The "Team" has been partially funded with public money. Who ever this clown is isn't suing the team, he's suing the Squadron.Also of course 4idiot always tells us its a national team. If it is then public interest becomes relevant.
Not at all. After England beat you in consecutive matches by record scores this year, I will be looking forward to the WC with great interest. Until then we are the winners and you are the hater in your view of the worldAnyway, I see you've given up on the womens rugby discussion lol
He is just threatening to sue in hopes that it doesn't go to the Middle East. If this ends up in Malaga, which is becoming more likely every day, Emirates will be announcing daily non-stop flights via Dubai from Auckland to Malaga.The "Team" has been partially funded with public money. Who ever this clown is isn't suing the team, he's suing the Squadron.
The Squadron isn't concerned with Government/ public money, the team is (or has been). 2 separate entities.
The public aren't stakeholders if they're not invested in the Team or the event. They're merely spectators to it. Interest yes, investment? Not so much.
Anyway, I see you've given up on the womens rugby discussion lol
Looks like they want a total and exclusive commitment to AC37 from them. They may have gotten that from Nathan?We need full commitment … we have got to hope we can merge the two sides together.
“They are very passionate about the Cup, but we have to be firing on all cylinders to be able to beat these challengers, and we have to know what we have got.”
There you go, its not that hard is it!?Not at all. After England beat you in consecutive matches by record scores this year, I will be looking forward to the WC with great interest. Until then we are the winners and you are the hater in your view of the world
I assume he knows about the US defence of AC35 in Bermuda, don't think the DoG is going to be problem here.More legal tilting at windmills, as reported in NZ Herald, 22/12/2021 (Abridged)
A retired appellate judge, who early in his career was instrumental in preventing the All Blacks from touring South Africa in 1985, has put Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron on notice that he will sue it if it allows the America's Cup defence to be taken offshore. Sir Edmund Thomas, who briefly served as a judge on the Supreme Court, also indicated he could use the discovery process to examine the relationship between the squadron, Team New Zealand and its chief executive, Grant Dalton.
While the next venue for the America's Cup is yet to be determined, both the squadron and Team New Zealand have made a series of claims that they are unlikely to be able to fund a credible defence in New Zealand. On December 7, the Herald revealed that Dalton had told RNZYS members who were agitating to force the defence to be held locally, that the syndicate could collapse within months and be placed into liquidation if it was not able to take it offshore. The Herald report prompted Sir Edmund to write to RNZYS chief executive Hayden Porter, asking him to inform its office holders that they were on notice that he was prepared to take them to court.
Sir Edmund, widely known simply as "Ted", told Porter that it was "difficult to accept" the reported claims given the success of Team New Zealand in defending the America's Cup in March. "I believe that the defence of the Cup should take place in New Zealand. The public interest is involved, and I would wish to promote the public interest."
A former Russell McVeagh partner who became a QC in 1981, he later became a judge, serving on the Court of Appeal between 1995 and 2001. He was brought out of retirement in 2005 to be an acting judge on the Supreme Court in 2005. Sir Edmund is also a former director on the board of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
In his letter to the squadron, Sir Edmund referenced the proceedings, saying a move to take the cup overseas was also likely to breach the deed of gift which established the rules for the world's oldest international sporting trophy, and the squadron's own rules. "I am of the view that similar proceedings would be viable to stop any attempt by the RNZYS to hold the defence of the Cup at an overseas venue. I would have no hesitation in initiating such proceedings. Indeed, I have already taken steps to arrange for a firm of solicitors to be the solicitors on the record." The letter also appeared to contain a warning for Dalton that his relationship with the syndicate - and the squadron - would be examined as part of the proceedings. "I will wish, through discovery, to explore further the relationship between the RNZYS and Team New Zealand/Dalton," Sir Edmund wrote. "On the face of it, the delegation of the Squadron's powers to that entity (and Dalton) go well beyond the Squadron's lawful bounds. What may have been appropriate (and legal) when challenging for the Cup is not necessarily appropriate (and legal) when the Squadron is the holder of the Cup."
In a statement, Porter [RNZYS] said the squadron had not replied to the letter. "We do not respond to unsolicited advice from people who are not members. Our view is that Sir Edmund Thomas' advice is based on an incomplete and/or inaccurate set of facts and does not reflect the current circumstances."
"The squadron was working with its external solicitors to ensure that it fully complied with its duties and obligations under the Deed of Gift," Porter said, with the protocol agreed with challenger of record Ineos.
"The introduction of the Protocol, with mutual consent of the Defender and Challenger, will now govern the staging of AC37. The terms of the Deed only then apply if there is an absence of mutual consent."
Team New Zealand said its response "simply mirrors that of the RNZYS with whom we are totally aligned". It did not respond to questions about Sir Edmund's warning that it may examine the relationship between the team, Dalton and the squadron.
Noone took GGYC to task over that, so hard to say. I have no idea if Ted's proceedings will be successful or not but the potential is there for (at minimum) some venue-discussion and therefore decision complications, also including on the timing.I assume he knows about the US defence of AC35 in Bermuda, don't think the DoG is going to be problem here.
Do you really think Grant Dalton, Kevin Shoebridge, Russell Green & Co. care about if a case is been brought or not? They are all 3 confident that ETNZ/RNZYS can win otherwise they would have accepted an offer from Farmer for mediation already.It will be really interesting if someone does bring a case, and who it's actually against. I think the only plausible approach (in complete laymans terms) is going after RNZYS for not fulfilling their duty as trustees. Which, I'm not even sure what those consist of, or even if they are directly defined in the Deed. Maybe one of the legal eagles could shed some light on that? However, I suspect that the contact between RNZYS and ETNZ to be pretty comprehensive and robust, and that questions regarding the venue location will be skirted to mutual consent between the Defender and Challenger.
Either way, going after some potentially undefined duties or requirements, or fighting against long standing mutual consent tradition is probably a waste of everyone's time and resources. However, this being the America's Cup and all, that could be exactly what this is all about- wasting ETNZ time and resources.