I don't really follow your argument, but I think something is being lost in translation as that clause is to ensure that a hostile COR doesn't prevail and de-rail the competition. The mutual consent part of modern AC is a tenuous and delicate dance between two (theoretically) competing factions, but one in which the parties share the same overall vision for the way the event should be run. Remove that and the entire event would be thrown into jeopardy. Remember, there can only be one challenger at any given time under the Deed so the COR actually holds a fair amount of power with the threat of a DOG race always present if a mutual consent event can't be agreed upon - the legal battle that would follow if a new COR decided to renege on the agreed protocol (notwithstanding Section 51) and go rogue would be incredibly messy to say the least, but someone with deep enough pockets could absorb that pain if they were motivated enough to screw up the event (see Larry circa 2009-2010). I'm not a fan of a lot that ETNZ has done - that fucking boat - but this seems pretty inoffensive and given recent cup history makes a lot of sense to protect the viability of the event and assure sponsors and challengers that they won't be sinking a bucket load of cash into something that may end up stalled in the NY courts because someone wants to impose an alternative vision.
Last edited by a moderator: