goal too but on a much smaller scale, arguably more efficient too. 
 

Plus, SGP has never played the "home club brings Cup home" card.

SGP is a lot more honest than the GD/RNZYS AC edition.

 

[Stingray~]

Plus, SGP has never played the "home club brings Cup home" card.

SGP is a lot more honest than the GD/RNZYS AC edition.

Agree, in many respects.

Something I love a lot about SGP is how the ultimate ‘Race for A Million Dollars’ finale will be in the wind machine that is SF Bay. I wish the AC72 beasts were evolving and still racing there; despite that lopsided billiards table up in the Marina District bar the racing was awesome!  

 

[NeedAClew]

But NZ is special, specifically in that it is one of the few remaining countries still on an elimination strategy - this impacts AC37.

Wierd flex on healthcare btw...

It was implied that the chaos was more special than elsewhere. Perils of trying not to quote For. Special as in more meaningful? Urm.

 

[NeedAClew]

Plus, SGP has never played the "home club brings Cup home" card.

SGP is a lot more honest than the GD/RNZYS AC edition.

I agree. Blows my mind thinking of pre AC37 but yes. Yes it is. 

And despite his deplorable financial support for rwnj politicians Larry did good by making his Indian Wells tournament vax only, revenue be dammned. 

 

[rh3000]

It was implied that the chaos was more special than elsewhere. Perils of trying not to quote For. Special as in more meaningful? Urm.

I didn't see that... Just NZ is more chaotic ATM in terms of instability around event planning than other candidates.

 

[Gissie]

Compared to the two cycles of cats we got boats that looked different, foils that were visibly different from a distance, and boats that could sail angles never before seen on a hulled craft. The crew space was well enclosed and safer by all accounts from the sailors than the cats.

They are super expensive, but I think tnz's money problems come primarily because of their naming sponsor sinking in the mud along with every airline. And most businesses in NZ at the moment.

The Covid strategy was a delay and learn game, the delay is over, we'll see if the education helps with the final carnage count but now is the time when we pay the piper.

Wasn't there a story/rumor going around that Emirates was staying as naming partner, but there were missed contractual target, so no cash being supplied.

This would explain the need to have the venue front up with team costs as well as event costs. No one would sponsor the team if they still get to play second fiddle to Emirates, who put up nothing.

As for time to pay the piper, if only there was some indication there was at least a song sheet to follow.

 

[Jethrow]

The Deed says something about how you can’t challenge using the same yacht again. Presumably that clause pertains only to only yachts (since CSS series’ began in ‘70) that raced for the Match. It may not matter to today but just to throw it out there: 

How much if any modification would an (example) Prada Luna Rossa have to undergo to be a ‘different’ Challenger?

I don't have time to look it, up so make of that what you will, however it was said in another thread somewhere that it was only the loosing boat from the match that is barred by the deed of gift from sailing in the next match, so only applies to Luna Rossa.

My guess would be that since the deed didn't foresee hulls being cut up and partially modified then in the case of the deed it has to be a 100% new hull.

 

[pusslicker]

Wasn't there a story/rumor going around that Emirates was staying as naming partner, but there were missed contractual target, so no cash being supplied.

This would explain the need to have the venue front up with team costs as well as event costs. No one would sponsor the team if they still get to play second fiddle to Emirates, who put up nothing.

As for time to pay the piper, if only there was some indication there was at least a song sheet to follow.

Won't we find out at the end of the year? Presumably the E will be coming off the TNZ then. GD always pulls out the poor me card, but this time it seems real. 

 

[Gissie]

Won't we find out at the end of the year? Presumably the E will be coming off the TNZ then. GD always pulls out the poor me card, but this time it seems real. 

Agree that there are real money problems this time.

The fact the E is still there, yet there are major money problems would indicate there are some contractual issues. Firstly, if Emirates is out, why would the sponsorship not have been designed to finish at the end of the racing? Why would you agree to a further year.

Secondly, all the fund raising appears to be focused on a venue fronting up with all the money. Funding both team and event. Surely, if you are looking for a new big sponsor, you would want a venue as soon as possible. Offering a set place and date would surely be a good thing.

So, as there is not much going on, plus facts are not always necessary here, is this the real problem.

Emirates had performance clauses that, most likely due to covid, were not filled. Therefore they get to keep prime billing, without fronting cash. Unless they volunteer to step aside there is no way a new sponsor will front the millions to have a small logo on the sail. This forces T(NZ) to try and auction the cup off in a futile attempt to raise sufficient funds to keep the most expensive version of the cup imaginable running.

As a further step, is this the reason B&T haven't signed as yet. They would prefer to not be involved if the money fails to materialise and it turns into a farce and are prepared to find a reason to step away.

Or not of course. Only time will let us possibly peak behind the curtain.

 

[accnick]

I don't have time to look it, up so make of that what you will, however it was said in another thread somewhere that it was only the loosing boat from the match that is barred by the deed of gift from sailing in the next match, so only applies to Luna Rossa.

My guess would be that since the deed didn't foresee hulls being cut up and partially modified then in the case of the deed it has to be a 100% new hull.

Here is the wording from the Deed:

"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 Deed doesn't say when a "vessel" is considered to be a new vessel. Generally, the Protocol for each Cup sets limits on the number of hulls that can be built by a team, as well as limits on the amount of permitted modification. Traditionally, if modifications to a hull exceed the Protocol-defined limits, that hull is considered to be a new hull. 

To the best of my knowledge, that has never been litigated. Generally, teams are trying to stay within the modification limits to avoid being classed as having a "new" hull.

Because two years are likely to have passed since the defeat of LR boat 2 before  the first match of the next Cup, they could select to use that boat without modification in the next Match if they wanted to.

 

[rh3000]

Wasn't there a story/rumor going around that Emirates was staying as naming partner, but there were missed contractual target, so no cash being supplied.

Nope, not a sausage.

This is a text book example of myth propogating and stingese whispers giving it legs until it becomes lore amongst the uninformed, a bit like ivermectin...

 

[Gissie]

Nope, not a sausage.

This is a text book example of myth propogating and stingese whispers giving it legs until it becomes lore amongst the uninformed, a bit like ivermectin...

Fair enough. So can you come up with a sensible explanation for Emirates staying as lead sponsor, yet the team has no money.

Bnottrying to throw shit, but hard to see how Emirates could keep the spot and turn off the cash flow at the same time. If there was no contractual reason they would have been kicked to the kerb by now. Plus Dalts would have been schmoozing other big name sponsors. Instead he is trying to squeeze a venue to pay for everything.