Teams?

[rh3000]

Because :

[SIZE=11pt]2.1.            [/SIZE]For the purposes of the Deed of Gift, all challenges accepted by RNZYS ( {'Challenges") shall be deemed to have been received by the RNZYS at the same time, being the time of the conclusion of the Final Race 2017.

And because accepted challengers, at the exception of the initial CoR, have no rights.

You're getting there... think through some scenarios as to how this could play out... and why ENTZ preserving veto is important for a proper AC

 

[trt131]

For the same reason the cup is no longer resident on your shores perhaps? As further evidenced by your own "can't be done" attitude and lack of vision for innovation by scoffing at those pushing sailing forward.

Foils are now all over monos all over the world and are starting to show up in 'consumer' boats too... It's the future of all hulls, so why not let the AC push massively predominant monos forward?

That's an amazing statement about America, probably the most innovative country the world has seen.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

You're getting there... think through some scenarios as to how this could play out... and why ENTZ preserving veto is important for a proper AC

To justify their twisted interpretation of the Deed, don't forget that all other challengers were accepted by RNZYS.

And because challengers vote with no rights, RNZYS can refuse all elected challenger until their choice is done; this selected challenger will receive all the CoR funds.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

They have the right to present options to the CoR.

No, they vote and the meeting is chaired by the defender:

b)     The RNZYS will chair without voting right the above-mentioned Challenger Meeting(s) which may also be attended by the Initial Challenger of Record with full voting rights, unless it has confirmed that he will not continue to compete as a Challenger.

 

[rh3000]

That's an amazing statement about America, probably the most innovative country the world has seen.

My statement was localised to the sailing industry, and to Hoggie's own commentary...

But having said that, your own suggestion that the USA is the most innovative country the world has seen is frankly also an amazing statement - I'd be keen to determine by which dimension you are measuring that by?

 

[Forourselves]

No, they vote and the meeting is chaired by the defender:

b)     The RNZYS will chair without voting right the above-mentioned Challenger Meeting(s) which may also be attended by the Initial Challenger of Record with full voting rights, unless it has confirmed that he will not continue to compete as a Challenger.

So whats the problem? ETNZ only chairs that meeting. They have no voting rights. The CoR has full voting rights.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

So whats the problem? ETNZ only chairs that meeting. They have no voting rights. The CoR has full voting rights.

Why do you say challengers have to present options ? you are wrong, they have to vote

And you really don't get the real issue. 

If the CoR is in charge of the CSS as claimed, why do they want to chose the succession CoR ?

 

[Boybland]

Why do you say challengers have to present options ? you are wrong, they have to vote

And you really don't get the real issue. 

If the CoR is in charge of the CSS as claimed, why do they want to chose the succession CoR ?

Because if it all falls over that is who they have to DOG fight with...

 

[Forourselves]

Why do you say challengers have to present options ? you are wrong, they have to vote

And you really don't get the real issue. 

If the CoR is in charge of the CSS as claimed, why do they want to chose the succession CoR ?

Because thats what the protocol says they have to do.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Because if it all falls over that is who they have to DOG fight with...

Because they claim they have no responsability on the CSS, but in fact they are in charge of the whole event, so they want to choose their CoR.

As the challengers are (falsely) deemed to have challenged at the same time, they are bound to a bogus vote.

At the end, only the defender and the initial CoR have some power in this AC.

 

[Forourselves]

Because they claim they have no responsability on the CSS, but in fact they are in charge of the whole event, so they want to choose their CoR.

As the challengers are (falsely) deemed to have challenged at the same time, they are bound to a bogus vote.

At the end, only the defender and the initial CoR have some power in this AC.

They only choose if the Challengers can't decide. 

Thats exactly right, and thats the way it always has been, and always should be. It prevents factions from forming majority's and out numbering other teams, as we saw in Bermuda.

 

[Boybland]

Because they claim they have no responsability on the CSS, but in fact they are in charge of the whole event, so they want to choose their CoR.

As the challengers are (falsely) deemed to have challenged at the same time, they are bound to a bogus vote.

At the end, only the defender and the initial CoR have some power in this AC.

I'm not quite sure that's right...

I would think a newly selected COR would be given all the powers of the previous COR possibly including the right to DOG in the event the CSS is cancelled for whatever reason, they are after all still a valid challenger.

I can totally see why ETNZ wouldn't want to just bestow those rights on any old challenger, especially if someone inclined towards courtroom resolution like Oracle or Alinghi were in the list of potentials.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

They only choose if the Challengers can't decide. 

No, there is no restriction to their veto, but they can also appoint a new CoR if the election is not successful.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

I'm not quite sure that's right...

I would think a newly selected COR would be given all the powers of the previous COR possibly including the right to DOG in the event the CSS is cancelled for whatever reason, they are after all still a valid challenger.

I can totally see why ETNZ wouldn't want to just bestow those rights on any old challenger, especially if someone inclined towards courtroom resolution like Oracle or Alinghi were in the list of potentials.

At least on that:

b)     The Initial Challenger of Record shall transfer forthwith to the new Challenger of Record all the funds that it retains as Challenger of Record and all relevant accounting and contractual documents.

Basically they control the challenger with a hip pocket, nothing new here, however they lock the control by preventing any competitor meeting and by giving themselves the right to choose the new CoR within the challengers. Do we have any precedent ?

I would say the instead of preventing a courtroom resolution it could create one.

 

[Forourselves]

No, there is no restriction to their veto, but they can also appoint a new CoR if the election is not successful.

a) The Initial Challenger of Record shall forthwith notify the RNZYS and the other Challengers of its decision and the RNZYS shall either:
i. appoint within (20) days from the receipt of the notice by the initial Challenger of Record, a new Challenger of Record which shall be then confirmed by a majority vote of the Challengers at a Challengers meeting of all of the then Challengers, to take place within (60) days after such an appointment; or
ii. convene within (20) days from the receipt of the notice by the initial Challenger of Record, a meeting of all of the then Challengers to elect by a majority vote the new Challenger of Record amongst the candidates. The RNZYS shall have veto right on such election to be exercised immediately after the election at the Challengers meeting; in such case the Challengers shall immediately proceed with a new election, the RNZYS maintaining its veto right.

b) The RNZYS will chair without voting right the above-mentioned Challenger meeting(s) which may also be attended by the initial Challenger of Record with full voting rights, unless it has confirmed that he will not continue as a Challenger.

c) In the event of the above procedure(s) not being successful, the RNZYS shall appoint the new Challenger of Record, which will only need to be confirmed by the Arbitration Panel within (20) days of its appointment.

d) Upon the final appointment of the new Challenger of Record, the Initial Challenger of Record shall relinquish its position as the Initial Challenger of Record, but shall retain the status of a Challenger under this Protocol if and only if its yacht continues to compete in the AC36.

e) All Challengers present or voting by proxy at the Challengers meeting or any other duly convened meeting of the Challengers shall be entitled to one vote each. If a Challenger is unable to be represented in person at any meeting of Challengers, that Challenger may appoint in writing another Challenger to vote a sits proxy. No Challenger can hold more than one proxy and all matter shall be determined by a majority of votes.

f) The Initial Challenger of Record Shall transfer forthwith to the new Challenger of Record all the funds that it retains as Challenger of Record and all relevant accounting and contractual documents.

I don't see what the problem is? 

 

[Tornado-Cat]

a) The Initial Challenger of Record shall forthwith notify the RNZYS and the other Challengers of its decision and the RNZYS shall either:
i. appoint within (20) days from the receipt of the notice by the initial Challenger of Record, a new Challenger of Record which shall be then confirmed by a majority vote of the Challengers at a Challengers meeting of all of the then Challengers, to take place within (60) days after such an appointment; or
ii. convene within (20) days from the receipt of the notice by the initial Challenger of Record, a meeting of all of the then Challengers to elect by a majority vote the new Challenger of Record amongst the candidates. The RNZYS shall have veto right on such election to be exercised immediately after the election at the Challengers meeting; in such case the Challengers shall immediately proceed with a new election, the RNZYS maintaining its veto right.

b) The RNZYS will chair without voting right the above-mentioned Challenger meeting(s) which may also be attended by the initial Challenger of Record with full voting rights, unless it has confirmed that he will not continue as a Challenger.

c) In the event of the above procedure(s) not being successful, the RNZYS shall appoint the new Challenger of Record, which will only need to be confirmed by the Arbitration Panel within (20) days of its appointment.

d) Upon the final appointment of the new Challenger of Record, the Initial Challenger of Record shall relinquish its position as the Initial Challenger of Record, but shall retain the status of a Challenger under this Protocol if and only if its yacht continues to compete in the AC36.

e) All Challengers present or voting by proxy at the Challengers meeting or any other duly convened meeting of the Challengers shall be entitled to one vote each. If a Challenger is unable to be represented in person at any meeting of Challengers, that Challenger may appoint in writing another Challenger to vote a sits proxy. No Challenger can hold more than one proxy and all matter shall be determined by a majority of votes.

f) The Initial Challenger of Record Shall transfer forthwith to the new Challenger of Record all the funds that it retains as Challenger of Record and all relevant accounting and contractual documents.

I don't see what the problem is? 

"RNZYS shall have veto right on such election to be exercised immediately after the election at the Challengers meeting; in such case the Challengers shall immediately proceed with a new election, the RNZYS maintaining its veto right."  And you can add, until they pick the challenger of their choice.

And you are part of the whiners who were complaining about " It prevents factions from forming majority's and out numbering other teams, as we saw in Bermuda."

If democracy does not fit your interest chose dictatorship and complain about the past.

 

[Forourselves]

"RNZYS shall have veto right on such election to be exercised immediately after the election at the Challengers meeting; in such case the Challengers shall immediately proceed with a new election, the RNZYS maintaining its veto right."  And you can add, until they pick the challenger of their choice.

And you are part of the whiners who were complaining about " It prevents factions from forming majority's and out numbering other teams, as we saw in Bermuda."

If democracy does not fit your interest chose dictatorship and complain about the past.

Ridiculous. Veto rights exist for that very reason! To prevent factions from forming and dictating the format which is exactly what we saw in Bermuda. Majority vote became a gang of friends lead by the Defender, pulling together to eliminate the two strongest challenging teams. Veto rights prevent that from happening. Paying your friends off to vote your way, is NOT democracy!

 

[Boybland]

Given what actually initiates this process in the first place is the current COR deliberately choosing to pull out it all seems rather a storm in a tea cup to get so upset about a process which would normally just consist of the defender choosing a new COR. Or in the case of entries being recieved in a certain order simply the next cab off the rank, no voting no nothing....

In fact I would think the only reason this process even exists in any form is the deliberate choice where all extra entries are deemed accepted at the same moment in time.  ETNZ could just as easily accepted their second favourite option before anyone else and there would be no choice or process at all.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Ridiculous. Veto rights exist for that very reason! To prevent factions from forming and dictating the format which is exactly what we saw in Bermuda. Majority vote became a gang of friends lead by the Defender, pulling together to eliminate the two strongest challenging teams. Veto rights prevent that from happening. Paying your friends off to vote your way, is NOT democracy!

You really don't get it. Your version of democracy is no democracy because the may vote against you

 

[Tornado-Cat]

In fact I would think the only reason this process even exists in any form is the deliberate choice where all extra entries are deemed accepted at the same moment in time.  ETNZ could just as easily accepted their second favourite option before anyone else and there would be no choice or process at all.

If so, why the vote ? But I agree the discussion is purely theoretical, it won't happen, the present CoR will stay the CoR.