Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[ojfd]

WTF are you on about.

Nothing. Just pointing out that ISAF is not favouring any builder specifically.
Selecting Byte CII for so many ISAF youth events, including youth Olympics certainly will generate some long term wordwide sales for PSA. The same PSA whose real owners GS are part of the current mess with the Laser.

I think, ISAF could have decided to go some other route, like 4.7 and Radial, if they, for whatever reasons (favouring Rastegar, for example), wanted to.

You are completely missing the point. The Byte CII was already chosen ages ago and that could not be changed. This was nothing to do with which boat is used for the youth Olympics, a decision made years ago. This was simply a rubber stamping of a commercial agreement and ISAF could not withhold that

Read the bloody documents, SimonN! By the May 2012 the Laser conflict was in the full swing.

Events Committee Minutes

Thursday 3 May 2012, Stresa, Italy

14. 2014 Youth Olympic Games

{b} The Committee received a progress report from the Chairman of the YOG Working

Party. The Chairman of the WP reported that the WP is recommending the selection of the Byte C2 as the 1 person Dinghy equipment. Pablo Masseroni of the WP spoke in favour of the alternative Laser 4.7. The Committee noted the decision is to be made by the Executive.

......

If you think that changing a class rule in in order to ensure that builder is building legal boats isn't favouring a builder over all the others who were building class legal boats and who said that the rule change would mean they couldn't build class legal boats any more, you really are blind. The issue is whether they were right to do so, because the facts speak for themselves. And if you don't think that it stinks that at the same time they changed the rules, they accepted sponsorship from a sister company, you must have a very strange moral compass.

First, don't mix the actions taken by ILCA and ISAF. Check who changed the Rule and who, amongst several others, approved the change.
Second, I wasn't talking about the Rule change.

Third, my moral compass points away from commercial disputes and towards supporting ILCA and ISAF.

Fourth, whether I'm blind or my compass is strange is not of your business, so watch your language.

 

[RobG]

No doubt discussion in detail will continue, but the guts of Rastegar's defence is that the contracts were no longer in force. That is the crux of the dispute. It was from the start and it is still.

The ILCA's changing of the rule may, prima facie, be seen to favour LP but it probably should never have been in the class rules in the first place. The rules should only have said "a builder approved by ILCA", and then the ILCA could define the conditions for being an approved builder and enter into related agreements completely separately of the rules. And all such agreements should have sunset clauses and be re–negotiated after a period (10 or 15 years?).

Interesting that Rastegar claims Kirby doesn't have copyright on the manual and that it belongs (more or less) to the builders and ILCA.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

OJFD wrote: "Do you still think ISAF favours Rastegar only?" That's a really big question - and looking for the answer seems to have OJFD looking at the Byte.

Perhaps a more apt question to ask is: "Did the ILCA rule change that the ISAF approve favour anyone?" The answer is not Kirby & Co, the Australian builder or the Japanese builder". The answer was meant to be "Laser Performance". From the outset it was said to both solve an issue that "a builder" had, though certainly was not intended to favour either party. (Again, Tracy summed it up nicely).

The ILCA certainly intended to help Laser Performance continue to build - I'm pretty sure it was meant to be more substantial in nature than superficial, though as it was only passed at the end of April I'd question if the rule change has been of much use to Laser Performance so far. Just out of interest, are there new Lasers for sale at dealerships in Laser Performance's territories? Is Laser Performance still building Lasers? How many plaques remain?

Who it definitely doesn't favour is the ILCA or the ISAF themselves, as they need to pay legal costs as defendants in Kirby's civil action. If their actions were not against Kirby, then they would have no legal action to answer.

I wonder how the supporters of the rule change would feel about contributing to ILCA's legal costs directly.

 

[dogwatch]

This is not how free market economy works.

OD racing classes aren't "free market economy". They are a process of cooperation and limitation to allow the best racing.
Recreational ski or windsurfing equipment are "free market economy", where the equipment changes every season or two.

 

[SimonN]

You are completely missing the point. The Byte CII was already chosen ages ago and that could not be changed. This was nothing to do with which boat is used for the youth Olympics, a decision made years ago. This was simply a rubber stamping of a commercial agreement and ISAF could not withhold that

Read the bloody documents, SimonN! By the May 2012 the Laser conflict was in the full swing.

>Events Committee Minutes

Thursday 3 May 2012, Stresa, Italy

14. 2014 Youth Olympic Games

{b} The Committee received a progress report from the Chairman of the YOG Working

Party. The Chairman of the WP reported that the WP is recommending the selection of the Byte C2 as the 1 person Dinghy equipment. Pablo Masseroni of the WP spoke in favour of the alternative Laser 4.7. The Committee noted the decision is to be made by the Executive.

......

If you think that changing a class rule in in order to ensure that builder is building legal boats isn't favouring a builder over all the others who were building class legal boats and who said that the rule change would mean they couldn't build class legal boats any more, you really are blind. The issue is whether they were right to do so, because the facts speak for themselves. And if you don't think that it stinks that at the same time they changed the rules, they accepted sponsorship from a sister company, you must have a very strange moral compass.

First, don't mix the actions taken by ILCA and ISAF. Check who changed the Rule and who, amongst several others, approved the change.
Second, I wasn't talking about the Rule change.

Third, my moral compass points away from commercial disputes and towards supporting ILCA and ISAF.

Fourth, whether I'm blind or my compass is strange is not of your business, so watch your language.

You constantly distort facts to fit your argument. While the class had voted on the rule change, it was ISAF who allowed it to go through having held it up for a long time. They also approved it outside of "normal business hours" as the approval of rule changes is done at either the annual or half year meeting. Why didn't ISAF originally approve the rule change? I believe it is because they felt it would put them in breach of their agreements with BK and that is also why they instructed ILCA to stop issuing builders plaques to LP. make no mistake, it was ISAF that decided to enact the rule change and when to do it. And I am sure it is purely a coincidence that they approved it at the same time as one of Rastegar's companies entered into a significant sponsorship deal with ISAF.

As for the youth Olympics, you are completely distorting the facts. To use the Byte was decided back in 2012, well before any legal action began and at a time neither ISAF or the ILCA were really involved with the conflict between the 2 parties., It was decided on the back of a working party report. It wasn't favouring one manufacturer over another in a legal dispute but a fair selection process. I reiterate what I said before. If you cannot tell the difference, you are being blind to the facts as they are completely different situations.

 

[JimC]

They also approved it outside of "normal business hours" as the approval of rule changes is done at either the annual or half year meeting.

Not the case any more Simon, they approve/rubber stamp them regularly now. Its even a template item in the ISAF on line newsletter Making Waves.

 

[sandgrounder]

Just out of interest, are there new Lasers for sale at dealerships in Laser Performance's territories? Is Laser Performance still building Lasers? How many plaques remain?

Laser Sailboats (a Rastegar company) in Banbury, UK build Laser hulls for LaserPerformance. Apparently they have recently increased production from 30 boats per week to 50 boats per week, hiring additional staff.

 

[bored broker]

So yesterday at my buisness, I was contacted by LaserPerformance for a dealer inquiry. We were Laser dealers many years ago but got cut out when they went to in house sales. Has anyone else been contacted in this way? Are things coming back together? Should I jump on board or run screeming?

 

[Bruno]

this is interesting, there a few marketing theories out there connected with product life cycle. my hazy recollection is that when you have entered the post-mature phase cost minimization is key. a direct marketing channel might fit in that case unless monoploy pricing continues. this where the olympic and youth sailing niches pay off the highest imho, by reducing or eliminating competition for a series of niches. zim has a few ex vanguard guys selling for them.

 

[Reht]

Down at my local chandlery the other day I noticed that they have a healthy supply of laser bits (the little ones like pintles, gudgeons, etc, at least that's what they have on display, maybe they have big bits in the back), upon closer inspection they are all marked "vanguard"...

I presume this is a stash from way back, there must be other stashes around somewhere to keep the fleet afloat until this mess blows over...

 

[torrid]

So yesterday at my buisness, I was contacted by LaserPerformance for a dealer inquiry. We were Laser dealers many years ago but got cut out when they went to in house sales. Has anyone else been contacted in this way? Are things coming back together? Should I jump on board or run screeming?

My guess, probably a pre-emptive strike to keep you from selling Kirby Torches.

 

[sandgrounder]

Down at my local chandlery the other day I noticed that they have a healthy supply of laser bits (the little ones like pintles, gudgeons, etc, at least that's what they have on display, maybe they have big bits in the back), upon closer inspection they are all marked "vanguard"...

I presume this is a stash from way back, there must be other stashes around somewhere to keep the fleet afloat until this mess blows over...

Here in Europe the pintles are supplied pre-welded to the rudder stock. There is certainly no shortage of genuine Laser parts in this part of the world, which is prime LP territory.

 

[IPLore]

So in sum, Gantt and Simon suggest, with a straight face :wacko: , that Laser Class members would benefit from a class rule which grants Global sailing/BKI the right to arbitrarily terminate any builder from building class legal boats.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the ILCA has not heeded their advice and life moves on.

For sure, I doubt that ISAF or ILCA will ever agree again to allow a class rule which grants BKI/GS the right to arbitrarily terminate builders. There are many better ways that ILCA could help Bruce get a royalty income.

Thank you IPLore for posting the source of Laser Performance's agreement for mediation. Mediation has failed. Yes, every sentence in these legal documents is very deliberate - and rhetoric is used as the purpose is to argue a position. It can be expected that from time to time, that overstatements have been made. I believe that Kirby and Co have made some, as I believe Rastegar & Co have as well. For example, Rastegar and Co are attempting to rewrite history by putting forward Kirby as a kind of a draughtsman for Ian Bruce. Here's a couple more:

"The Laser class has thrived as a result of the years of investment by LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon in promoting regattas and participation in the class, including funding events throughout the world to make the class truly international." ("As a result" is pretty strong - there were other factors. Note that Laser Performance was created in 2007, Ragestar's involvement was a little before then, by 2009 they were in dispute.)

"60. Consistent with their conspiracy to crush LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon, Kirby, BKI and Global Sailing set out upon a course of conduct designed to intimidate ISAF and ILCA into supporting the conspirators' goals."
"66. The ultimate act of intimidation by Kirby, BKI and Global Sailing is this lawsuit, naming ISAF and ILCA as defendants. Kirby, BKI and Global Sailing well know that ISAF and ILCA are not-for-profit organizations that are dedicated to promoting and organizing the sport of sailing. Nonetheless, to satisfy their own profit motives, Kirby and BKI (undoubtedly financed by Global Sailing) has embroiled ISAF and ILCA in distracting and expensive litigation."

What's come out from this process is that Kirby's involvement was far greater than I had previously understood, now that I understand the role of agreements - though while not perfect - it's the relationships that they cemented and the enormous goodwill that ensued helped in no small way create the popularity of the Laser.
I too am concerned about McClaren sponsoring ISAF, however it is very unlikely to be used in a meaningful to say whether or not Kirby can (or has) terminated Laser Performance's builder contract.

IPLore wrote: "one could arguably claim that Bruce Kirby broke this agreement as far back as 2008". The agreement terms were not followed with the sale to Global Sailing, and the effect was that his rights were not transferred to Global Sailing. Laser Performance agrees with me that the terms were not followed. A very important concept of contract law is that one parties breech does not in itself release either party of their obligations under the agreement. The lecture I heard years ago used the simple example of a failure to make a payment - if a payment is not made (a breech) then it does not impact any other obligations under an agreement. It's been put forward by IPLore and others that somehow the agreement has been voided because of Global Sailing, but never in a meaningful way. I am unsure by what legal device or precedent that this 'voiding' is made possible, so believe that the agreement is both current and binding.

Please understand that I'm not advocating that the ILCA should reintroduce a new replacement rule - I am advocating that they should repeal a rule change that was made (there is a big difference in process). The ILCA constitution allows the ILCA World Council and/or Advisory Council to withdraw their support for the change, thereby repealing the rule. To do so has solid reasons in that the process for the rule change was flawed and the rule change is not consistent with an agreement that the ILCA has with Kirby.

"How can anyone argue with a straight face that it benefits Laser sailors to pass a rule saying that builders worldwide need to be approved by Global Sailing/BKI?" I'm pretty sure that this rule had been in place for several decades. It was changed on 23 April 2013. It was originally deliberately put there for the benefit of Laser sailors, and was a part of a system that saw Lasers grow to be the most popular adult one design class in the world. (My face is very straight, IPLore, as I believe are the faces of those who made and upheld this rule.) The ILCA was not "mortally wounding itself" while the rule in question was in effect for decades. In spite of IPLore twisting what I have said, the ISAF agreement is very real and the agreement was signed and is binding. The ILCA see the rule change as enabling themselves to issue plaques to a builder no longer approved by Kirby. And while the ILCA is issuing plaques, Laser Performance has no motivation of significance to change anything. Kirby on the other hand has over 40 years track record of acting for the benefit of Laser sailors - he's been an avid sailor himself for years. He attempted to retire back in 2008 - and if he didn't care about Laser sailing, he could have told Global Sailing "sorry - a deal is a deal" and walked away. He didn't. Instead, he has re-entered the fray to try and make things right for us sailors. Are his attempts perfect? No, of course not. Is his heart in the right place? I believe so. Is he working to damn hard to the benefit of sailors of the boat he designed? It's my firm belief that he is.

IPLore wrote "No class legal boats could be built?" So what happened up until April 2013? Remember that the change was implemented after Kirby's civil action began. The correct thing (without the ILCA rule change) was for Laser Performance to ask the court to continue building boats - I believe that permission would be granted.

IPLore wrote that "the ILCA is not interested in litigation". If that's the case, then the ILCA would be right to get themselves out of the action by repealing the rule to become a bystander instead of a participant in this legal action.

 

[LMI]

Pot says to kettle.

ILCA has endorsed the quitter

Say what?? I have been personally involved on the organization and promotion of the Laser sailing game continuously for longer than virtually anyone else on the world.

Despite the fact the management of the ILCA conspired to steal thousands of dollars from

me in 2002, I have continued to organize regattas, match sailors who play toys, teach new people how to play and while I am typing this I am PAYING an employee to fill the beer and water cooler which I make sure is on the committee boat EVERY Wednesday night for our local races.

YOU, whoever hides behind LMI, are absolutely out of line with your uncalled for comment!!!

That is one version of the story but there are other views. Today, many years later, who seems intent on controlling what happens to money that does not belong to them and attacking those elected by the class members? A lot of good people got smeared and some things never change. Bitter quitter would be a good screen name for somebody my family used to know.

 

[IPLore]

By the way. I don't have a view for or against the merits of Global Sailing Ltd.

I just think that such a rule would not be in the members interest nor do I think it is the right way for Global Sailing to pursue its contractual rights or its commercial objectives.

I agree with Gouv, that classes succeed when the Class and the Builders work together as partners.

Over a very long time those partnerships are going to go through cycles and the Class (not another builder) should have the power to get them back on track.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Down at my local chandlery the other day I noticed that they have a healthy supply of laser bits (the little ones like pintles, gudgeons, etc, at least that's what they have on display, maybe they have big bits in the back), upon closer inspection they are all marked "vanguard"...

I presume this is a stash from way back, there must be other stashes around somewhere to keep the fleet afloat until this mess blows over...

Don't presume that - it's just one possibility. Making changes to the tooling may be viewed as an expense that Laser Performance does not want to make. (Having said that - are the products normally marked Vanguard? If they are then I wonder if they came from Laser Performance at all!) Good to hear that Lasers are still being made, though 50 a week seems a very high rate.

Bruno - I think Kirby's sailboat has broken the 'rules' of most product life models - at least the ones I'm aware of. The Laser as a product is unique.

Sandgrounder - good to know - it would seem to me that the supply issues come and go. If I worked for Laser Performance - I'd be highly motivated to make things as perfect as possible for the Laser right now. Same comment applies to Torrid - it may be a tactic to increase production - though increased motivation may be a by product of Kirby's civil action.

 

[sandgrounder]

Good to hear that Lasers are still being made, though 50 a week seems a very high rate.

Men's Radial Worlds - 120 boats

Women's Radial Worlds - 179 boats

Standard Men's Worlds - 160 boats

Those 3 events alone require over 9 weeks production @ 50/week

They also supply corporate / retail markets in Europe / Africa / Middle East / North America / Latin America........

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Good to hear that Lasers are still being made, though 50 a week seems a very high rate.

Men's Radial Worlds - 120 boats

Women's Radial Worlds - 179 boats

Standard Men's Worlds - 160 boats

Those 3 events alone require over 9 weeks production @ 50/week

They also supply corporate / retail markets in Europe / Africa / Middle East / North America / Latin America........

This is demonstrating the importance that racing is to production - assuming it's the same factory that is supplying the Radial worlds.

 

[Bruno]

unique products not being subject to standard market forces?

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Zhou-Inter-Marine---now-with-added-Byte/111052

 

[Bruce Hudson]

unique products not being subject to standard market forces?

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Zhou-Inter-Marine---now-with-added-Byte/111052

So far - yes, the Laser is unique - success over 40 years and over 200,000 boats - plus Olympic status (twice - the Laser and the Laser Radial). Popularity and prestige!

It would be really good to see the Byte succeed. Though if successful here it may be at the expense of our local junior boat is called the Starling - which I sailed as a kid. http://www.starling.org.nz/cms/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&Itemid=68

So in sum, Gantt and Simon suggest, with a straight face :wacko: , that Laser Class members would benefit from a class rule which grants Global sailing/BKI the right to arbitrarily terminate any builder from building class legal boats.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the ILCA has not heeded their advice and life moves on.

So in summary, IPLore says (with one hand covering his eye) that it's OK to act the way that the ILCA has with the rule change - that the end justifies the means - it's all for the Greater Good. He is also saying not to worry about the agreements made or the breeches (potential or otherwise) that the ILCA appears to support (not just the ISAF agreement but the ILCA is supporting breeching the builders agreement based on a legal position). IPLore is agreeing with the statement that the ILCA should keep out of a commercial dispute though in the same breath supporting action that draws the ILCA into the same dispute. By supporting the ILCA's course of action IPLore is saying that Kirby should be disregarded - he's "history"; and if there are moral considerations, then it's best to ignore them as it's all for the Greater Good. Finally, IPLore is saying that the legal action that ILCA is compelled to take in its defence, in spite of it arguably making little or no impact on the main proceedings, is money well spent. (Or perhaps is "necessary" for the Greater Good).

On one side of the legal action is Kirby, with 40 years track record of supporting and promoting the Laser class - though more recently in a different way - he keeps showing up to regattas. By 2011 Kirby had 'retired', he had the opportunity to walk away, to leave the game - but didn't - he came back to try and make things right.

On the other side of this legal action we have Rastegar & Co, joined as a result of their actions the ILCA and the ISAF. Rastegar bought Vanguard in 2007 - and by the end of 2008 was in dispute.

Unfortunately, the ILCA is continuing their course of action "unambiguously" supported by IPLore, however the possibility still exists for them extract themselves from this mess.