Emirates Team New Zealand.

[Salty Seacock]

It's a bargaining ploy that he had used before. I would expect the government to fold like a $2 deck chair.

Cindy is a bitch and after the four fingers incident where Dalts wanted to ram his dirty dick-skinners up her cooter, she'll most likely be permanently on the blob when it comes to the team. She's fucked anyway and will be out next time and the Greens will be in. 

Politicians are all faggots. 

 

[Sailbydate]

I wonder if Grant Dalton will even wait the 90 Days for the NZ Government to make a Decision if he sees a stalemale coming and no progress being made.

The way our Government is embracing quantitative easing (printing dollars and selling Govt. Bonds) what's another couple of hundred million? Let them at it.

 

[Sailbydate]

Cindy is a bitch and after the four fingers incident where Dalts wanted to ram his dirty dick-skinners up her cooter, she'll most likely be permanently on the blob when it comes to the team. She's fucked anyway and will be out next time and the Greens will be in. 

Politicians are all faggots. 

The Greens? They're only the fourth biggest party in Parliament. Pigs will sprout foils first.

 

[jaysper]

The Greens? They're only the fourth biggest party in Parliament. Pigs will sprout foils first.

Salty smells a lot like TRG doesn't he?

 

[Sailbydate]

Salty smells a lot like TRG doesn't he?

I've thought that on occasion too. 

 

[jaysper]

I've thought that on occasion too. 

Probably a bit too civilized though and not as witty.

 

[strider470]

It will depend on WHEN this happens.

The further from the glow of victory we get, the less tolerance there will be for this shit.

Of course, any such defence will be met with the normal Dalts charm offensive (i.e. they're all cunts).

However I doubt Dalts would bother trying to defend anything that isn't a relative slam dunk.

I can already see Tina Symmans and ACE claiming that the New York Supreme Court has no honor and does not respect New Zealand

 

[Barnyb]

 

[Rennmaus]

Good to see it in writing. Hard to say what to make of it.

It is hard to say because neither of the appellate decisions in the MBBC case or the GGYC case interprets the “no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided” clause. I don’t know if an undisturbed part of the lower court decisions addresses it, and I haven’t seen any law review articles that analyse the clause either, but they may be out there.

So, whether a court would invalidate the RYS challenge because of this “no other challenge” clause is speculative. But we do have a rough idea of how a court would approach the analysis, to the extent that the clause is unambiguous: “Because the deed provisions on these issues are unambiguous, we may not look beyond the four corners of the deed in ascertaining the donors' intent and therefore may not consider any extrinsic evidence on the meaning of these provisions” (MBBC, p. 269-270).

The text of the clause is therefore what needs to be analysed, which requires determining what a “challenge” is, what it means to “consider”, among other things such as intent and purpose.

Para 14.2 above does not, at first blush, look like a “challenge”. A “challenge” would seem to be more than a stipulation in an agreement about what each team will do in the event they win, which is what para. 14.2 (iii) para. B above provides. They are mutual promises of the RYS and the RNZYS to favour challenges using the AC75 for AC38. A court may very well conclude that a “challenge” pursuant to the DoG is something more than that, like a statement presented in writing stipulating the terms of the match, including the date, location, etc., by a prospective AC38 challenger. A court could further conclude that to constitute a “challenge” it must contain all the details that would need to be known in order for the match to take place. Knowing the boat to be favoured would not be enough.

Even if a court concludes that the clause above is “a challenge”, it must still conclude that the challenge has been “considered” by the winner of AC37. I have no idea what that term should mean under the DoG. One would think that RNZYS considered RYS’s challenge before AC36 concluded, otherwise that is a very quick turnaround to announce the details of AC37. AC36 ended what 3 days ago?  

I don’t really know about the validity of the RYS challenge; but if I had to bet, I’d say it’s DoG-compliant.  Just my two cents.

Just in case there is an agreement between the AC37 participants that they will favor an AC38 challenge by a club that will use the AC75s, could that be in breach of the following Deed provision? 

"Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country,... , shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, ..."

 

[MaxHugen]

34 minutes ago, Barnyb said:

Interesting observation by Gary Jobson...   for some years now:

• Challenger Wins 
  
• Defender Wins   
  
• Defender Loses 
  

Rinse and repeat!

 

[45Roller]

never mind

 

[strider470]

Just in case there is an agreement between the AC37 participants that they will favor an AC38 challenge by a club that will use the AC75s, could that be in breach of the following Deed provision? 

"Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country,... , shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, ..."

I think that if that is not a mandatory request it's not a breach. On the contrary if signing the agreement is a condition...

 

[The Advocate]

Thanks Port

It is still kind of murky for me....see my questions in the text.

I get that a defender cannot consider a challenge until the present challenge is complete.

But what does "consider" mean? 

How does the deed and the term "consider a challenge" prohibit a group of competitors (who do not know who will become the future defender and do not know who will be the next challenger) sitting around a table and creating a contractual obligation between them in case one of them becomes the future defender.

In this case, they can agree that the expenditure in creating the infrastructure to design and build AC75s is so large that they need to know that two events will be held in the AC75 in order to enter the first event.

The deed effectively say you can only consider one challenge at a time but does it prohibit agreements between potential challengers and potential defenders prior to considering a challenge.

How do you have agreements without consideration? I think you're way off course.

 

[The Advocate]

Everybody seems to be concentrating on having to use the AC75s again for AC38. 

How about the premise that if INEOS win the match out of Cowes, they would defend the cup in Auckland in 2024.  Does anyone really think that would happen.  I guess that's the pitch to the government.

Nope, I think Sir James will say sorry old chap, see you in Cowes again...

 

[Nutta]

True.  But I don't think Elvstrom was talking about bickering billionaires and Commodores.  DoG was not designed to produce a fair and democratic playing field, how do you think we got a 137 year winning streak?

137 years of useless UK challengers?

(Ducks)

 

[Salty Seacock]

Probably a bit too civilized though and not as witty.

TRG is my hero. 

 

[Xlot]

And he doesn't have Billionaire status or pockets. Wealth for sure, but not of the level that can sustain ETNZ.

Evidently, he chose to be a big fish in a small pond. Had he settled in the US instead, NYYC members would be saying “Matio who?”

 

[JonRowe]

137 years of useless UK challengers?

(Ducks)

You're welcome. Without those hundred years of futile attempts by us pom's no one would care enough down under to try and win it. If there's one thing Australians and Kiwis have in common its enjoying getting one over the Brits :lol:

 

[The Advocate]

You're welcome. Without those hundred years of futile attempts by us pom's no one would care enough down under to try and win it. If there's one thing Australians and Kiwis have in common its enjoying getting one over the Brits :lol:

Kinda, but we do that is lotsa sports lol

 

[Perpetual Toil]

Just in case there is an agreement between the AC37 participants that they will favor an AC38 challenge by a club that will use the AC75s, could that be in breach of the following Deed provision? 

"Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country,... , shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, ..."

Full text: 
“Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty, or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the Challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup.”

This clause would seem to pertain to the qualities of the Challenging Club, which may be one of “any organized Yacht Club” meeting all the other criteria.  

I don’t see how favouring challenges with the AC75 for the purpose of maintaining class stability would be in breach of this clause.