Let’s wait for an even bigger over-production at AC.comA bit of an over-production that one. ;-)
Great to see them happy about getting their hands on the OD three-foil rocket ship, at least I guess. Be real funny if the AC40 turns out to be a more compelling competition than The Cup itself. That would be something of a shot in the foot, eh? ;-)Let’s wait for an even bigger over-production at AC.com
What hull numbers are AM getting, AC40-5 and -6?
It will be a great teaser, especially with so many countries involved.Great to see them happy about getting their hands on the OD three-foil rocket ship, at least I guess. Be real funny if the AC40 turns out to be a more compelling competition than The Cup itself. That would be something of a shot in the foot, eh? ;-)
They should be 7 and 8. And it looks like the AC40 build rate is going just as we predicted. We estimated the 7th boat would be completed on Feb 2nd, give a couple weeks to deliver and that is about right. They should be getting their second boat in about 4-6 weeks.Let’s wait for an even bigger over-production at AC.com
What hull numbers are AM getting, AC40-6 and -7?
The single AC40 ordered by Ineos was hull 2, and the single one ordered by LR is/was hull 6?They should be 7 and 8. And it looks like the AC40 build rate is going just as we predicted. We estimated the 7th boat would be completed on Feb 2nd, give a couple weeks to deliver and that is about right. They should be getting their second boat in about 4-6 weeks.
And since AM was scheduled to get the last two boats, that means that Alinghi has had their two boats for awhile and LR has their AC40.
Just going by the original list posted by Chobani Sailor back in the AC40 thread:The single AC40 ordered by Ineos was hull 2, and the single one ordered by LR is/was hull 6?
Perfect, thanks.Just going by the original list posted by Chobani Sailor back in the AC40 thread:
View attachment 576585
There certainly was talk of that after the last cup, although I never confirmed whether they actually did it.I think the protocol states that need to stick with these boats for another cycle, or was that the last cup for this cycle?
Small transgression, Jays. Not enough to end a beautiful relationship, surely? How's it going in Wellywood?There certainly was talk of that after the last cup, although I never confirmed whether they actually did it.
It was this that made me abandon ETNZ and switch support to Prada.
They did do it, 30 mill buyout clause. Was also a big part of my change of allegiance, also to Prada.There certainly was talk of that after the last cup, although I never confirmed whether they actually did it.
It was this that made me abandon ETNZ and switch support to Prada.
NZL’s record in NYS Supreme Court isn’t exactly stellar.My recollection of earlier discussions:
Many think the clause will not stop the winner from changing boats anyway. The winner gets to decide the boat and rules according to the DOG. The “buyout” clause is also ridiculous because the NY courts only allow the recovery of actual loses and not punitive fees. NZ will have a difficult time proving they will actually loose 30 million, especially since they may not exist if they loose.
I am one of those people. A protocol cannot override the Deed, and the Deed allows the winning team to accept the next challenge and determine the terms of the match regardless of what a prior protocol may say. Now, the protocol is also a contract and TNZ could still seek to enforce the "buyout" clause, which in the legal world is referred to as a "liquidated damages" clause. TNZ is not limited only to actual damages. Rather, the liquidated damages clause, to be enforceable (and not deemed an unenforceable penalty), must bear a reasonable relationship to TNZ's probable damages (understanding that such damages may be difficult to calculate with any real certainty).My recollection of earlier discussions:
Many think the clause will not stop the winner from changing boats anyway. The winner gets to decide the boat and rules according to the DOG. The “buyout” clause is also ridiculous because the NY courts only allow the recovery of actual loses and not punitive fees. NZ will have a difficult time proving they will actually loose 30 million, especially since they may not exist if they loose.
Yes, I was basically recalling your opinion with the best of my recollection.I am one of those people. A protocol cannot override the Deed, and the Deed allows the winning team to accept the next challenge and determine the terms of the match regardless of what a prior protocol may say. Now, the protocol is also a contract and TNZ could still seek to enforce the "buyout" clause, which in the legal world is referred to as a "liquidated damages" clause. TNZ is not limited only to actual damages. Rather, the liquidated damages clause, to be enforceable (and not deemed an unenforceable penalty), must bear a reasonable relationship to TNZ's probable damages (understanding that such damages may be difficult to calculate with any real certainty).
A campaign that can cost a team $150 million for just one cycle, together with investments and expenses based on a promise to use the same boats for two cycles, could easily justify a liquidated damages amount of $30,000,000.
Ah well, there you go.They did do it, 30 mill buyout clause. Was also a big part of my change of allegiance, also to Prada.