Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[Wess]

Gouv -

One last point before we go back to fun and games with the fish... You said: "Once again: I am annoyed the Class thinks the name used by the builder is of sufficient importance to hold itself hostage to the trademark owner's whims." You and I kinda agree. I always said I would be happy to have a "TGIF" class that had boat specifications that = Laser and which allowed any boats/builders (including BK Torches) that met those specs. But I would guess most class members would disagree with me...

1.) So if as I suspect most class members would want to sail "Lasers (registered trademark)" and not "TGIFs" then the class should align with its members, no? That is a marriage; not a hostage. Perhaps an arranged marriage but the class didn't decide to sell the trademark, remember, so you might give some thought to who arranged that very marriage.

2.) The trademark is no small thing (especially given #1). If I recall correctly, note that BK tried to take down the trademark as part of his early legal strategy and even he gave up beating that dead horse long ago.

3.) If anyone is a hostage its BK and LPE. They are a hostage to the law of the land. The dispute is being heard where it always belonged... in court. Both LPE and BK are now hostage to a judge and jury's decision. Class members are simply sailing.

4.) Finally, in addition to the trademark in the territory, LPE also has a construction manual, the ability and desire to make and sell boats called Lasers according to it, and has supported the game to one degree or the other.

* So my question to you, Gouv, is this: Why should your or my view (which are similar) w regards the trademark/name over-rule the collective will of the class members? The class is there for its members, right?

All in my uneducated SWAG opinion...

 

[JimC]

Simon, I don't doubt you're right, and if Kirby wins the Laser class and most especially the ILCA will be in deep trouble.

However I'm beginning to think that actually the US civil law system is so broken and so utterly self serving for the legal profession that in practice its a reasonably assumption that a firmly contested case like this will not be decided within a timespan of years, maybe decades. And that as a result the ILCA might have taken the cynical but pragmatic approach to say that as long term may never come, we might as well dance on the side that will make life easiest for us in the short term.

 

[Wess]

Leaving aside the minutiae of this debate, here are my predictions of the winners and losers of the litigation. These are merely speculative predictions for entertainment value only.
WINNERS:

1. Bruce Kirby and his heirs- ironically his position gets stronger the longer the case drags on due to statute of limitations. I expect that Bruce gets to keep his money received for the future royalty stream.

2. ICLA and World Sailing - these organizations strengthen the control of sailors and Laser owners over their destiny. They have effectively taken greater control over any future process to change builder. Any sale of the trademark will have to be approved by ILCA and World Sailing to have any value.

LOOKS LIKE A DRAW BUT IS A LOSS

Laser Performance . Probably fights to a standstill and settles. Ostensibly it wil not have lost much other than legal costs and distraction BUT in reality the oligopoly of supply has been undermined. Builders and trademark owners position going forward depends on the support of ILCA and WS.

LOOKS LIKE A LOSER BUT IS A DRAW

Performance Sailing. Admittedly a bungled and expensive attempt to wrest control of the Asian market. But , after settling they are in approximately the same position as they were before. Both LP and PS are losers because during the course of litigation, the Asian recreational market starts to be supplied by generic, non trade mark boats from a low cost Chinese manufacturer.

Interesting and entertaining! I'll offer a guess in the same vein and if you don't mind toss out a questions or two...

Winners: ILCA and WS for reasons as you stated.

Draw: BK (not heirs*) - gets royalties through March 2013 boats if court rules. * BK and heirs get future fixed low single digit non transferable royalty if settlement.

LPE - get financial certainty, inability of BK to pass "rights" to PSA for their consolidation/leverage, but class has greater leverage

Losers: PSA - Loses attempt to consolidate control/leverage outside territory through leveraging BK "rights."

On the outside chance that BK wins all and no settlement re trademark is reached I still don't think most sailors get hurt. Olympics would be a mess but club level just centers around a Torch or other generic laser class. My guess is that even if winning BK would not want to lose the Laser name or Olympic class so would reach settlement re trademark.

OK, questions:

1.) This - "gets to keep his money received for the future royalty stream" - is interesting drafting. Is it purposeful?

2.) Why do you think this mess happened? You imply Asia but do the contracts stop either party to have gone there at any time (including now) with non-trademarked, non-plaqued, generic laser look alike boats (not fishing - honestly not recalling)?

My SWAG guess was that it happened more over the BK "right" and royalty being undefined, transferable, and potentially having to be renegotiated upon the expiration/renewal dates of contracts. Once BK gave it to PSA, the fight seemed unavoidable. Even after he took it back the threat of what could happen was clear and so the fight was unavoidable. If this was as simple as a low fixed royalty to BK it should have been over long ago.

Either way, despite all the hype, I can't see this ever impacting club level grass roots laser like sailing in any meaningful way.

 

[Wess]

The local impact seems to be a little less love for the Laser.

The sailors, as we used to each spring, are not chatting about a fleet buy and nobody seems willing to serve as fleet captain.

Bear in mind this view is filtered through my glasses but it seems like sailors still want to play in our fabulous Lsser /Sunfish Wednesday night fleet but there is a contempt for the company that sells the boats.

We have all known for decades that the two boats are sold at a premium price and we have accepted that because we used to believe the company supported our passion.

Now the attitude toward the builder is best described as money grubbing opportunists who do nothing for us.

I see damage to the local game

I love to race singlehanded sailboats and don't see any other options but Lasers and Sunfish .....except for spending over $10,000 to get an MC Scow and drive 200 miles each way to play. The RS fleet looks years away if it happens at all.

My friends have Lasers. Most only sail to see each other. Their years of big time competition have passed by. We aren't jumping in a new fleet and busting our asses to make it grow. We already did that. We are universally frustrated by the fact we may have to start over.

It sickens me that our game is being held hostage by a group that could just as easily be using the fighting funds to make our game wonderful.

If the money givenbto thise lawyers had been spent on creating an office and promotions team like the one Faust and I used to run, there would have been enough money thrown off by the resulting production increase to give each side more than either set will be able to extract from the dying gold egg laying hen.

Laser sailing is being killed by people who want to be in charge

If all the effort spent to be in charge over the last fifteen years had been spent on making the game happen we would have thousands more sailors out there playing with us.

What kind of asinine situation do we have??

There is a great game available except, nobody can supply toys or spend money on gathering and disseminating information about where to go play, where to get toys, who to contact, how to get help, hiw to run events,......

We really need somebody who loves singlehanded sailing and sailing generally to step up, invest a few million dollars, and start up a brand new fleet.

99.999% of the people in North America are not currently members of The Sunfish or Laser class.

yet we know sailing is fabulous and everybody wants to sail a LASER® or Sunfish... even Simon.

How could we possibly do this inviting folks out to play with us any more incompetently??

That's a good chum slick!

 

[SM123]

What really winds me up about the whole situation is that a manufacturer held a gun to the associations head and the association crumbled. Forget what the issue was for a minute, because it is actually no different from the manufacturer saying you can't have Lasers from them any more unless you change any one of the other rules. They changed a rule to ensure supply. Where do we go next? The precedent is set. LP now knows that with the right pressure, the association will crumble.

You seem to be under the impression that this is the ICLA's fight. It isn't. It's BK's fight and, in my opinion, the ICLA only did what was required to enable it to continue to operate.

Was there an alternative builder ready to replace LP?

You miss the point. The class had a set of rules. The class changed the rules to ensure one builder kept building the boat. It doesn't matter what that rule is. The builder now knows that all it has to do is threaten to cease production and the class will cave into any demand to change the rules. The rule itself is irrelevant. It is the principal that has now been established.

As for there being somebody to replace LP, yes, there are a number capable of doing so. There is an issue with trademarks, but they aren't insurmountable. Moreover, any other builder would probably be better for the class than LP, who have shown nothing but disdain for the association and only recommenced behaving decently towards the association when they needed the rule change. Before that, they had pulled the plug on paying their fair share of costs through things like advertising and sponsorship. they were simply along for a free ride.

I don't think that you can waive away the trademark issue so easily ("not insurmountable"? BK has been trying to surmount them for how many years now?). Where are those Torch dinghies? Has a single Torch dinghy been built?

I think that refusing to issue the plaques to LP is suicide for the the ICLA. No plaques means no plaque fees paid to ICLA. I suspect that the profits on building Lasers is sufficiently small that Rastegar could simply shut down LP. What replaces plaque fees from LP? Fees from non-existent Torch dinghies? I don't think PSA and GS build enough Lasers to keep the ICLA afloat.

Yes, LP under Rastegar is not good for the class, but pretending that the trademark doesn't give him a strong hand is wishful thinking.

 

[SimonN]

First, as for the trademark, I agree it is a major issue. There was always that uneasy tension between holding the trademark and only being licensed to build the design. But for me, that was a real strength for everybody. With that in place, everybody had to "play nice". The association changed all of that. Now the trademark holder has pretty well unlimited powers, because the association has already shown it will do whatever is needed to ensure supply.

As for the Torch, it was never intended as a solution to be implemented at the time. It was simply a posturing tool, to show that in the end, there is a way of handling the trademark issue. If at any time the class wants to break free of the builder, all they have to do is change the name of the boat. Yes, its a big thing, and maybe the Torch isn't the right name, but 2 years after, nobody will care.

Finally, it seems that poor old PSA are getting a bit of a bum wrap out of all of this. To start with, the sale of the rights was never meant as a power play. BK was absoluetly clear on this and I personally believe him. He sold it to them because he felt that they were the only people who would protect the interests of the class. And in all the time they have been around, hasn't PSA always been a great support to the associations in their area, in a way that the LP area associations could only dream of. I have recently seen it first hand, and in particular, the fine job "Cringle" does supporting the class here in Oz. Never saw the same thing from LP in the UK. Also,are people aware that in the event of LP not building any more, PSA had no intention of supplying that market. It was always the intention to appoint a new builder. As for Asia, that is still rather contentious between LP and PSA. Look at what was intended for the Torch. PSA would keep their area, LP would obviously be replaced and a new builder, with no association to any other builder was going to handle Asia.

I still believe that PSA were the good guys in all of this and that was part of the problem, Rastigar knew that if PSA held the contracts, he would be held more accountable. This dispute is all about Rastigar making a play for maximum control of the Laser world, and on principal, the association should have ensured that did not happen.

 

[IPLore]

As for the Torch, it was never intended as a solution to be implemented at the time. It was simply a posturing tool, to show that in the end, there is a way of handling the trademark issue. If at any time the class wants to break free of the builder, all they have to do is change the name of the boat. Yes, its a big thing, and maybe the Torch isn't the right name, but 2 years after, nobody will care..

I agree with Simon.
Incidentally, this is why I counted ILCA and WS as partial winners out of this. It would require a simple rule amend,ent passed by the membership and approved by WS to remove the requirement for a boat to be supplied by a trademark owner. I doubt it will even impact the class for two years. This is one of those unusual situations where the product itself is iconic not the brand.

The Class has demonstrated that they are prepared to pass rule amendments to protect members. The designer has effectively recognized this option. ILCA and WS would continue to control specification and appointment of builders.

The boat could even be named the Kirby to honor the designer. I would have to look at the ISAF contract again to see if there are any contractual hurdles. Please can someone post it again.

This would be a scorched earth move and although unlikely (and risky)it is a big hammer in the hands of the Class members to keep the builders in line. (Thank God Can'tt is not a member )

The other power ( with more realistic implications) that has been established on behalf of the Class during this debacle is that it has become clear, as a matter of pragmatic reality, that no trademark owner or builder is going to be able to sell their rights without the express permission and approval of ILCA and WS. That gives the Class enormous control over the value of the trademark. Something I suspect that both builders have come to realize.

IMO,both builders emerge from this with a weaker IP position than they had 5 years ago and both will probably wish they hadn't allowed this fight to escalate.

 

[tillerman]

I still believe that PSA were the good guys in all of this and that was part of the problem, Rastigar knew that if PSA held the contracts, he would be held more accountable. This dispute is all about Rastigar making a play for maximum control of the Laser world, and on principal, the association should have ensured that did not happen.

PSA may technically be the good guys, but let's not forget that Kirby sold his rights to a company called Global Sailing which is owned by the Spencer family which also owns PSA.

And in the summer of 2010, Global Sailing was advertising (on Scuttlebutt Europe - scroll down to 4th article) for dealers in Europe to sell a boat that was clearly a Laser but they weren't calling it a Laser.

Global Sailing Limited

We are looking for enthusiastic and well established marine dealers to become national or multi national distributors in the European region for the

Bruce Kirby designed Olympic Sailing Dinghy

This well established brand has already attracted over 200,000 devoted sailors globally and its long term future remains extremely positive. Over 4500 new boats were produced in 2009. Further details will be available after receipt of your expression of interest.

Contact:

+61 458 800 651 [email protected]

​

It does seem that Global Sailing were exploring the opportunity to set up a dealer network in Europe to sell Lasers, possibly under a different name, and that the Spencer family was making a power play for Rastegar's European market. I don't see any "good guys" in this.

 

[torrid]

That Sailing Scuttlebutt ad may have been more posturing. It simply reveals too many details to fly below the radar. Who knows if they ever intended to follow through with it.

 

[SimonN]

I still believe that PSA were the good guys in all of this and that was part of the problem, Rastigar knew that if PSA held the contracts, he would be held more accountable. This dispute is all about Rastigar making a play for maximum control of the Laser world, and on principal, the association should have ensured that did not happen.

PSA may technically be the good guys, but let's not forget that Kirby sold his rights to a company called Global Sailing which is owned by the Spencer family which also owns PSA.

And in the summer of 2010, Global Sailing was advertising (on Scuttlebutt Europe - scroll down to 4th article) for dealers in Europe to sell a boat that was clearly a Laser but they weren't calling it a Laser.

Global Sailing Limited

We are looking for enthusiastic and well established marine dealers to become national or multi national distributors in the European region for the

Bruce Kirby designed Olympic Sailing Dinghy

This well established brand has already attracted over 200,000 devoted sailors globally and its long term future remains extremely positive. Over 4500 new boats were produced in 2009. Further details will be available after receipt of your expression of interest.

Contact:

+61 458 800 651 [email protected]

​

It does seem that Global Sailing were exploring the opportunity to set up a dealer network in Europe to sell Lasers, possibly under a different name, and that the Spencer family was making a power play for Rastegar's European market. I don't see any "good guys" in this.

That was in response to LP stopping paying the royalties. It was posturing and retaliatory. Note how it doesn't say anywhere the word "Laser" but calls it "The Bruce Kirby Olympic Sailing Dinghy". Consider it in light of what has been said above about a name change.

IIRC, this forms part of LP's case. It goes something like "we stopped paying because they were after our market. After we stopped paying, they took out this ad and that proves they were after our market"

 

[JimC]

IIRC, this forms part of LP's case. It goes something like "we stopped paying because they were after our market. After we stopped paying, they took out this ad and that proves they were after our market"

I expect that the Kirby/GS side's story will be on the lines of

"This was just straightforward continuity planning. LP stopped paying royalties, so they had terminated the contract. They had, not us. The termination clauses in the contract mean they have to stop building Lasers. So in order to maintain supply to Laser/Kirby Sailboat customers we had no choice but to go looking for a new builder, but without using the Laser Performance Trademark. We had no idea they weren't going to honour the contract terms, after all we were going to honour their trademark, and we had to make plans to continue supply. The fact that we were looking for a new builder for Europe proves that our Australian subsidiary wasn't planning to expand into the European market."

 

[Wess]

That Sailing Scuttlebutt ad may have been more posturing. It simply reveals too many details to fly below the radar. Who knows if they ever intended to follow through with it.

That and the Torch were all likely posturing moves but they also made very clear (though it was likely clear already) the threat to LPE of BK's claimed rights in the hands of another builder and competitor (PSA/GS). Prior to BK transferring his right, all the builders were roughly on equal footing. After BK sold to PSA/GS, LPE would be subservient to PSA/GS with no real limit on what they could ask (if there was a class rule that says you have to have a contact with them - no matter what they ask).

The transfer of the claimed right, the ad, and the Torch were all threats, no? Some more real than others obviously.

 

[JimC]

That and the Torch were all likely posturing moves but they also made very clear (though it was likely clear already) the threat to LPE of BK's claimed rights

I'm sure Kirby's side will say that there was no threat, that LPE were, intentionally, protected by their ownership of the trademark and their place on the Advisory Council. That was the point of all the contracts and termination clauses that no-one could play the bad guy without creating chaos.

 

[IPLore]

Sometimes I read these posts and wonder if you guys just like to endlessly fight or actually disagree about anything?

Fred.....you are a child of the summer of love!
You set an example to the rest of us by the way you shake hands and agree to let bygones be bygones.

 

[Sailabout]

what happens if they announce the Laser is gone from the olympics..

Whats the trademark worth then?

 

[SM123]

what happens if they announce the Laser is gone from the olympics..

Whats the trademark worth then?

It's not clear that being an Olympic dinghy contributes to the success of any class.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

This is not the place for an extended tirade on the evils of the executive class, but suffice to say that the problems of the legal process (and this isn't unique to the legal system) are intrinsic to the way the system has developed and don't require specific collusion by the lawyers. Indeed they're almost certainly entirely ignorant of the wrong they do, because they have been trained to think of it as the correct way to run the process.

I agree with you Jim about the lawyers - and would like to extend that to the judge - who appears to be the cause of the extended delay.

Regarding the class executives, last I checked, the ILCA was part of Kirby's legal action. There are unresolved issues between Kirby and the ILCA. I don't think anywhere is the place for "...an extended tirade on the evils of the executive [of the] class..." - however there are valid questions that have been raised by Laser sailors (ILCA members, ILCA ex-members and non-members) which so far have not been answered.

For all I know, some executives may be working tirelessly behind the scenes to resolve the rift that this situation has created.

While the ILCA says little or takes no action (because they are unwilling or unable to), the ILCA gives the appearance that they continue to at least in part support LP's position.

Gantt - could you be a little more specific on what questions you think ILCA ex-members and non-members have raised which should be answered by the executives of a class of which the questioners are not even members and to which they contribute nothing?

Other than repeating myself with the summary list of questions again, which I'm sure you are not trolling for, here's one specific question raised by one Laser sailor (perhaps he's an ex Laser sailor now - I'm not sure - maybe I'll ask him soon enough):

• Do I have a counterfeit boat? (This question was asked surrounding the plaque changes)

And speculative question from the same writer:

• If the Torch becomes a reality we need some way to allow Torches and Lasers to race together under one class organization. But who knows how the Laser Class will respond to this suggestion?

Here's what Otterbox wrote back on May 7th, 2013:

HOWEVER, I believe the points raised about the ILCA seriously mis-representing the case to stampede its members into voting for the rule change are absolutely valid.

Until the ILCA addresses that fact, I think they could well deserve the treatment they get before the US court system on a whole lot of other issues.

Does anyone (other than Wess) seriously believe that the ILCA put forward a true and accurate argument to its members with those statements. Certainly here in the UK, with the Master sailors I have the occasional ale with, there is general disgust at just how ILCA presented their case.

Tillerman. I recall you speculating about the fundamental law change being challenged in court, in response to the many questions surrounding the validity of the vote of the rule change.

You have also speculated as to whether or not a certain ILCA employee would answer questions or even remain in the employ of the ILCA back in 2012.

I agree with you Tillerman, when you said in reference to the ILCA: "I think all of us, at least those of us living in western style democracies, expect transparency, information and communication from our leaders."

More questions - these ones are from you Tillerman:

I am more than a bit unclear after reading Heini's update. He says we can't "enact" the rule change but doesn't specifically say why. Is it because ISAF won't approve the change? Is the old rule still in force? If so, then any builder that doesn't have an agreement with Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. cannot build legal Lasers approved by the class. Does this mean that all boats now being built by LP Europe are no longer legal (plaque or no plaque)? Or don't we even know?

I thought this vote was supposed to save the Laser Class from being split three ways, but almost a year after the rule change was initially proposed, Heini still says the existence of the Laser Class is "threatened".

Note that I purposely sought some questions asked by the membership prior to the commencement of Kirby's legal action. The ILCA had plenty of opportunity to answer some of these questions prior to the legal action, their failure to answer resulted in further questions - like the ones you asked.

Since the legal action, the ILCA have good reason to not answer these questions, quite justified in being tight-lipped in anything to do with the legal action. For me, I'll take BK's advice and see what the courts say before figuring out what to do next - unless the ILCA significantly change as I have stated in this forum. (There are some signs of change already - I think Tracy has safe hands).But that's not the point. Have these questions been answered? So let's start with you Tillerman - were all your questions adequately answered? Given that you specifically referred to the lack of clarity, I somehow doubt it.

And on the matter of membership - are you still an ILCA member or not? Are your questions more or less valid because of that? Are Otterbox's, Otterbox claimed to be a member. (I'm an ex member and may rejoin.) There are plenty of questions from paid up members - on many forums if anyone cares to look. I agree with you Tillerman, that the ILCA are not obligated to answer the questions of non members. The way I see it, they have their hands full being subjected to a legal action - and answering questions from paid up members are a higher priority than potential members or non-members.

By the way, I enjoyed your latest piece of satire, yet again promoting the RS Aero over the Laser. I hope those guys at RS are paying you well <grin> (I'm kidding - I'm sure you're not getting paid).

 

[tillerman]

Thanks Gantt.

Yes, I still am a fully paid up member of the Laser class.

I currently have no questions for the Laser class that haven't already been answered, and I am quite happy with the regular communications we receive from the North American President and the President of the World Council about the Kirby lawsuits.

Glad you liked my blog post about just a few of the reasons why the Laser is better than the RS Aero. I am not being paid by the Laser class or the RS Aero class or RS Sailing. I write about my enthusiasm for both boats at least partly to encourage other sailors to come out and join me in sailing either or both of those boats.

 

[SimonN]

The biggest "bad" by the ILCA was the advice to vote as soon as possible. They clearly implied that voting early, rather than closer to the deadline for voting, was some benefit to the class. Most people I spoke to saw that as an attempt to get people to vote before BK could put his side of teh story and again, while the ILCA refused to confirm it, after BK did give his side of the story votes completely dried up.

It remains my belief that without the "vote early" comment, the vote would not have been carried. If both sides of the story had been out there from the beginning of voting, I do not believe the vote would have passed. However, it doesn't matter whether I am right or wrong on that, it doesn't change the fact that the way the ILCA worded their advice to vote early was wrong and very suspicious. Add to that their unwillingness to answer questions at the time, and it leaves me very underwhelmed at the efforts of the committee to get the rule change at any cost, including hiding stuff from the membership.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Thanks Gantt.

Yes, I still am a fully paid up member of the Laser class.

I currently have no questions for the Laser class that haven't already been answered, and I am quite happy with the regular communications we receive from the North American President and the President of the World Council about the Kirby lawsuits.

Glad you liked my blog post about just a few of the reasons why the Laser is better than the RS Aero. I am not being paid by the Laser class or the RS Aero class or RS Sailing. I write about my enthusiasm for both boats at least partly to encourage other sailors to come out and join me in sailing either or both of those boats.

That's good to hear that your questions have been answered, and that you are happy with "regular communications we receive from the North American President and the President of the World Council about the Kirby lawsuits".

That doesn't relate to what other members are saying, that the ILCA is not sending out updates (regular or otherwise) about the Kirby case. Nor is it consistent when Andy recently said on this forum that the ILCA exec had been instructed not to speak about the case.

Hmmm... Tillerman, I like your use of the English language, really I do. In particular, your latest post "the reasons why the Laser is better than the RS Aero". This one in particular:

3. Mainsheet Fun

The Laser has been cleverly designed with the sheet running to a traveler at the rear of the boat and nice square corners at the rear end of the hull which will conveniently catch the sheet if it trails in the water when you are gybing and give you a surprise by quickly capsizing the boat and throwing you in the water. Ha ha ha!

Ha ha ha!

Whereas the designer of the RS Aero, for reasons I just don't understand, designed it with a center sheeting system so you get none of the above-mentioned surprise capsize fun that you get with a Laser. Boring!
(source: http://propercourse.blogspot.com/2016/04/7-reasons-why-laser-is-better-than-rs.html)

Great stuff. Actually, I don't know when you are being satirical or telling your truth - either way - as said previously, you are doing an outstanding job promoting the RS Aero!

And while you said that all of your questions have been answered by the regular communications from the ILCA, there are members who claim the opposite. Though of course, it may have been a satirical statement - I really can't tell, and in the end, it won't matter.

The unanswered questions surround the validity of the vote and the mistakes that were made. (Remember, you drew attention to the difference between the online version and the printed version - and the online version was quickly changed). The UKLA had official statements that contradicted the ILCA's statements about early voting, and prior to the voting date there was a very public story run by a online sailing story that said that Laser members didn't need to vote - so some didn't - in total less than 10% voted. So far as I am aware, the questions that members, (including yourself) asked - have not been answered in a meaningful way by the ILCA. I really think you summed it up well when you said that we probably would never get to the bottom of it unless it went to court (referring to the validity of the fundamental rule change.) I agree with that summation - and add that it's extremely unlikely that the validity of the vote will be considered properly in the current legal action.

There are more questions relating to the issuing of the plaques, the removal of Bruce Kirby's name from it, and the apparent willingness to support Laser Performance at the apparent cost to Bruce Kirby. We (and I am not alone), hope that at least some of these questions will be addressed by the legal action.

There are still further questions about the statements the ILCA has made, and equally importantly, those which the ILCA have elected to remain silent on. It's understandable that being involved in the legal action, that the ILCA remains silent until there is an outcome - which may be years away.

Frankly, what is discussed here on this forum does not matter - unless someone here reveals something of earth shattering significance. As most people are saying - it depends on the outcome of the legal action - and I'm not alone in wondering what the implications for all of the parties will be - including the ILCA.

Until then - unless there is something new, there is very little point in trying to re-examine what has already been discussed in depth.

And Tillerman, you can choose to not believe me when I say that there are members who still have answered questions. Of course it's the proper course to believe whatever you like!