Does anyone here support Coutts?

[PeterHuston]

Is there anyone in this forum that still supports Russell Coutts and his idea of how to run the America's Cup?

Does anyone have an ear to the ground to know if Ainslie and ETNZ really support him?

 

[Finnfart]

I support RC insofar as he is a brilliant sailor, and actually a pretty good manager. Running the operation OR put on last time is not trivial.

That being said, I believe a good manager knows how to change course when things are shown to not work. The ability to change one's mind is proof that the brain works.

So... I don't like what I see right now. If they dig in their heels, I will not support their strategy.

But the keys: I don't know who is really calling the shots. Is Larry or RC the final word? If Larry, then RC is just an implementer. Is SF off the table for reasons outside their control, but that we don't know and can't know due to NDA? In general, Is there info that I don't know that they do? Usually there is, and this is the main reason I choose to focus on depersonalizing and emphasizing that I don't support the strategy as I know it instead of the person.

Second question: I can't imagine anyone wanting to go to either Bermuda or DAGO over SF if commercial viability is their interest... not to mention sailing. You just have to drive the business side properly. Its hard work, but easy work in lesser venues is unlikely to reward anybody.

Finally: Question for you. A few weeks back you presciently suggested that HIYC was going to drop out. What led you to believe that? A little birdie or inference or what?

 

[PeterHuston]

I support RC insofar as he is a brilliant sailor, and actually a pretty good manager. Running the operation OR put on last time is not trivial.

That being said, I believe a good manager knows how to change course when things are shown to not work. The ability to change one's mind is proof that the brain works.

So... I don't like what I see right now. If they dig in their heels, I will not support their strategy.

But the keys: I don't know who is really calling the shots. Is Larry or RC the final word? If Larry, then RC is just an implementer. Is SF off the table for reasons outside their control, but that we don't know and can't know due to NDA? In general, Is there info that I don't know that they do? Usually there is, and this is the main reason I choose to focus on depersonalizing and emphasizing that I don't support the strategy as I know it instead of the person.

Second question: I can't imagine anyone wanting to go to either Bermuda or DAGO over SF if commercial viability is their interest... not to mention sailing. You just have to drive the business side properly. Its hard work, but easy work in lesser venues is unlikely to reward anybody.

Finally: Question for you. A few weeks back you presciently suggested that HIYC was going to drop out. What led you to believe that? A little birdie or inference or what?

I agree with all you say. I've only spent a bit of time with Russell, he wouldn't know me today if I hit him over the head with a 2 x 4. For sure I respect his sailing talent in all respects.

But we've seen this movie twice. AC 34 was without question the single biggest sports marketing startup failure in the history of man. The situation today is much the same, lots of ideas, but no clear plans. The notion that a team is going to spend $1 million to enter, without even knowing when and where is absurd.

As to whether or not it is Russell or Larry calling the shots, hard to really know. I know a guy, very well, who was a senior C-suite guy at Oracle long before Oracle Racing was ever even contemplated. From him, I got a pretty good insight into the way Larry thinks. He's got a different time horizon than most, and lives very much in the future. My friend had a lot of complementary things to say about how Larry can judge a market in the future.

So...based on that, I have a very hard time believing Larry is driving this bus. My guess, he gave Russell a budget and said "here's some money, you figure out the rest". It's like the whole land deal in AC 34, from what I understand, contrary to the comments by some in this forum, Larry had nothing to do with the Piers. That was a couple of people trying to play Real Estate developer with Larry's money. In end Larry said "no mas" and walked, as we know.

But it's hard to cut Russell any slack here. He's making the sport look stupid.

As for how did I know about HIYC....lets just say I've been around this block a couple of times, I hear a lot from a lot of different people who are well placed and I can read the tea leaves fairly well. It was more judging a trend then anything.

It's like this one. Russell seems to think he has 90 days to sort out the Challenger of Record. What if all four of these guys dig in their heels and never cough up the entry fee?

This is all just sad to watch. The sport deserves better.

Bottom line, I am of the opinion that this is all Russell's doing. I think Larry has so much going on in his life that the AC just isn't a day to day priority. Maybe when Aug 8 comes he'll look at the entry list and make some decisions to change this, for the better. After all, I think the guy really wants to go race again.

 

[Finnfart]

Now that we are getting to philosophy, I'll throw a dagger at it too.

First question that comes our way is why were there so many challengers in the old mono days? And how was that parlayed into something closer to being commercially viable.. despite what Rita might say about that today?

I think the main reason the old AC had so many participants was not the "TV and marketing appeal" of the product. The general public watching IACC boats race was a VERY short lived channel switch for curiosity. If this were the case, the AC72 racing would have drawn equal or more participants. After all, the campaigns ended up costing similar amounts of money.

The difference I think is that old IACC racing was a natural evolution of the passion and hobby of super rich yacht racers taking their passion the 'next level'. In fact... that is what got Larry in the game. From Lido 14 to bigger boats, to ocean racers, to AC. He was able to race and be on board for all of this, and have it feed his competitive bug. Even in the AC, he could be onboard if he chose... even if it was just as a passenger. This is the way that the AC was able to skim the richest most competitive folks from all the different circuits: SORC, TP52, Big Boat Series, Sydney Hobart, etc. The AC was the 'big leagues' to all existent events, and the rich and competitive naturally wanted to move up.

The multihull AC breaks with this feeder system. Sailors naturally are happy to move up to the foiling cats. Who wouldn't? Money AND fun!!! But the owners not so much. For them it is Money Out, and no direct fun with the added disadvantage that their competitive edge from their previous sailing successes is not transferable at all.

So there is a now much smaller pool of folks that are willing to underwrite the game - those that can make a commercial or marketing go of it. These folk are clearly much rarer, and they are also much more demanding in terms of the commercial terms of the proposition.

I think it is this fundamental change, that hasn't been fully incorporated into the defender's thinking and it is killing the event.

That being said, I sympathize that they have been painted into a bit of a corner by technology, the DOG and the Facebook generation. They can't go back to IACC because nobody would watch having seen the Tri and the AC72s. The DOG forces them to use the fastest boat possible or they will be vulnerable to a challenge, and finally attention span of the audience. They just can't offer a slow product.

What does this leave them with? A tough business where they need to face the challenges that their product requires. That means realism and hard work in getting the right venue consistent with the product. In this case it means SF. It means respect as much of the tradition of the event as possible as this is a key leg to marketing the event. It means announcing things on reasonable schedules so people can do their planning. It means losing the "the AC is special so the world has to adapt" attitude at the door.

This is all necessary because if this is commercial, it has to be run like a serious business. In the old days, this might have been OK because the uber rich were happy to play at a leisurely pace. It was Play.

Not so in today's AC..

 

[nav]

Mr. Bowman: "The reality is that there is no way to imagine actually making any money ever winning the America's Cup"

The Court: " That's my understanding, too. It's a losing proposition all around"

Those TUSA boys, they're lying for sure in one forum or the other

 

[YvesKlein]

Is there anyone in this forum that still supports Russell Coutts and his idea of how to run the America's Cup?

Does anyone have an ear to the ground to know if Ainslie and ETNZ really support him?

I'm sure that Rasputin of the America's Cup, Tom Ehman, knows. Let's ask him.

 

[Raz'r]

I'm clearly in the "can't give a shit" camp.

I would like the next one to be in SF, with many challengers, but I'll also watch a match in Bermuda (on the tele of course)

 

[NoStrings]

IMHO he's a very good sailor, probably a half decent engineer, and an abysmal failure as a project manager. Grant Simmer OTOH, is a pretty damn good PM.

 

[MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS]

new


America’s Cup: A more humble approach is needed

Published on July 23, 2014 |

Force10 Marketing President Scott Macleod has over 20 years experience within the global sports and entertainment arena, which has included the launch of the World Match Racing Tour (2000-09) and involvement in the America’s Cup since 1992. With the current holders of the America’s Cup seeking to create a commercially “sustainable” event, Scott is not optimistic that the current path will succeed. Here he explains…

The 2007 America’s Cup in Valencia, Spain delivered the most commercially viable event in the history of the Cup:

- 60M euro profit distributed to the teams ­ yes, a profit!
- 11 Challengers
- 9 Countries

This was not that long ago, and the 2007 numbers carried on from the 2000 and 2003 America’s Cup in New Zealand, which showed sponsors a positive upward trend in the ‘commercial’ development of the event.

Unfortunately, the wholesale changes that were instituted for the 2013 event have not shown a significant change to make the commercial ‘product’ better. The current model has, and will continue to, deliver less teams which equals less commerce.

The math is actually pretty simple:
Less Teams = Less Countries = Less Broadcasters = Less Exposure = Less Sponsors Interest = Less Commercial Return.

So how do we get more teams to compete?
- Lower the cost significantly
- Use a platform type that is available and used by a wider group (owners, sailors, designers, builders, etc.)

While the technology and cool factor of the AC72 foiling cats was impressive, it didn’t deliver a significant boost in the audience numbers to justify 1/3 of the teams competing in the last event. And for this current cycle, it once again is showing less interest in teams competing in AC62′s.

If the goal is to create a commercially sustainable event, the math points to monohulls. If the America’s Cup announced that the event was to be held in TP52′s tomorrow, you’d have ten challenges in a heartbeat!

The current plan is too full of contradictory elements. The boat type is a hindrance to attracting challengers, yet its coolness has convinced organizers that it will attract viewers. And organizers only want four quality challengers to provide close competition, yet this limits the audience pool from which to attract viewers.

The sweeping changes so as to sell a ‘sexy’ event appear doomed. The market reality is that the America’s Cup is a tier 2/3 niche sport at best. Our current audience is small but highly wealthy, exclusive, passionate and global. We must speak to our core fan first (the “Flintstones”) before trying to attract new fans.

If the organizers become more humble in their approach, and build the ‘product’ reputation by delivering consistency, there is a chance of doing more good than harm. Currently, I worry that the later is being done.

 

[~Stingray~~]

RC has an AC35 arrangement that in some ways has the potential to top AC34 by a good margin, given how strong the top potential Challengers are.

Team AUS was not ever going to be in the thick of it anyway; their withdrawal is no real indictment of the vision and of its still-very-likely fruition. Every big team has simply snuffed it off as 'disappointing.. but we're betting big regardless.'

 

[~HHN92~]

Now that we are getting to philosophy, I'll throw a dagger at it too.

First question that comes our way is why were there so many challengers in the old mono days? And how was that parlayed into something closer to being commercially viable.. despite what Rita might say about that today?

I think the main reason the old AC had so many participants was not the "TV and marketing appeal" of the product. The general public watching IACC boats race was a VERY short lived channel switch for curiosity. If this were the case, the AC72 racing would have drawn equal or more participants. After all, the campaigns ended up costing similar amounts of money.

The difference I think is that old IACC racing was a natural evolution of the passion and hobby of super rich yacht racers taking their passion the 'next level'. In fact... that is what got Larry in the game. From Lido 14 to bigger boats, to ocean racers, to AC. He was able to race and be on board for all of this, and have it feed his competitive bug. Even in the AC, he could be onboard if he chose... even if it was just as a passenger. This is the way that the AC was able to skim the richest most competitive folks from all the different circuits: SORC, TP52, Big Boat Series, Sydney Hobart, etc. The AC was the 'big leagues' to all existent events, and the rich and competitive naturally wanted to move up.

The multihull AC breaks with this feeder system. Sailors naturally are happy to move up to the foiling cats. Who wouldn't? Money AND fun!!! But the owners not so much. For them it is Money Out, and no direct fun with the added disadvantage that their competitive edge from their previous sailing successes is not transferable at all.

So there is a now much smaller pool of folks that are willing to underwrite the game - those that can make a commercial or marketing go of it. These folk are clearly much rarer, and they are also much more demanding in terms of the commercial terms of the proposition.

I think it is this fundamental change, that hasn't been fully incorporated into the defender's thinking and it is killing the event.

That being said, I sympathize that they have been painted into a bit of a corner by technology, the DOG and the Facebook generation. They can't go back to IACC because nobody would watch having seen the Tri and the AC72s. The DOG forces them to use the fastest boat possible or they will be vulnerable to a challenge, and finally attention span of the audience. They just can't offer a slow product.

What does this leave them with? A tough business where they need to face the challenges that their product requires. That means realism and hard work in getting the right venue consistent with the product. In this case it means SF. It means respect as much of the tradition of the event as possible as this is a key leg to marketing the event. It means announcing things on reasonable schedules so people can do their planning. It means losing the "the AC is special so the world has to adapt" attitude at the door.

This is all necessary because if this is commercial, it has to be run like a serious business. In the old days, this might have been OK because the uber rich were happy to play at a leisurely pace. It was Play.

Not so in today's AC..

I agree enough with this that I wish I had written it. It follows much of how I felt coming out of 33, go to the IACC's at least one more time to get all the players back in the game with a quick turn-around, then with the ability to make a more well-rounded decision on the next boat type. (which it appears the players wanted to discuss) This would have been a quick way to get things back on track.

But, no use crying over spilled milk................................

Maybe.

 

[~Stingray~~]

I loved the move to AC72s and the progression into foiling, and fully expect the AC62 Class to be even better racers. Yes the owners can't earn a spot during the serious races but it's absolutely stretching Design to new, ahem, 3D heights.

But again: RC, LE, Mayor Lee, whoever all, should have struck a deal for a SF repeat in the ~immediate~ aftermath of AC34. That situation was hot. That has been the one biggest mistake, but it's apparently too late now with the calls by Challs to name a venue sooner rather than later. SF would take forever again.

The best hope is that the AC62s will be lit up in even SD Bay winds.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

RC is a fanstastic sailor and his vision so far ahead that most teams can't follow.

But how seriously HIYC accept such a protocol with no venue, no real agenda, archimedian AC45, two venues in two different hemisphere.

How can you ask millions to a sponsor being clueless about the future ? Total nonsense and stupidity.

But do we have blame Coutts or the Oatleys ?

 

[MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS]

RC is a fanstastic sailor and his vision so far ahead that most teams can't follow.

But how seriously HIYC accept such a protocol with no venue, no real agenda, archimedian AC45, two venues in two different hemisphere.

How can you ask millions to a sponsor being clueless about the future ? Total nonsense and stupidity.

But do we have blame Coutts or the Oatleys ?

good question - TC

you know the answer -

ggyc has all the blame and liabilities -

all their crooked bs and hire a scapegoat corps-ie acea and coutts etc is not the ones really responsible

ggyc is the purported offender / defender yc

ahole 2 - soiler aka sheep whisperer will be posting his expert comments on this shortly -

with ahole 1 spinray doing follow up with his usual '' thats what is I was thinking '' bs like he is all knowing -

:lol:

 

[PeterHuston]

new


America’s Cup: A more humble approach is needed

Published on July 23, 2014 |

Force10 Marketing President Scott Macleod has over 20 years experience within the global sports and entertainment arena, which has included the launch of the World Match Racing Tour (2000-09) and involvement in the America’s Cup since 1992. With the current holders of the America’s Cup seeking to create a commercially “sustainable” event, Scott is not optimistic that the current path will succeed. Here he explains…

The 2007 America’s Cup in Valencia, Spain delivered the most commercially viable event in the history of the Cup:

- 60M euro profit distributed to the teams ­ yes, a profit!
- 11 Challengers
- 9 Countries

This was not that long ago, and the 2007 numbers carried on from the 2000 and 2003 America’s Cup in New Zealand, which showed sponsors a positive upward trend in the ‘commercial’ development of the event.

Unfortunately, the wholesale changes that were instituted for the 2013 event have not shown a significant change to make the commercial ‘product’ better. The current model has, and will continue to, deliver less teams which equals less commerce.

The math is actually pretty simple:
Less Teams = Less Countries = Less Broadcasters = Less Exposure = Less Sponsors Interest = Less Commercial Return.

So how do we get more teams to compete?
- Lower the cost significantly
- Use a platform type that is available and used by a wider group (owners, sailors, designers, builders, etc.)

While the technology and cool factor of the AC72 foiling cats was impressive, it didn’t deliver a significant boost in the audience numbers to justify 1/3 of the teams competing in the last event. And for this current cycle, it once again is showing less interest in teams competing in AC62′s.

If the goal is to create a commercially sustainable event, the math points to monohulls. If the America’s Cup announced that the event was to be held in TP52′s tomorrow, you’d have ten challenges in a heartbeat!

The current plan is too full of contradictory elements. The boat type is a hindrance to attracting challengers, yet its coolness has convinced organizers that it will attract viewers. And organizers only want four quality challengers to provide close competition, yet this limits the audience pool from which to attract viewers.

The sweeping changes so as to sell a ‘sexy’ event appear doomed. The market reality is that the America’s Cup is a tier 2/3 niche sport at best. Our current audience is small but highly wealthy, exclusive, passionate and global. We must speak to our core fan first (the “Flintstones”) before trying to attract new fans.

If the organizers become more humble in their approach, and build the ‘product’ reputation by delivering consistency, there is a chance of doing more good than harm. Currently, I worry that the later is being done.

This from Scott MacLoed is more significant than many may know. If you don't know, he is the guy who ran (and still might, I don't keep track any more) the Bermuda Gold Cup. So for him to come out and speak against Coutts is huge.

 

[~HHN92~]

^^ The TP52's should have died on the vine after Audi pulled its support for the MedCup. It was the best produced and broadcast sailing other than AC and LV Series racing. But, they have worked hard to keep it going and even had new boats built. In spite of all the AC related teams and crew leaving to go multi-hull sailing.

So being so 'un-sexy' in the modern age, along with the RC44's, how can these guys hang in there? I wish the Congressional Cup could get better video work as that racing gets as exciting as anything at times, racing right up to where the pier is an obstruction in most starts and you only see the top of the rigs.

 

[lazybone]

What does MacLeod mean by, "Use a platform type that is used by and available to a wider group, (owners, sailors, designers, builders, etc."

Sounds like he's suggesting something completely cheap, pedestrian and boring.

You might get a bunch of low level teams to enter but who would give a fuck?

That's not special. Its not the AC.

 

[PeterHuston]

What does MacLeod mean by, "Use a platform type that is used by and available to a wider group, (owners, sailors, designers, builders, etc."

Sounds like he's suggesting something completely cheap, pedestrian and boring.

You might get a bunch of low level teams to enter but who would give a fuck?

That's not special. Its not the AC.

I agree. Maybe if we had 50 foot foiling moths with 6 guys on traps it would be amusing, but old slow mono slugs? Nope.

But the fact that Scott is speaking out against Russell's plan at all is huge. Scott has done a ton of business in Bermuda sailing, and he basically just told them they are going to get screwed. There is no question Scott knows the Bermuda sailing sponsorship market better than anyone. He's had his finger on the pulse of sponsorship in sailing on a global level for a very long time. Part of what he is saying is he knows what would appeal to sponsors and at what price.

The AC is a game for really rich guys who can have some of their costs offset by sponsors. No one is getting to the starting line based only on corporate sponsorship. There has to be a sugar daddy (or sugar government) somewhere to prime the pump initially.

 

[bwana]

The word in SF political circles is that RC/LE asked the city for rent-free facilities, $5 million cash, and an exemption from the prevailing wage ordinance.

This town is booming. Rents are increasing at double-digit rates as are evictions. The resentment towards the techies -- with their luxury shuttle busses and 'sharing economy' lawlessness and arrogance -- is palpable. The average price of a house topped a million bucks last month. Middle-class working families are really anxious about the continued ability to live here. There's a raging debate about hiking the minimum wage. And the projected/promoted economic benefits for the last go-round came in at a fraction of the total.

So for OTUSA to set such an absurd ante evidences a disconnect, a political tone-deafness that was simply draw-dropping.

But at least they're consistent. For them, reality is such a distration.