ILCA gives LPE the boot... seeking new Laser builder

tillerman

Super Anarchist
5,440
2,682
Rhode Island
I will probably regret resuscitating this discussion from the Torch thread with Gantt. However for the purposes of consistency, I will reaffirm that I believe my position in 2013 was both factually accurate, unbiased and consistent with my position today.

I believe that the Class Association took the correct position on behalf of class members in 2013 and did so in a legally astute and ethical manner.  I believe that the best possible position for the sailors is that builders and commercial interests do not control the class. I argued that, in the case of the Laser, no one builder should control the class by having the sole right to appoint builders around the world.......and I believe that whether it be Laser Performance or Global Sailing (PSA) or BKI .

In contrast, Gantt's position does indeed appear to have vacillated. In 2013 he argued that the ILCA was wrong to revoke the rule which would have allowed GS to control the class.  In 2019 he argues that ILCA is right to revoke a rule which allows LP to control the class in Europe and NA. .

For the sake of consistency, is Gantt ready to admit that he was wrong in 2013?  He was wrong to have suggested that the class took a decision that was not in the best interest of class members? He was wrong in his prediction that there would be dire legal consequences for the class and most especially he was wrong to imply that class officers had acted in unethical and suspicious manner.

Coincidentally (??), the only consistent thread in Gantt's posts is his support for GS's position. 
IPLore - I have always appreciated your contributions to these threads combining as they do expert analysis of the legal issues involved and excellent commentary on the negotiating strategies of the various parties, all from an unbiased perspective.

Please keep up the good work.

 

Bruce Hudson

Super Anarchist
3,251
846
New Zealand
I will probably regret resuscitating this discussion from the Torch thread with Gantt. However for the purposes of consistency, I will reaffirm that I believe my position in 2013 was both factually accurate, unbiased and consistent with my position today.

I believe that the Class Association took the correct position on behalf of class members in 2013 and did so in a legally astute and ethical manner.  I believe that the best possible position for the sailors is that builders and commercial interests do not control the class. I argued that, in the case of the Laser, no one builder should control the class by having the sole right to appoint builders around the world.......and I believe that whether it be Laser Performance or Global Sailing (PSA) or BKI .

In contrast, Gantt's position does indeed appear to have vacillated. In 2013 he argued that the ILCA was wrong to revoke the rule which would have allowed GS to control the class.  In 2019 he argues that ILCA is right to revoke a rule which allows LP to control the class in Europe and NA. .

For the sake of consistency, is Gantt ready to admit that he was wrong in 2013?  He was wrong to have suggested that the class took a decision that was not in the best interest of class members? He was wrong in his prediction that there would be dire legal consequences for the class and most especially he was wrong to imply that class officers had acted in unethical and suspicious manner.

Coincidentally (??), the only consistent thread in Gantt's posts is his support for GS's position. 
IPLore - I have always appreciated your contributions to these threads combining as they do expert analysis of the legal issues involved and excellent commentary on the negotiating strategies of the various parties, all from an unbiased perspective.

Please keep up the good work.
Quad erat demonstrandum.

Yet again, IPLore makes false statements about what I have said, though I admit in that, IPLore has shown consistency.

---

Another example IPLore. I referenced that Hieni Wellmann made a statements about the builder's contract's content to which IPLore responded:

The main point that Heini was making was that the ILCA was not a party to the builders agreements. It was an entirely valid and truthful point that was relevant to class members. He added that the Class did not know the "exact content" of the contract.
What I was referring to was Heini Wellmann's statement which appeared on page 7 of Laser World Dec 2011:
"ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder."

Hieni Wellmann did not say "exact content". IPLore made that up, as sure as "IPLore" is not the writer's real name.

---

We know that Hieni Wellman's statements in 2011 were misleading.

We now all know that the ISAF agreement, signed by ILCA contained clauses that prescribed content in the builder's agreement. We know that annual inspections were performed by ILCA as a direct consequence of the builder's contracted obligation, both well before and after Heini Wellmann's statements in 2011.

Further, ILCA more recently terminated Laser Performance for not fulfilling their contracted obligation for annual site inspections in 2016, 2017 and 2018. My understanding is that in 2019, Laser Performance has still not had a site inspection.

---

We also know of the rift EurILCA executive committee and ILCA World Council. There are unresolved issues, some dating back a while.

Heini Wellmann has a seat on the ILCA World Council as immediate past president.

Heini Wellmann was a signatory to the petition calling for Tracy Usher and Eric Faust's resignation. 

---

In my view, one of the valid concerns raised by Laser sailors in Europe concerns transparency and communication.

I am one of many current, paid up ILCA members who are satisfied that Eric Faust and Tracy Usher are open and committed to battling misinformation - Eric showed us that at the European Master's meeting and Tracy shows that here in this forum.

What we don't know is the exact content of the minutes of the ILCA World Council. They stopped being widely circulated while Heini Wellmann was ILCA president.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What matters is that IPLore is trying to promote a case that justifies a fee for using the Laser trademark. Contained in that post is misinformation and it attempts to steer readers in a specific direction in favor of one of the three Laser trademark owners, which IPLore has been doing for several years. 
Factually, that is blatantly inaccurate.

I submitted a post that outlined 6 challenges that will have to be overcome in order to reach a licensing agreement on the trademark (based on 25 years of representing one of the world's most iconic trademarks). I hope and trust that some anarchists found the post to be interesting, objective and unbiased. At the very least, I hope it is a caution not to be too hopeful that all the issues will be resolved in one or two meetings.

In that post, I remarked in passing (in italics),  that the simpler solution (that I personally support) is the Class proposition to revoke the trademark rule.  It is my opinion, confirmed by Tracy U, that this does NOT do away with the name of the Laser but merely "unbrands" the class rules and allows other brands to supply boats as appropriate.

In my "radical proposal" outlined before Tracy's update, I proposed:
 

Step Three: The ILCA announces that it is proposing a rule change to drop the requirement of the 14' boat to have the trademark name "Laser"  . Instead it is going to be called the Kirby 14  or the Bruce 14 .  This announcement is unanimously supported by all members of the council who explain to members that this is in their interest, because it puts them in charge of their own destiny.
How on earth Gantt has the temerity to suggest that I (or Tracy) am proposing a case that is in favor of one of the three trade mark owners is beyond me. 

 
We know that Hieni Wellman's statements in 2011 were misleading.
Here we go again.

You were never able to support your comments about Hieni,Jeff and others then. Please do not try again now. You accused and intimated that class officials were somehow unethically under the influence of LP. You accused and intimated that contributors on this forum, who supported the class association (including Tiller, myself and others) were somehow associated with LP.  Since I am 100% sure that neither Tiller or myself are under the influence of LP, I long ago decided your rumors and innuendo had zero credibility.  

The simple fact remains.....you opposed the class association revoking a rule, a rule which would have put the class under the control of Global Sailing/BKI.  The Class members voted in favor of revoking that rule. It was the right thing to do!  

If you continue to think that builders should only be appointed if they are approved by a NZ company called Global sailing and have a contract with a company called BKI (controlled by GS)....you are entitled to that opinion. 

To some of us, it seems inconsistent with a position supporting the class now and it is not clear whether you have changed your mind or not

 

Wess

Super Anarchist
 You accused and intimated that contributors on this forum, who supported the class association (including Tiller, myself and others) were somehow associated with LP.  Since I am 100% sure that neither Tiller or myself are under the influence of LP, I long ago decided your rumors and innuendo had zero credibility.
I am (not) really Bill Crane and Tillerman and many others here and indeed I was and still am under the influence of LPE.  And our sole purpose in life is to infuriate Canntt, Gannt, and Bruce the sheep F-er or whatever he calls himself today.  Our plan is simple... we don't have to make and supply boats.  While GS/PSA tries to take over the Laser world in various unethical manner we plan to bankrupt PSA/GS by having them pay the sheep F-er to chase Bill you, me, Tiller, we (we really are (not) all the same person) around the internet.  It slows their evil plan and also keeps the sheep safer.

Seriously, why do you guys bother even responding to him?  Anyone stupid enough to believe his drivel gets what they deserve. The ignore tool is your friend.

Good grief we need some real news.  Or a legal filing we can sink our teeth into.

I am (not) Bill Crane and I approved this message.

 

tillerman

Super Anarchist
5,440
2,682
Rhode Island
I am (not) really Bill Crane and Tillerman and many others here and indeed I was and still am under the influence of LPE.  And our sole purpose in life is to infuriate Canntt, Gannt, and Bruce the sheep F-er or whatever he calls himself today.  Our plan is simple... we don't have to make and supply boats.  While GS/PSA tries to take over the Laser world in various unethical manner we plan to bankrupt PSA/GS by having them pay the sheep F-er to chase Bill you, me, Tiller, we (we really are (not) all the same person) around the internet.  It slows their evil plan and also keeps the sheep safer.

Seriously, why do you guys bother even responding to him?  Anyone stupid enough to believe his drivel gets what they deserve. The ignore tool is your friend.

Good grief we need some real news.  Or a legal filing we can sink our teeth into.

I am (not) Bill Crane and I approved this message.
I like Mark Twain's advice on such matters...

mark-twain-9512564-1-402.jpg


“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

 

 
There is a legal pathway to move forward without the Laser brand. What makes agreeing simple is that if the choice is made to no longer brand the boats "Laser" is made, then Rastegar will be even more out of pocket.

I believe that all ILCA World Council members are genuine when they say no longer using the Laser name would be a shame.
Again, just to be factually accurate.

The proposed ILCA rule change to revoke the trademark rule was NOT "a pathway to move forward without the Laser brand".

The ILCA is NOT suggesting "no longer using the Laser name".

It is these kind of posts and suggestions that confuse Laser sailors and European Laser class members.

The ILCA rule change would merely have unbranded the class rules.  It would define the boat and the rules without a trade mark. PSA , PSJ and LP would be allowed to continue supplying boats, and continue calling their boats a Laser ...PROVIDED they complied with the LCM and class rules.  One analogy is the F18 class rules, where the class rules are for an F18 but Hobie Tiger enthusiasts can continue to buy and sail a Hobiecat brand.  The difference is that the OSHOD 14 (Olympic Single Hander One Design) class would be identical from every builder and brand.    Many sailors will still want to buy a Laser brand boat from their local Laser distributor....and they would still be able to.....but there would be options where appropriate.

I still think that the rule change is the simplest and most elegant solution.....but I think there are two good reasons why Tracy and his team are  first pursuing the option to see if a trademark licensing agreement can be obtained. 

 

Bruce Hudson

Super Anarchist
3,251
846
New Zealand
How on earth Gantt has the temerity to suggest that I (or Tracy) am proposing a case that is in favor of one of the three trade mark owners is beyond me. 
I very much doubt that it is beyond you IPLore.

Again, IPLore mischaracterizes what I said. I did not suggest that Tracy favors one of the three trademark owners, nor do I believe he does.

IPLore does not address my primary criticism of IPLore's post, and now tries to deflect attention.

You were never able to support your comments about Hieni,Jeff and others then. Please do not try again now.
My comments above show the exact quotes and explain in further detail what I was saying. IPLore yet again mischaracterizes what I have said and personally attacks me.

IPLore's responses deflect attention away from addressing IPLore's own misquoting and deliberate attempts to misinform.

Outlined in my previous post above shows clear and incontrovertible evidence that IPLore misquoted Heini Wellmann to push an agenda.

IPLore is lying about what people say to push an agenda, again.

---

The proposed ILCA rule change to revoke the trademark rule was NOT "a pathway to move forward without the Laser brand".

The ILCA is NOT suggesting "no longer using the Laser name".
Now IPLore mischaracterizes what ILCA are saying. There is a possibility that if agreement is not reached for use of the Laser trademark, then the Laser trademark will not be used.

The consequence of removing this possibility is that the importance and value of the Laser trademark is elevated.

If the Laser trademark must be used for all boats, then Velum / Rastegar can charge a premium for its use.

I'm wondering if any Laser sailor would be happy to pay an additional 5%, 8% or even 10% for use of the Laser brand for their new boat? Would dealers be happy?

IPLore said in response to Tracy's comment re the removal of branding as a requirement:

But it is academic, because currently it seems the Laser consortium is going to try a more difficult and complex agreement of licensing the trade mark.
 In fact, the opposite is true - it is not academic because the existence of the possibility to not use the Laser brand simplifies the negotiation.

Either an agreement to use the Laser brand is reached, or the class moves forward without it. It genuinely is that simple. And as IPLore knows, Rastegar's time is up. 

IPLore also spoke previously about a potential lawsuit. To be clear, using the Laser brand is not a legal requirement set in concrete. All the relevant contracts have exit clauses. The potential changes are entirely legal. The best interests of the Laser class are being served by the ILCA World Council.

---

Thank you IPLore for your best efforts. I want you to know that as a direct consequence of your personal attacks against me; and because of your obvious agenda, I have increased my focus on this topic. Keep pushing your agenda IPLore, and I shall keep pushing back. Maybe even step up my efforts a little.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wess

Super Anarchist
Sorry Wess, I didnt mean to make you feel left out. Yes I recall that Gantt also accused you of working with LP. I just couldnt find the post.

FWIW, Bill Crane wears a T shirt nowadays which says "I am not Wess" on the front.......

:rolleyes:
LOL not feeling left out at all. Just wonder why you guys bother responding. It’s like arguing with a toddler. 

Oh and Bill (didn’t) wore that shirt the last time we (didn’t) have dinner. I would gladly break bread with him though. Be interesting to get his take on this.

Odds of parties reaching agreement; 1 in 4. Odds of vote passing; 3 in 8. Odds were get some litigation to track and follow.... really good!!

 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,506
1,941
I very much doubt that it is beyond you IPLore.

Again, IPLore mischaracterizes what I said. I did not suggest that Tracy favors one of the three trademark owners, nor do I believe he does.

IPLore does not address my primary criticism of IPLore's post, and now tries to deflect attention.

 
My comments above show the exact quotes and explain in further detail what I was saying. IPLore yet again mischaracterizes what I have said and personally attacks me.

IPLore's responses deflect attention away from addressing IPLore's own misquoting and deliberate attempts to misinform.

Outlined in my previous post above shows clear and incontrovertible evidence that IPLore misquoted Heini Wellmann to push an agenda.

IPLore is lying about what people say to push an agenda, again.

---

 
Now IPLore mischaracterizes what ILCA are saying. There is a possibility that if agreement is not reached for use of the Laser trademark, then the Laser trademark will not be used.

The consequence of removing this possibility is that the importance and value of the Laser trademark is elevated.

If the Laser trademark must be used for all boats, then Velum / Rastegar can charge a premium for its use.

I'm wondering if any Laser sailor would be happy to pay an additional 5%, 8% or even 10% for use of the Laser brand for their new boat? Would dealers be happy?

IPLore said in response to Tracy's comment re the removal of branding as a requirement:

 In fact, the opposite is true - it is not academic because the existence of the possibility to not use the Laser brand simplifies the negotiation.

Either an agreement to use the Laser brand is reached, or the class moves forward without it. It genuinely is that simple. And as IPLore knows, Rastegar's time is up. 

IPLore also spoke previously about a potential lawsuit. To be clear, using the Laser brand is not a legal requirement set in concrete. All the relevant contracts have exit clauses. The potential changes are entirely legal. The best interests of the Laser class are being served by the ILCA World Council.

---

Thank you IPLore for your best efforts. I want you to know that as a direct consequence of your personal attacks against me; and because of your obvious agenda, I have increased my focus on this topic. Keep pushing your agenda IPLore, and I shall keep pushing back. Maybe even step up my efforts a little.
Honestly, it seems to me that IPL is very restrained in his responses to Bruce/Gantt's diatribes.

IPL  corrects him, which Gantt immediately interprets as a personal attack.   

Gantt must think we have very short memories if we cannot remember his attacks on the ILCA class officers. 

I cannot be bothered to go back to the Torch forum but I remember Gantt arguing for page after page that the ILCA were a party to the contracts between BKI and the builders.

Then when some of the contracts became publicly available, and IPL and others proved beyond any doubt that ILCA were not party to the contracts, Gantt started arguing that even if the ICLA were not a party to the contract Heini must have known what the content was.

What I was referring to was Heini Wellmann's statement which appeared on page 7 of Laser World Dec 2011:
"ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder."
Of course, any of us can speculate about the general content of the contracts, but Heini's point was obvious to me, that ILCA were not a party to the contract and was not privy to the actual content. To this day, I see nothing misleading about Heini's statement. I see nothing misleading about IPL trying to explain that to you. 

Anyway, why dwell on the details.  IPL has asked Bruce and Gantt a straightforward question. Let me ask it in even simpler way. Have you changed your position since 2013? Do you still think the class should reintroduce a rule requiring GS/BKI to approve builders?  Do you still think GS/BKI should collect a fee from all builders?

3 questions. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,506
1,941
The simple fact remains.....you opposed the class association revoking a rule, a rule which would have put the class under the control of Global Sailing/BKI.  The Class members voted in favor of revoking that rule. It was the right thing to do!  

If you continue to think that builders should only be appointed if they are approved by a NZ company called Global sailing and have a contract with a company called BKI (controlled by GS)....you are entitled to that opinion. 

To some of us, it seems inconsistent with a position supporting the class now and it is not clear whether you have changed your mind or not
Bruce.....will you clarify whether you have changed your position on this?    Do you still oppose revoking the rule which would require Global Sailing to approve all builders and collect a fee from them? or Do you think the class members were right to revoke that rule?   Enquiring minds would like to know.

 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,506
1,941
I still think that the rule change is the simplest and most elegant solution.....but I think there are two good reasons why Tracy and his team are  first pursuing the option to see if a trademark licensing agreement can be obtained. 
Hmmmm.

IPL, what are those two good reasons?   

You had me convinced by your earlier argument in favor of simply doing away with the trademark rule, that I was surprised to see this comment at the end.

 

Bruce Hudson

Super Anarchist
3,251
846
New Zealand
Gantt must think we have very short memories if we cannot remember his attacks on the ILCA class officers. 
Please show an example my "attacks on the ILCA class officers" and I shall unreservedly apologize. I have been subjected to several years of a smear campaign, with hundreds of comments which mischaracterize what I actually said. 

Also, to show your balance here, please comment on IPLore's misquoting of Heini Wellmann. Do you agree with it? Do you think it was intentional or not?

Further, do you have a position on why Heini Wellmann allegedly signed the petition calling for Tracy Usher and Eric Faust?

I cannot be bothered to go back to the Torch forum but I remember Gantt arguing for page after page that the ILCA were a party to the contracts between BKI and the builders.

Then when some of the contracts became publicly available, and IPL and others proved beyond any doubt that ILCA were not party to the contracts, Gantt started arguing that even if the ICLA were not a party to the contract Heini must have known what the content was.
Respectively, I have not changed my position on this. The IYRU agreement which ILCA was a party to, was incorporated into the builders contract. The builder's contract and the IYRU are both available for anyone to check. The IYRU prescribed some of the content of the builder's contract.

My main point for raising the above was to show that IPLore misquoted Heini Wellmann. I have many examples of IPLore misquoting me.

Have you changed your position since 2013?
Yes and no. Where I have changed my position results from developments since then. For example, World Sailing have introduced their Olympic Equipment policy, which in no small way presses the 'reset button' for the contracts.

Do you still think the class should reintroduce a rule requiring GS/BKI to approve builders?
No. Only because of recent developments. For the Laser class, my preference under the new system is for the ILCA to select the builders. The Laser class is an unusual case because it has the capacity to pay staff to do that.

Do you still think GS/BKI should collect a fee from all builders?
Yes.

Bruce Kirby Inc had clear rights for the design of the Laser, and their were contracts which governed those rights. The royalty is modest (2% of the wholesale boat) and the entity Bruce Kirby Inc is a saleable asset, which can be bought by another entity, in this case Global Sailing. For now, there is no rule which deals with any conflict of interest, however in the future, maybe there should be.

Designer's royalties apply for other designers of other classes as well, like the 49er and the Nacra 17.

---

I hope that clears up a few things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Board skiff

Super Anarchist
1,606
672
This has become like a bad trip down memory lane.

Slowly but surely people will leave Bruce to his own ramblings and this thread will become tumbleweed as the discussion moves elsewhere. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bruce Hudson

Super Anarchist
3,251
846
New Zealand
Amazing how there are hundreds of comments that have it wrong.
Yup. You Bill have made relatively few, most quite recently about what I said I was told Farzad Rastegar said on May 22. My reference to hundreds is specifically the comments made by IPLore, Wess and Tillerman.

The rest are a mix.

I don't pretend to get everything right.

My short term want is to address the misinformation that is the foundation to the rift between EurILCA and ILCA. How about you?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bill5

Right now
2,815
2,354
Western Canada
Amazing how there are hundreds of comments that have it wrong.


Yup. You Bill have made relatively few, most quite recently about what I said I was told Farzad Rastegar said on May 22. My reference to hundreds is specifically the comments made by IPLore, Wess and Tillerman.

The rest are a mix.

I don't pretend to get everything right.

My short term want is to address the misinformation that is the foundation to the rift between EurILCA and ILCA. How about you?
Short term? Well, SailFlow tells me it’s going to be blowing 12-15 tomorrow from noon on with temps in the mid 70’s. It is our Canada Day holiday, so I am going to have a two-boat sailing afternoon with some time in my Laser and some time in my Lightning.

 

Latest posts




Top