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

Wavedancer II

Anarchist
710
178
LASERPERFORMANCE RESPONSE TO ILCA

LP proposes the following to prevent the implosion of the Laser class organization:

A. ILCA sign the renewal agreement to the 1998 Agreement in order to continue to use the granted trademark rights. 
B. ILCA move back to Europe where 75% of Laser sailors live and sail. 
C. ILCA appoint a professional executive team to run the class operations paid for by increased plaque fees charged to the builders.

LASERPERFORMANCE 
2 April 2019

[email protected]
Only A makes sense, but the renewal agreement probably has terms in it that are unacceptable to ILCA.

 

Thistle1678

Member
104
37
I suspect A, B, and C were already demands LP made to the class before this blew up... LP has a habit of demanding more and more to maintain the status quo (some times less than the status quo....)  

 

tillerman

Super Anarchist
5,187
2,476
Rhode Island
I suspect A, B, and C were already demands LP made to the class before this blew up... LP has a habit of demanding more and more to maintain the status quo (some times less than the status quo....)  
You are correct. The below was part of the statement that LP published in January...

"Class relationships and World Sailing will be a focus of our external partnerships. As key stakeholders, we would be engaging with them in the hope of bringing them requisite resources for their successful expansion and continuity. These include the International Laser Class Association (ILCA) where we would move for a motion to bring back ILCA to the UK; move for a motion to fund a full time and dedicated executive team for the ILCA; support the Laser Class Action Group led by stakeholders in Europe; and ensure the ILCA license is renewed and the Olympic contract is executed accordingly."

 

Thistle1678

Member
104
37
Oh yeah that was part of the WTF statement where they blamed the court battle with Kirby et. al. on the class after the class instituted a change in the fundamental rule, ostensibly at LP's request... 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wess

Super Anarchist
Oh yeah that was part of the WTF statement where they blamed the court battle with Kirby et. al. on the class after the class instituted a change in the fundamental rule, ostensibly at LP's request... 
I don't think ILCA has ever done anything at LPE or Kirby's request.  And I don't mean they didn't request.  Looking back, ILCA has done what is in the best interest of their dues paying members... which much as I wish was more aligned with grass roots sailors interests and it ain't... is what they should be doing.

But this whole no inspection (LPE) and boot em (ILCA) thing is a bit baffling.  I am generally left thinking the no inspection thing is not the real issue, its just the means to an end.  But what end and instigated by whom?  LPE had to know they were triggering this with refusing inspection and its kinda like they have said "uncle; I want out of this business" but there are far better, far less expensive means to pressure somebody else (PSA) to buy you out at a higher price. And if its ILCA wanting LPE gone - and that can easily be understood - again it just seems like there are better ways to do it without incurring more legal fees and putting so much that matters to them and their members (boat supply in general and mfg supplied boat for any events in LPE territory, and even the Olympic status) at potential risk.

Never before have I seen a situation where so many seem to be willing to shoot themselves in the foot while handing over their wallets to lawyers??  Does Laser sailing and building make one go mad??

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,876
4,940
De Nile
I don't think ILCA has ever done anything at LPE or Kirby's request.  And I don't mean they didn't request.  Looking back, ILCA has done what is in the best interest of their dues paying members... which much as I wish was more aligned with grass roots sailors interests and it ain't... is what they should be doing.

But this whole no inspection (LPE) and boot em (ILCA) thing is a bit baffling.  I am generally left thinking the no inspection thing is not the real issue, its just the means to an end.  But what end and instigated by whom?  LPE had to know they were triggering this with refusing inspection and its kinda like they have said "uncle; I want out of this business" but there are far better, far less expensive means to pressure somebody else (PSA) to buy you out at a higher price. And if its ILCA wanting LPE gone - and that can easily be understood - again it just seems like there are better ways to do it without incurring more legal fees and putting so much that matters to them and their members (boat supply in general and mfg supplied boat for any events in LPE territory, and even the Olympic status) at potential risk.

Never before have I seen a situation where so many seem to be willing to shoot themselves in the foot while handing over their wallets to lawyers??  Does Laser sailing and building make one go mad??
I don't think it's anything specific to Lasers, but it does sound a lot like a shrinking market and the scramble to maximize cash returns in that declining market.  What happens in declining markets? Consolidation, cost reductions, etc.

LPE likely sees a SMOD Laser class as a way for them to cut costs by getting away from the build process manual and would have more control of the cash flow as well.

 

Thistle1678

Member
104
37
I don't think ILCA has ever done anything at LPE or Kirby's request.  And I don't mean they didn't request.  Looking back, ILCA has done what is in the best interest of their dues paying members... which much as I wish was more aligned with grass roots sailors interests and it ain't... is what they should be doing.

But this whole no inspection (LPE) and boot em (ILCA) thing is a bit baffling.  I am generally left thinking the no inspection thing is not the real issue, its just the means to an end.  But what end and instigated by whom?  LPE had to know they were triggering this with refusing inspection and its kinda like they have said "uncle; I want out of this business" but there are far better, far less expensive means to pressure somebody else (PSA) to buy you out at a higher price. And if its ILCA wanting LPE gone - and that can easily be understood - again it just seems like there are better ways to do it without incurring more legal fees and putting so much that matters to them and their members (boat supply in general and mfg supplied boat for any events in LPE territory, and even the Olympic status) at potential risk.

Never before have I seen a situation where so many seem to be willing to shoot themselves in the foot while handing over their wallets to lawyers??  Does Laser sailing and building make one go mad??
I don't know about that I remember the campaigning "We must do this or we'll lose our builder!!!" LPE threatened to pull trademarks, support, charter boats and everything else to ram the change through...   LPE moved production to China already so your going to get chopper gun Chinesium boats if you don't hold them to the construction manual, there's not much too it high tech mind you just basic layup.  As stated before LPE wants to own the class, lock stock, and expensive carbon barrels.... 

 

Thistle1678

Member
104
37
BTW, anyone know the resolution to the Sunfish class, I know the class association largely backed down and maintained their relationship, but I never heard details.  Possibly the same road ILCA is on...

 

JimC

Not actually an anarchist.
8,156
1,035
South East England
Well I just looked up International Sunfish on the US patent and trademark office website, and it appears that ISCA is still registered to the |International Sunfish Class association, so that suggests that LPE were the ones who backed down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thistle1678

Member
104
37
Well I just looked up International Sunfish on the US patent and trademark office website, and it appears that ISCA is still registered to the |International Sunfish Class association, so that suggests that LPE were the ones who backed down.
The Sunfish Class approved third party everything (in frustration) and send several unkind things about LPE it all disappeared last year at some point... 

 

Thistle1678

Member
104
37
"The Sunfish Class is disappointed to hear the news from ILCA and wants to share with all Sunfish Class members that our Class is working with LP to strengthen our relationship with the builder whereby LP will more actively support ISCA and USSCA operations and the Class will work with and support LP to achieve their objectives of geographic expansion and greater participation within the Sunfish Class by youth and women sailors.

Rich Chapman, President ISCA"

Sounds like it's all peaches and cream now... Or Rich is being held hostage... :p 

 

torrid

Super Anarchist
1,064
416
ISCA has their nuts in a vice.  There is only one builder and limited international reach.  I know it is sailed in multiple countries, but it is definitely USA-centric.

 

JimC

Not actually an anarchist.
8,156
1,035
South East England
ISCA has their nuts in a vice. 
Maybe so, but according to ISCA at the time the main sticking point was ISCA refusing to hand over the trademark for ISCA to LPE. If the trademark is still registered to ISCA then it does appear that it was LPE who blinked.

 
It's also a fairly common reason to repudiate a manufacturing contracts. 

If I don't make sure my client has the right to inspect its manufacturer in an agreement, it's probably malpractice.  Once the agreement is executed, If a party doesn't enforce its rights,  it may be deemed to have waived them.

Unless somehow the rules for manufacturing dinghies are different than the truck axles I am literally looking at, in a manufacturing requirements contract I'm reviewing, or unless LPE's right to inspect isn't as clear as they seem to think. Are you literally looking at the truck axles, or are you looking at a contract about truck axles?  Your client will be hoping for unambiguous language. :D

Call me crazy but it also seems like Rastey admitted in their release that they didn't allow ILCA in to inspect? Hi Clean, see the Torch thread. Yes IMHO, this was a particularly poorly worded paragraph in an overall weakly constructed release.  As a great lawyer once said " If there is the smell of cordite and courtroom in the air , the client says nothing to the press without being reviewed by counsel first"

 

Wess

Super Anarchist
ISCA has their nuts in a vice.  There is only one builder and limited international reach.  I know it is sailed in multiple countries, but it is definitely USA-centric.


Maybe so, but according to ISCA at the time the main sticking point was ISCA refusing to hand over the trademark for ISCA to LPE. If the trademark is still registered to ISCA then it does appear that it was LPE who blinked.


Yea, its odd.  I think most would agree that ISCA had a stronger trademark case than ILCA does.  And initially ISCA was very aggressive in their stance.  So to see them now making nice with LPE is very odd. But maybe as Torrid said they had nowhere else to go for boats (but geeze if folks - multiple - still make Snipes, and very few a year, then I gota think they could have found somebody to make boats.

But now its ILCA that is being aggressive.  Very odd.  I wonder if they have some agreement with PSA, Kirby, or others to cover their legal bills.

It would also be interesting if one of our lawyerly friends could update the blowtorch thread with where that PSA, Kirby and LPE litigation stands and best guesses at outcomes because that seems to feed into this latest mess.  They gotta be connected.

 

JimC

Not actually an anarchist.
8,156
1,035
South East England
And initially ISCA was very aggressive in their stance.  So to see them now making nice with LPE is very odd.
Not if LPE abandoned the attempt to grab the ISCA IP which was the claimed sticking point. If they did, and ISCA ended up with an agreement they were perfectly happy with why wouldn't they play nice now?

 
LASERPERFORMANCE RESPONSE TO ILCA

STATEMENT OF 27 MARCH 2019 2 April 2019

LP proposes the following to prevent the implosion of the Laser class organization:

A. ILCA sign the renewal agreement to the 1998 Agreement in order to continue to use the granted trademark rights. 
B. ILCA move back to Europe where 75% of Laser sailors live and sail. 
C. ILCA appoint a professional executive team to run the class operations paid for by increased plaque fees charged to the builders.

LASERPERFORMANCE 
2 April 2019

[email protected]
Cummon'  surely we can enjoy the irony of Laser Performance, head quartered  at  25 Van Zant Street, Norwalk, CT 06855, whose owner resides in CT suggesting that ILCA move to Europe.  :unsure: :huh: :lol:

Where exactly would they suggest? They appear to be suggesting ILCA move to the UK at precisely the same time as LP is reviewing its own presence in the UK. In one of Rasty's Rants he wrote "

The most significant of these changes are BREXIT - the UK decision to leave the EU - ... Brexit has already taken its toll with repeated delays in shipping schedules in and out of the UK as well as the threat and uncertainties of a hard BREXIT yet to disrupt our business further.... As a result of Brexit, we will review our UK based service operations ..."

But go ahead ILCA, Rasty advises moving to a country which is on the verge of introducing draconian immigration hurdles and closing its borders to the free movement of Europeans. That would be a terrific choice for a global headquarters .  Bhutan would be another place to consider 

 
Top