Team NYYC

Blitzkrieg9

Member
220
62
Parallels to the CNEV challenge are weak.
Weak perhaps, but relevant.  My point is that unlike SDYC v. Mercury Bay where the two litigants were COR/D, the GGYC v. SNG case involves the Defender and an DoG beneficiary that is not the Challenger.  That is the relevance to the current situation. 

 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,676
2,131
Ironically, Tommy Lipton was denied membership of the RYS until shortly before his death. Despite building a very successful businessman, he was not considered upper class.
Sir Tommy was brilliant in many respects and rose from genuine poverty to great success. He also lived with his assistant William Love for 30 odd years.  In those days it was hard to come out. I dont think he minded one way or another about RYS membership but it was nice and appropriate that he was finally invited to join.

You dont apply to RYS, you want untilinvited.

 
99
65
But a multi-chall AC is not at all content of the DoG.
A 1:1 match is the race the DoG is regulating.

Have I understood you correctly? 
No, but that's my fault. The basis of the complaint by NYYC would imposing the AC75 on future events. In other words, it would be a complaint based on the "no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided" clause. 

The goal of the litigation would be to open it up to a multi-challenger event; the means to get there would be to say that the ITUK challenge is not DoG compliant. 

 
99
65
Two different outcomes. I have always said that NYYC would have standing to challenge any attempt by RNZYS/RYS to control AC38 through AC37. Doing so violates the Deed and NYYC would have standing to complain as a potential challenger for AC38. Agreed. That would be the basis of the NYYC complaint. They may not need to submit a challenge to have standing to make that argument, but if they were concerned about standing, then the litigation strategy from GGYC would be to submit a challenge and argue that ITUK's is not DoG compliant. 

NYYC has no right under the Deed to a multi-challenger event. In fact, the Deed contemplates only a 1v1 match. So NYYC would not have standing to complain about not being included in a 1v1 match. Agreed. The goal, not the means, of litigating the ITUK challenge would be to bring about the result of a multi-challenger event. 

The analogous situation to the 2009 GGYC/SNG scenario would be this (which I don't think anyone is suggesting will be possible): RNZYS (SNG) selected RYS (CNEV).  RYS (CNEV) is not a Deed-compliant yacht club (having never held a regatta).  NYYC (GGYC) issues a challenge and sues claiming that RNZYS violated the Deed by selecting an non-Deed compliant challenger. Court concludes RYS (CNEV) is not a valid challenger, sees that NYYC (GGYC) is a valid challenger and was next in line, and orders that NYYC (GGYC) is the proper challenger. Yes, that is what I was suggesting, though perhaps it wasn't clear. The only clarification I would add that the complaint against RYS would be as you noted above, i.e., about the AC75 for AC37-38, not about having held a regatta.  

 

Jethrow

Super Anarchist
Since this is now the court case forum, I'd like to ask the amassed memory of SAAC whether the Blue Arrow Challenge ever made it to NYSC with their bid to enter the '88 Big Boat V's Cat challenge or was it just rejected out of hand like what seems to be occurring for AC37?

It would seem to me that this would have more relevance to the current proceedings than some of the other claims, in relation to being excluded from AC37 anyway?

I seem to remember that Iain Murry had a boat in development if Blue Arrow was let in to a CSS but it never proceeded.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Advocate

Super Anarchist
Since this is now the court case forum, I'd like to ask the amassed memory of SAAC whether the Blue Arrow Challenge ever made it to NYSC with their bid to enter the '88 Big Boat V's Cat challenge or was it just rejected out of hand like what seems to be occurring for AC37?

It would seem to me that this would have more relevance to the current proceedings than some of the other claims, in relation to being excluded from AC37 anyway?

I seem to remember that Iain Murry had a boat in development if Blue Arrow was let in to a CSS but it never proceeded.
IIRC no it didn't. NYSC told Fay and Connor to go at it which left Blue Arrow out. Then they killed it at 30 knots sending it down the mine. Interesting boat though, well ahead of its time.

 

Sailbydate

Super Anarchist
11,856
3,427
Kohimarama
Actually if you read the first volume of Fisher's tome, at least as far as challengers were concerned, it was always that way, right from the beginning. Owners (now teams) were the movers and shakers, clubs a necessary appendage. Not what the DoG envisaged but how it actually played out.
No surprise surely, that the money does all the talking.

 

surfsailor

Super Anarchist
1,887
156
Maui
The early NYYC were a fairly racy set if you read their history. They had a club house on the New Jersey shore and their principal interest seemed to have been wagering on the outcomes of races between their yachts.

The early challengers were club members but the challenge clearly came from the owner and the challenging YC was the club they happened to be members of.

Earl Dunraven was a member of RYS (of course)

Tommy Lipton was a member of several clubs and  chose to challenge via Royal Ulster.
If you're talking about Monmouth Hills and the Water Witch gambling clubhouse (from the lawn of which they would watch the AC races off Sandy Hook), I grew up in one of the original houses. The club house was not officially NYYC, but members were definitely well represented, and the wagers were serious money from what we were told.

 

SimonN

Super Anarchist
10,533
755
Sydney ex London
Maybe I have missed it among all the bullshit and over reaction, but it seems to me that the NYYC statement contains a major flaw. It refers to a DoG match. Even in the wildest conspiracy theories about the next edition, I have not seen any suggestion that there will be a DoG match. What everybody says might happen is a mutually agreed 1 on 1 match, just like we saw for 18 out of 26 NYYC defences. A DoG match is what happens when the defender and challenger cannot agree terms.

 

jaysper

Super Anarchist
10,172
1,295
Wellington
Maybe I have missed it among all the bullshit and over reaction, but it seems to me that the NYYC statement contains a major flaw. It refers to a DoG match. Even in the wildest conspiracy theories about the next edition, I have not seen any suggestion that there will be a DoG match. What everybody says might happen is a mutually agreed 1 on 1 match, just like we saw for 18 out of 26 NYYC defences. A DoG match is what happens when the defender and challenger cannot agree terms.
No, it is definitely not a DoG match. People are calling it that because in recent history the only time there has been 1 v 1 is in a DoG match.

 

SimonN

Super Anarchist
10,533
755
Sydney ex London
No, it is definitely not a DoG match. People are calling it that because in recent history the only time there has been 1 v 1 is in a DoG match.
But what's so strange about what NYYC says is that they are incorrectly likening the rumour to the 2 DoG matches there have been, even though it is not like them and is like the 19 single challenger mutual consent matches that NYYC ran. I expect people on here to get confused between the differences between the 2 but the NYYC? That's almost unbelievable and shows how far out of touch they must be.

 

jaysper

Super Anarchist
10,172
1,295
Wellington
But what's so strange about what NYYC says is that they are incorrectly likening the rumour to the 2 DoG matches there have been, even though it is not like them and is like the 19 single challenger mutual consent matches that NYYC ran. I expect people on here to get confused between the differences between the 2 but the NYYC? That's almost unbelievable and shows how far out of touch they must be.
So the NYYC have their knickers in a twist because they want to play and the next AC is looking likely to be a private party only. However, there is fuck all they can do about that cos nothing in that contradicts the DoG.

Where ETNZ COULD get into strife is if they go ahead with their signalled plan to attempt to force the AC75 in the subsequent cup.

For me however, the big confusion is that they are saying that AC37 is 1 vs 1 but are also indicating entry will be conditional on acceptance of AC75s for the following cup. So why are they doing this if INEOS are the only ones who can enter and are clearly of like minds regarding the AC75?

All too bizarre. The handling of the optics of this have been appalling.

 

strider470

Super Anarchist
So the NYYC have their knickers in a twist because they want to play and the next AC is looking likely to be a private party only. However, there is fuck all they can do about that cos nothing in that contradicts the DoG.

Where ETNZ COULD get into strife is if they go ahead with their signalled plan to attempt to force the AC75 in the subsequent cup.

For me however, the big confusion is that they are saying that AC37 is 1 vs 1 but are also indicating entry will be conditional on acceptance of AC75s for the following cup. So why are they doing this if INEOS are the only ones who can enter and are clearly of like minds regarding the AC75?

All too bizarre. The handling of the optics of this have been appalling.
Not bizarre at all in my opinion.

ETNZ and INEOS desperately need to put the conditions for AC38, already in the AC37 protocol, to give assurance of continuity to possible teams interested in challenging in AC38, since no team would find any sponsor willing to invest in an event that cannot be yet planned and whose class of boats is yet to be confirmed.
But if they do, they will prone to be brought to the NYSC for trying to bend the Deed of Gift in a way different from the original intent.

 




Top