The AC 37 has started, news and rumours

Forourselves

Super Anarchist
9,764
2,260
New Zealand
Did you read the shit above?

If true that's exactly what they are trying.
Don't be so dramatic. They can't impose ANYTHING beyond AC37. The conditions in the protocol last only as long as the protocol is valid, which is only until the current challenge is decided, which is the final race of AC37.

At the end of the day, ETNZ cannot impose anything on anyone past AC37. 

 

Liquid Assett NZ

Anarchist
631
109
Wellington
As much as I don’t like EB, it would be morally wrong to stop him competing by bringing rule after rule making life hard for him.  No syndicate should engineer the rules to stop another.

I agree with one boat to keep  costs down and the nationality rule. But that’s is we’re it should end.
I dont see it as an attempt to curtail EB im sure they would be stoked with more entries. Its just SA whispers

 

chesirecat

Super Anarchist
1,149
642
Shoebox on M'way
So, you've won the AC twice in succession and now need to raise another 100 mill or so right away, and in the COVID era.

I've mentioned before that winning the AC can be a poisoned chalice, I mean with each defence that's another 100 million to cough up with a few meill right away. Anyone who's done any serious fundraising knows just how hard it is even on a good day/

If ones trying to fund raise for an event on NZ thats really hard. I met with some high end UK sailing sponsors whilst they were in NZ and it was a no go as the NZ market was too small  for them.

AC coverage outside NZ is insignificant so that's out as well.

There has to be a plan. What is the end game for funders? Just how many times can one team fund this?

James Ratcliffe has an end game as synthesis between Ineos's sponsorships adds performance knowledge to his company and secondly its raised Ineos's profile and helped unify all the parts of the organisation.

Hopefully the relationship between ETNZ and Ineos will be productive, I believe their philosophies are very similar and the AC will grow. 

 

Forourselves

Super Anarchist
9,764
2,260
New Zealand
I'm not suggesting they can get away with it. I'm suggesting that if that is what they are trying to get away with, they are hypocrites.
The difference is, they are doing it through the correct channels and processes, where Oracle tried to do it during the Cup, but independently of the current protocol, by calling it a "Framework"

 

jaysper

Super Anarchist
10,144
1,282
Wellington
The difference is, they are doing it through the correct channels and processes, where Oracle tried to do it during the Cup, but independently of the current protocol, by calling it a "Framework"
If you don't agree with the AC75s you are not allowed to enter. What is "proper" about that????

 
Ernesto asked to buy ETNZ's first boat and TNZ said - go away!

Now the Protocol slams the door on non-national crew.

There seems to be a theme here - and good job!
If this rule was in place from 2000 - would the landscape look different to how it is today ? Would Alinghi have won the AC on first attempt in 2003?

 
As much as I don’t like EB, it would be morally wrong to stop him competing by bringing rule after rule making life hard for him.  No syndicate should engineer the rules to stop another.

I agree with one boat to keep  costs down and the nationality rule. But that’s is we’re it should end.
Any Challenger is welcome back as long as the Nationality rule is complied with. (And no Switzerland is not an emerging nation in the AC, and no the Alinghi syndicate could not go and mount the challenge from a Yacht club in an emerging country )

 
Last edited by a moderator:

dg_sailingfan

Super Anarchist
2,423
450
Augsburg
@jaysper

You are spot on correct!

If you don't agree to use the AC75 Class in AC38 you are not allowed to Enter AC37. That's what this Rule says and I can tell you that the RNZYS, the RYS and their respective Teams ETNZ & INEOS TEAM UK opened themselves up to a massive legal Challenge here.

As much as I like these new Foiling Monos this is not legal.

I wonder what the New York Yacht Club is thinking about this? They have a habit going to Court.

I hope this Rule will not be written into the Official Protocol because if it is it has a NYSC Court Challenge written all over it!

 

jaysper

Super Anarchist
10,144
1,282
Wellington
@jaysper

You are spot on correct!

If you don't agree to use the AC75 Class in AC38 you are not allowed to Enter AC37. That's what this Rule says and I can tell you that the RNZYS, the RYS and their respective Teams ETNZ & INEOS TEAM UK opened themselves up to a massive legal Challenge here.

As much as I like these new Foiling Monos this is not legal.

I wonder what the New York Yacht Club is thinking about this? They have a habit going to Court.

I hope this Rule will not be written into the Official Protocol because if it is it has a NYSC Court Challenge written all over it!
So I am still waiting to see if this is true, but if it is then it is probably worse than what Orifice tried. At least Orifice didn't try to bar entry unless you agreed to keep the cats.

Also, I don't care if it's legal. I care that such a move would make Etnz hypocrites.

 
So I am still waiting to see if this is true, but if it is then it is probably worse than what Orifice tried. At least Orifice didn't try to bar entry unless you agreed to keep the cats.

Also, I don't care if it's legal. I care that such a move would make Etnz hypocrites.
To be fair mate New Zealand got burned in 2003 by not making strict enough rules. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

dg_sailingfan

Super Anarchist
2,423
450
Augsburg
So I am still waiting to see if this is true, but if it is then it is probably worse than what Orifice tried. At least Orifice didn't try to bar entry unless you agreed to keep the cats.

Also, I don't care if it's legal. I care that such a move would make Etnz hypocrites.
This Rule was clearly aimed at excluding the New York Yacht Club/American Magic from Competition but they probably would not have challenged anyways since they did not like AC75 Class anyways.

Still, this is very bad if it means what it says. I am with you!

 

dg_sailingfan

Super Anarchist
2,423
450
Augsburg
To be fair mate New Zealand got burned in 2003 by not making strict enough rules. 
Maybe but pulling a stunt like this excluding a potential Competitor because that Competitor doesn't like the current Boat Class and making it a Condition for their Entry is a massive fraud in my view!

 

Kiwimatt

New member
6
25
@jaysper

You are spot on correct!

If you don't agree to use the AC75 Class in AC38 you are not allowed to Enter AC37. That's what this Rule says and I can tell you that the RNZYS, the RYS and their respective Teams ETNZ & INEOS TEAM UK opened themselves up to a massive legal Challenge here.

As much as I like these new Foiling Monos this is not legal.

I wonder what the New York Yacht Club is thinking about this? They have a habit going to Court.

I hope this Rule will not be written into the Official Protocol because if it is it has a NYSC Court Challenge written all over it!
I'm not sure it's about controlling past this Cup (well at least not the main reason) it does make a lot of sense if you are trying to attract new teams though. Knowing that you can invest then carry that investment on into a second cycle will be a much better investment than a one and done affair. 

On the other hand it might also signal that the first cup will be held between two team who are hapyp to sign back up to the ac75 class no matter who wins for a second go round with a few more competitors,. This would also make sense with the one boat  only rule, not much time to build two boats if the next Am Cup is in 12-16 months around the Isle of Wight... 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

strider470

Super Anarchist
It has been agreed the AC75 Class shall remain the class of yacht for the next two America’s Cup cycles, and agreement to this is a condition of entry" 
That is good news,  but how could they decide anything for more than a cup cycle in advance? They should say that they wish it. As much as I like the idea, I think it is not something permitted under the deed

 
Top