Team NYYC

[dogwatch]

No surprise surely, that the money does all the talking.

Agreed. I just smile at the DoGmatists who insist on the centrality of clubs. With the exception of NYYC in the era of defender trials, I'm not sure it has ever been so.

 

[Mozzy Sails]

Terry says they would have to build new boats, but would they? Only LR would have to build a new boat right? Or use their first boat (unlikely but possible) as it has been defeated in the cup match? 

Obviously any new teams are going to struggle to get involved in 18 months time. But for new teams I think it's more about security of the AC75 being the class in 2024(ish) that is a important, and whether or not there is another cup next year or not is probably of less importance. 

 

[The Advocate]

Terry says they would have to build new boats, but would they? Only LR would have to build a new boat right? Or use their first boat (unlikely but possible) as it has been defeated in the cup match? 

Obviously any new teams are going to struggle to get involved in 18 months time. But for new teams I think it's more about security of the AC75 being the class in 2024(ish) that is a important, and whether or not there is another cup next year or not is probably of less importance. 

I believe LR could use B2 in Cowes.

 

[EYESAILOR]

I believe LR could use B2 in Cowes.

I dont think so. It lost the match and cannot be in another match for a period of 2 years per DoG

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any
Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened,
or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat.

Again..Im not a lawyer but I think I understand this to be the case.

 

[The Advocate]

I dont think so. It lost the match and cannot be in another match for a period of 2 years per DoG

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any
Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened,
or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat.

Ah yes, you are probably correct, I misremembered the clause. I recalled it as challenging again rather than competing.

 

[Blitzkrieg9]

Terry says they would have to build new boats, but would they? Only LR would have to build a new boat right? Or use their first boat (unlikely but possible) as it has been defeated in the cup match? 

Obviously any new teams are going to struggle to get involved in 18 months time. But for new teams I think it's more about security of the AC75 being the class in 2024(ish) that is a important, and whether or not there is another cup next year or not is probably of less importance. 

I think that would be an interesting DoG clause to try to have removed from the DoG.  I get that 150 years ago they didn't want the loser to continually rechallenge in the same losing yacht.   

But these days, in the age of sophisticated boats that are literally changed daily, and multiple challengers in a CSS, it makes no sense that the best of the losers can't reuse their boat, but the worst of the losers can. 

Also, 150 years ago, the "same vessel" was fairly easy to define. But today?  Couldn't you argue that the foils are as significant as hull shape?  So, might new foils equate to it being a "new" boat?  Plus add in an updated computer and control system...  couldn't that make it a "new" boat?  

I think there is a case to be made to the NYSC. 

 

[JonRowe]

An AC75 is defined by it's measurement certificate for a competition, so could it not be argued that new foils = new measurement certificate = new boat?

 

[The Advocate]

I think that would be an interesting DoG clause to try to have removed from the DoG.  I get that 150 years ago they didn't want the loser to continually rechallenge in the same losing yacht.   

But these days, in the age of sophisticated boats that are literally changed daily, and multiple challengers in a CSS, it makes no sense that the best of the losers can't reuse their boat, but the worst of the losers can. 

Also, 150 years ago, the "same vessel" was fairly easy to define. But today?  Couldn't you argue that the foils are as significant as hull shape?  So, might new foils equate to it being a "new" boat?  Plus add in an updated computer and control system...  couldn't that make it a "new" boat?  

I think there is a case to be made to the NYSC. 

Agree, as I noted earlier with the definition of vessel.

 

[The Advocate]

An AC75 is defined by it's measurement certificate for a competition, so could it not be argued that new foils = new measurement certificate = new boat?

Agree.

 

[Rennmaus]

An AC75 is defined by it's measurement certificate for a competition, so could it not be argued that new foils = new measurement certificate = new boat?

A very easy fix of the issue. Great.

Edit: All it needs then is a protocol that allows more than one or two boats per campaign... And a respective clause in the challenge document.  Hmmmm... Maybe not so easy after all?

 

[strider470]

I dont think so. It lost the match and cannot be in another match for a period of 2 years per DoG

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any
Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened,
or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat.

Again..Im not a lawyer but I think I understand this to be the case.

Is that maybe one of those things that can be decided in the protocol with mutual consent?

 

[Rennmaus]

Is that maybe one of those things that can be decided in the protocol with mutual consent?

Good question. What is MCable and what not?

Could one argue that it is part of "the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match,"?

IMHO, this is not MCable (G. Schuyler himself once rejected a request for a second challenge with the same boat, but I cannot remember which boat it was. One of the Canadians?).
Reason: It is not included in above MC clause ("boats" are not mentioned) neither in the complete Deed section of the MCable points, but it's located in one of the sections with non-negotiable rules, and it shares a paragraph with another fixed regulation.

 

[pusslicker]

Sadly for Americans who are passionate about the "Americas Cup" that America as a country are unlikely to ever win the Cup for a long time. They made it very hard for the challengers in so many ways for over 100 years until Australia came along and broke the stranglehold. And now we have one of the smallest countries in the world appear seemingly unbeatable. I wonder, we will see America challenge again after some would review as a disastrous campaign? And now I believe we may have Country of citizenship what does America have in it's wardrobe to be a threat once again?

This is kind of bullshit. Americans have won the cup more than you since you have been involved while not even giving a shit. That combined with the Kiwi's sublime ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and it may not be so long. You cocky, insecure fucks will lose it sooner than you think.

 

[EYESAILOR]

I think that would be an interesting DoG clause to try to have removed from the DoG.  I get that 150 years ago they didn't want the loser to continually rechallenge in the same losing yacht.   

But these days, in the age of sophisticated boats that are literally changed daily, and multiple challengers in a CSS, it makes no sense that the best of the losers can't reuse their boat, but the worst of the losers can. 

Also, 150 years ago, the "same vessel" was fairly easy to define. But today?  Couldn't you argue that the foils are as significant as hull shape?  So, might new foils equate to it being a "new" boat?  Plus add in an updated computer and control system...  couldn't that make it a "new" boat?  

I think there is a case to be made to the NYSC. 

While I agree with you that LR probably has a lot more speed to be discovered and I agree there is much in the DoG that is no longer fit for purpose , I doubt anyone is going to try and get that individual clause removed.

A better route would be for the trustee and all former trustees get together and unanimously work on a complete rewrite of the deed.......and I do not rank that very high on the probability spectrum.

 

[Perpetual Toil]

IMHO, this is not MCable (G. Schuyler himself once rejected a request for a second challenge with the same boat, but I cannot remember which boat it was. One of the Canadians?).
 

I think it was the third Canadian challenge from Cuthbert, which led to the introduction of the "no vessel -- 2 year" clause in the second version of the DoG.

 

[Rennmaus]

I think it was the third Canadian challenge from Cuthbert, which led to the introduction of the "no vessel -- 2 year" clause in the second version of the DoG.

Thanks, excellent memory!
I had the Canadians in mind, but couldn't find evidence so fast.

 

[Perpetual Toil]

Thanks, excellent memory!
I had the Canadians in mind, but couldn't find evidence so fast.

We Canadians have the benefit and ignobility of having only a brief acquaintance with the AC to recall. 

 

[basketcase]

We Canadians have the benefit and ignobility of having only a brief acquaintance with the AC to recall. 

we were, a long time ago, a COR. and not too long ago there was Red Maple Racing, that went no where.

 

[jaysper]

I dont think so. It lost the match and cannot be in another match for a period of 2 years per DoG

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any
Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened,
or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat.

Again..Im not a lawyer but I think I understand this to be the case.

If they can sufficiently remediate the structural problems with B1 they could use that hull and strip absolutely everything else off B2.

 

[The Advocate]

While I agree with you that LR probably has a lot more speed to be discovered and I agree there is much in the DoG that is no longer fit for purpose , I doubt anyone is going to try and get that individual clause removed.

A better route would be for the trustee and all former trustees get together and unanimously work on a complete rewrite of the deed.......and I do not rank that very high on the probability spectrum.

because the DoG/NYSC wont recognise it. Anyone could still DoG challenge, that is the problem. You can have all the agreements in the world but all it takes is one wanker to piss in the pool.