The AC 37 has started, news and rumours

Forourselves

Super Anarchist
9,839
2,285
New Zealand
Overblown hyperbole. Sounds like the sort of speil chundered out with the help of a couple of tequilas and some good drugs. Hard to take any of it seriously, especially the part that the cup will be back.

Once gone, it will never return. Once the present team loses it, there will be no more Team New Zealand. Ever.

As for blaming a myopic Auckland and government for letting go an event that put NZ on the map. Really, what total uniformed dickhead. We were an unknown country until the cup put us on the map. A bellend full of his own amazingness, a legend in his own lunch box.
Haha you can guarantee 3 things, if they successfully defend this time:

1) They'll get a welcome home parade up Queen Street

2) The next defence will be in Auckland

3) Gissie will still be crying, then switch from LR to another team to support like the bandwagon jumper he is.

 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
9,625
2,447
PNW
many venue contracts anticipate multiple iterations of the event when major infrastructure investments are required.
From what we've seen out of Malaga so far, yes they are anticipating that a deal would be for multiple events. But so did Auckland, so I guess the devil is in the details. 

 

Gissie

Super Anarchist
6,440
1,679
You need more of an "Capitalist" Government and not a "Socialist" Government. Jacinda Ardern should sleep in bed with Joe Biden & Kamala Harris.

Where is Helen Clark when you need her?

He makes a fair Point blaming the Government over there. If you think that the COVID-19 Restrictions are not being factored into the Decision Making where the Cup ultimativly will be contested you are pretty NAIVE!
Helen Clark and capitalist government in the same sentence.

Fuck me, you really are dumber than a box full of hammers.

 

jmh2002

Member
68
65
Yes the devil is indeed in the detail, but there is also practical reality to consider.

Of course a host city would like to rehost the event to amortise the infrastructure costs over multiple cycles.

But even if there if there is a contractural clause stipulating rehosting, further funds still need to be available to cover the practical reality of running the event again.

Without diving back into the Dalton controversy, in simplistic terms that's the current issue with Auckland. Further infrastructure is now there (which has been developed across decades if we consider the wider viaduct and waterfront - and also used for other such events like the Whitbread, Volvo, and more), there is general support for the AC (despite some haters that make a lot of noise), and there is/was an expectation of another cycle if ETNZ won - but the practical reality is that enough money still needed to be found.

If enough money from the city, country, and/or sponsers could have been found without doubt the next cycle would be be in Auckland.

It's understandable why the government didn't want to put up more money in the current situation - especially the current situation as it was last year when the decision was made - although in hindsight I think this will come to be understood as shortsighted, both for Auckland, and New Zealand as a whole.

The amount(s) of money being discussed is relatively small compared to the return for a small country like NZ (even if it's not a strict black and white economic return), and would come at a time when hopefully all of the world is back open and it would be a good moment to promote NZ in general.

It's a pity that Covid made sufficient funding of such an event to be seen as just not politically acceptable.

And we have seen the same problem from other venues too. 

It's a pity, but it's also the reality, and no contractural clause from a host city would change that, unless they were also contracturally required to provide the required amount of funding too - and what a can of worms that might open up, years down the road, in relation to all the parties involved.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
9,625
2,447
PNW
If enough money from the city, country, and/or sponsers could have been found without doubt the next cycle would be be in Auckland.
A big question is 'How much money is enough?' And that is apparently why the KHD backers are asking to see what the hell the real answer to the question is.

 

Gissie

Super Anarchist
6,440
1,679
It's a pity that Covid made sufficient funding of such an event to be just not seen as politically acceptable.
 
Sufficient funding for the event was most certainly on offer.

However the demands changed to include funding the team as well. This proved to be a step to far, not just because of Covid, but because funding a private team would set a dangerous precedent for the government.

 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
9,625
2,447
PNW
Sufficient funding for the event was most certainly on offer.

However the demands changed to include funding the team as well. This proved to be a step to far, not just because of Covid, but because funding a private team would set a dangerous precedent for the government.
I know, I know.. The team might have to change its name to..... Oh never mind! :D

 

jmh2002

Member
68
65
You both missed the point, which was that the practical reality will always be that 'sufficient' money still needs to be found, regardless of what 'sufficient' is deemed to be for a particular cycle, host city, defending team, etc.

...and "no contractural clause from a host city would change that, unless they were also contracturally required to provide the required amount of funding too".

And even then, contractural stipulations don't force money to fall out of the sky. Governments change, teams change, sponsors change, thinking and priorities change, etc, etc, and there is normally some type of 'out' clause regardless.

We saw this with Covid and some of the French Vendee and Ultime Teams and Sponsors too. Funding was put on hold or just cancelled, long term projects failed, boats in build stopped and needed to be sold, etc, etc.

Contracts, Memorandums of Understanding, Letters of Intent, etc, are all well and good but practical reality still needs to be considered, and funded too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sailbydate

Super Anarchist
11,231
2,988
Kohimarama
Sufficient funding for the event was most certainly on offer.

However the demands changed to include funding the team as well. This proved to be a step to far, not just because of Covid, but because funding a private team would set a dangerous precedent for the government.
Yeah. I mean it's not like the New Zealand Government has ever help fund TNZ before, right? No wait...

 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
9,625
2,447
PNW
the practical reality will always be that 'sufficient' money still needs to be found, regardless of what 'sufficient' is deemed to be for a particular cycle, host city, defending team, etc.
If ETNZ is being honest about their preference being to Defend in Auckland? Then they obviously will demonstrate what the 'sufficient money' figures are, to whatever-all hometown interests are trying to help them satisfy the budget. If they refuse to demonstrate, well, then I guess we know the answer to that first IF.  

 

Gissie

Super Anarchist
6,440
1,679
You both missed the point, which was that the practical reality will always be that 'sufficient' money still needs to be found, regardless of what 'sufficient' is deemed to be for a particular cycle, host city, defending team, etc.
Agree totally with this.

Yeah. I mean it's not like the New Zealand Government has ever help fund TNZ before, right? No wait...
Way back when, of course. Now it is a fully pro game. The event has changed dramatically since Blake started. The world has changed.

Do you think the team should have been offered the full package, event plus all team costs? If you do, should it be a continuing commitment? If you do what other pro teams should get similar money?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jmh2002

Member
68
65
If ETNZ is being honest about their preference being to Defend in Auckland? Then they obviously will demonstrate what the 'sufficient money' figures are, to whatever-all hometown interests are trying to help them satisfy the budget. If they refuse to demonstrate, well, then I guess we know the answer to that first IF.  
You are again missing the point and fixated on Auckland and ETNZ and KHD and, and, and...

Really my post(s) were following your earlier one with regard to Malaga, and them "...anticipating that a deal would be for multiple events. (But so did Auckland, so I guess the devil is in the details)."

The same applies to any host city and/or defending team.

The defending team expects to win and therefore defend again, and the host city expects that their infrastructure investment will be used again and 'pay off' over multiple years.

That 'best effort' thinking and outcome is only natural, especially for infrastructure projects which rarely show a return initially and are meant to amortise over years if not decades. 

Sometimes they never show a direct black and white economic return and it's more about the general public good.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jmh2002

Member
68
65
Do you think the team should have been offered the full package, event plus all team costs? If you do, should it be a continuing commitment? If you do what other pro teams should get similar money?
That's a tough call, and one which this time, and in these circumstances the NZ government has decided is not politically acceptable.

I think we can all understand why, even if (as I mentioned earlier) in hindsight it comes to be understood as shortsighted, both for Auckland, and New Zealand as a whole.

To answer your question more directly, I think the answer 'can' be yes - with the overriding factor being in relation to the wider public good vs the money spent.

The haters tend to view this narrowly (and even perhaps falsly, but let's not argue that), ie: why should the government pay to make Dalton and other rich yachties, even richer?

Whereas the sane discussion of benefits goes way beyond the event itself, and becomes about:

- general public good from the infrastructure (anyone who walked the viaduct 40-50 years ago understands what has changed there from the Whitbread, from the Cup, etc - and finally that damn tank farm is gone too, from prime waterfront real estate that should be used for the public good)

- City/Country recognition, as a desitination, for toursim, business, etc.

- Technology recognition, if appropriate, event/sport dependant (eg: not really from the All Blacks, but yes from ETNZ/the AC).

Often these types of events are not so much about themselves, but about providing an opportunity, a push, some impetus for change.

Having travelled and lived widely all over the world it's amazing how people remember and associate a certain event with a city/country. Kind of "I remember seeing XXX, and it made me always wanted to visit there". 

Those people might not visit for 20 years, but the seed is sown. We know these types of 'economic benefits' exist (and are especially benefical for a small country like NZ) but unfortunately they are difficult to quantify and make more tangible - thus making funding arguments more difficult.

So yes, overall I think governments can fund such teams, such events, if there is sufficient wider benefit beyond the event itself.

But as we know, calculating and agreeing that is a whole different story though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gissie

Super Anarchist
6,440
1,679
So yes, overall I think governments can fund such teams, such events, if there is sufficient wider benefit beyond the event itself.

But as we know, calculating and agreeing that is a whole different story though.
And there lies the problem. How do you calculate such a thing. Those who want it to happen will drag in all sorts of numbers that shouldn't be included. Those anti, will do the opposite. Very hard to ever get an unbiased number.

Then there are all the other parts that are very difficult to quantify. These are used to support/deride an event even more than the numbers.

As for this cycle, Dalts got shafted by covid. The indications are he got done by a performance clause, so Emirates gets to stay as the named sponsor, but doesn't need to front the millions. Of course this is all conjecture as the team has kept silent on the subject.

The team knew it was going to be a problem and hired a company to put out feelers to the rest of the world looking for a new venue. This occurred before the races had even been run. I guess it was considered a way to put pressure on the government when/if they won and negotiations started. If this was what happened, I think it was a dumb move. Politicians do not like being strong armed, makes them look weak. Work it out in private and let the politicians spin it to their advantage has a much better success rate.

Either way, I feel the team fucked up with the negotiations. They may still have been turned down, but openly threatening to take it away if the government didn't fold, idiotic. Plus makes other Kiwis think they are being assholes. Especially when it is the teams choice to race the most expensive things around,then cry poor.

Anyway, it has gone. Dalton is napalming any bridge he can find, Auckland is not happening. At least he will have an excuse if they lose, if only the government had given him hundreds of millions of tax money they would have won.

Not a bad plan really, always have an exit strategy.

 

jmh2002

Member
68
65
And there lies the problem. How do you calculate such a thing. Those who want it to happen will drag in all sorts of numbers that shouldn't be included. Those anti, will do the opposite. Very hard to ever get an unbiased number.

Then there are all the other parts that are very difficult to quantify. These are used to support/deride an event even more than the numbers.
I certainly can't disagree with that. The numbers around all these types of events or projects are always spun positively and negatively as a pro or a con by the different concerned parties, and as you said that makes it very hard to ever get an unbiased number.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sailbydate

Super Anarchist
11,231
2,988
Kohimarama
I certainly can't disagree with that. The numbers around all these types of events or projects are always spun positively and negatively as a pro or a con by the different concerned parties, and as you said that makes it very hard to ever get an unbiased number.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.

 
Top