Teams?

[dogwatch]

This place isn’t much different.  Those once up in arms over the previous Defenders vision are now preaching the current Defenders similar vision like it’s a revelation from God himself.  Truly inspirational.

Some are and they tend to be the more prolific posters. Some aren't. Not everyone is blinded by allegiance and that includes some of the Kiwis.

 

[Forourselves]

Funny you bring up “my president” like it’s an insult.  No hyper partisan here.  Both sides of the US political debate are equally full of shit.  Just like any “democracy” on this planet.  The current Jerkoff in the Oval Office will give way to another in time.  

This place isn’t much different.  Those once up in arms over the previous Defenders vision are now preaching the current Defenders similar vision like it’s a revelation from God himself.  Truly inspirational.

Anyway, Defenders of The Vision UNITE!!!   :lol:

WetHog   h34r:

Difference is...Oracle had so-called "Challengers" that had no intent of actually wanting to win the Americas Cup, but rather were there to help the defender retain the Cup, ad/ or further their vision. This time all challengers are intent on winning the trophy from the defender.

 

[rh3000]

Some are and they tend to be the more prolific posters. Some aren't. Not everyone is blinded by allegiance and that includes some of the Kiwis.

Yes yes the silence is tacit agreement with the pet paranoid tin foilers that ETNZ are devil spawn looking to fuck other challengers.

 

[sunseeker]

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?

Your country been to the moon yet?

get back to us when you have.

 

[KiwiJoker]

I am not afraid because the scenario won't happen. I am more concerned about competitors being able to design the right boat without knowing the race track and the NoR.

I am just pointing at the hypocrisy of the protocol.

It is as if Trump  was telling that the democrats could elect their leader but could veto the result until the best suited candidate but....... that it's democracy because he may not exerce his veto right. Trump could not, and would not even do that.

Waal, TC, you deserve some kind of prize for heating up debate around here.

Can't say I share your concerns.

Of course you're aware that The Protocol was a joint project, worked out and agreed to by the Defender plus the Challenger.

We have yet to discuss how much LR's actions were affected this time by the insulting actions of their fellow northern competitors when they relinquished their COR role last time. 

 

[Tornado-Cat]

I get the metaphor, but I'm still not sure it's that accurate... not that I can think of a better one :-/

what is NoR?

I get yours too, and I know a (small) bit about your constition. But RNZYS is not the Queen, neither Trump, we will agree on that !

I'll come back on the NoR and conditions of the match, which will be prensented by the defender and CoR to the competitors after the construction of their yachts.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Waal, TC, you deserve some kind of prize for heating up debate around here.

Can't say I share your concerns.

Of course you're aware that The Protocol was a joint project, worked out and agreed to by the Defender plus the Challenger.

We have yet to discuss how much LR's actions were affected this time by the insulting actions of their fellow northern competitors when they relinquished their COR role last time. 

Well KJ, you may be right about the reasons, but let's not forget it was Mutual Consent !

 

[KiwiJoker]

Well KJ, you may be right about the reasons, but let's not forget it was Mutual Consent !

Touche, mate.  

But, it's clear LR learned their lesson.  Trust but verify!

 

[Terry Hollis]

Your country been to the moon yet?

get back to us when you have.

The trip to the moon requires lots of money rather than innovation,  especially when there are no competitors.  When you have a low budget and the competition has lots of money, innovation is pretty well a necessity.

 

[spennig]

The trip to the moon requires lots of money rather than innovation,  especially when there are no competitors.  When you have a low budget and the competition has lots of money, innovation is pretty well a necessity.

IIRC, there was a competitor (USSR);they started well but faded in the finals.

 

[david r]

nasa says we are not able to go to the moon these days.   All the old data was lost.

The old footage on youtube looks pretty fake, and the nazi scientist in charge back then has a bible quote on his headstone that refers to the firmament.

 

[rh3000]

Your country been to the moon yet?

get back to us when you have.

Seriously? It's no wonder then... ;-)

 

[dogwatch]

The old footage on youtube looks pretty fake, and the nazi scientist in charge back then has a bible quote on his headstone that refers to the firmament.

It was arguably German innovation and American money that put a man on the moon. Helluva long time ago anyway.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

heating up debate around here.

KJ, it's always good to know that we have open minded kiwis on this forum, not stuck on one position.

So if we want to heat up the debate, some can try to answer the following questions. Again, it won't t happen, so it's purely theoretical.

Is it deed compliant to :

- consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference ?

- ask challengers to vote a new challenger ?

- have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one ?

 

[dogwatch]

Oracle got into a bit of a habit of losing challengers of record but I will be very surprised if that happens in this cycle. Consequently sorry but I don't find how the protocol handles that eventuality very interesting. 

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Oracle got into a bit of a habit of losing challengers of record but I will be very surprised if that happens in this cycle. Consequently sorry but I don't find how the protocol handles that eventuality very interesting. 

I agree that this eventuality won't happen.

 

[Forourselves]

KJ, it's always good to know that we have open minded kiwis on this forum, not stuck on one position.

So if we want to heat up the debate, some can try to answer the following questions. Again, it won't t happen, so it's purely theoretical.

Is it deed compliant to :

- consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference ?

- ask challengers to vote a new challenger ?

- have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one ?

The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months’ notice may be waived. 

In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup.

 

[KiwiJoker]

KJ, it's always good to know that we have open minded kiwis on this forum, not stuck on one position.

So if we want to heat up the debate, some can try to answer the following questions. Again, it won't t happen, so it's purely theoretical.

Is it deed compliant to :

- consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference ?

- ask challengers to vote a new challenger ?

- have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one ?

Well, our mate clarke has already provided the Deed's safety valve escape clause that answers all your questions!

But, dealing with your theoretical points:

Is it deed compliant to : - consider (deemed) challenges received at the same time when we have precedent of a split of a second difference? 

Hard numbers are hard numbers. Is it considered fair to award first place for a marathon based on a split-second difference?

Is it deed compliant to :- ask challengers to vote a new challenger?  

We know that challengers can vote en bloc so I'd tend to prefer next challenger in line. That said, the Defender should have right of veto for demonstrable cause, ie, stuff like Challenger team and club financial health, etc.

 Is it deed compliant to :- have the defender choose the next challenger thanks to multiple vetos instead of picking up the next one?

No.

 

[nav]

The challenger chooses itself.

ETNZ/RNZYS is concerned with who partners them (COR/D) in carrying through the Protocol for AC36 negotiated with Luna Rossa/CdVS.

While ready to meet any team on the course - they, for good reasons, no longer assume that all parties share common sporting ideals

 

[winchfodder]

Is it now likely that there will be more than three challengers?

Just can't see Sardinia or the second US challenge fronting up the cash at the end of the month.

Certainly would reduce the govt costs in Auckland building bases.

Are there any serious contenders out there from China, Russia?