The AC 37 has started, news and rumours

The Advocate

Super Anarchist
This is the America's Cup. The winner decides all. But only up until the Cup has a new winner. Nobody should jeopardise this. The cup was donated with a purpose.
The winner is deciding, and you and jaysper have a fit over what they are deciding, no one has donated to cup 

NOTHING has been decided. 
Wrong. The current winner is trying to decide what the next winner does, and by doing so they are jeopardizing the event, that is what Strider is saying. He is also saying the Cup was donated for a purpose, not that people are donating to the cup.

I really didn't think what he wrote was that hard to understand.

 

JonRowe

Super Anarchist
1,769
941
Offshore.
Theres a few possibilities I think have been overlooked here.

1) If the protocol says that as a condition of entry for AC37 you have to agree to use AC75 for two cup cycles that's all that might be, an agreement. They may not intend for it to be enforceable. After all, Oracle changed the protocol from the AC60 to the AC50 after agreeing to use the AC60, so why not lay it out as a statement of intent that you are going to run two cup cycles in the AC75?

2) That the protocol, or rather the entries and other documentation form a contract, which may not prevent someone from winning the cup and changing the class, but would be legally enforceable in terms of penalties. They switch class and the Kiwis sue for breach of contract and get a big pay out. Like what happened with Oracle when they cut out ACWS Auckland.

 

The Advocate

Super Anarchist
Theres a few possibilities I think have been overlooked here.

1) If the protocol says that as a condition of entry for AC37 you have to agree to use AC75 for two cup cycles that's all that might be, an agreement. They may not intend for it to be enforceable. After all, Oracle changed the protocol from the AC60 to the AC50 after agreeing to use the AC60, so why not lay it out as a statement of intent that you are going to run two cup cycles in the AC75?
At best, it is a suggestion, nothing more. The Orifice example doesn't fit.

2) That the protocol, or rather the entries and other documentation form a contract, which may not prevent someone from winning the cup and changing the class, but would be legally enforceable in terms of penalties. They switch class and the Kiwis sue for breach of contract and get a big pay out. Like what happened with Oracle when they cut out ACWS Auckland.
That isn't how contract law works under the terms of the Deed of Gift, as soon as the Match is decided the existing contract is complete. Again, your example is flawed as that was a commercial agreement outside the Deed.

 
This is the relevant clause

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened, or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat. And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided.

The last sentemce seems to prevent the proposed arrangement. Wait for the court case if they are foolish enough to attempt it

 

jaysper

Super Anarchist
10,144
1,282
Wellington
Rather than do something clearly wrong, yes, that's what he should do. No AC team lasts for ever.
This statement is predicated on the rumours being true. But yes, rather than shitting all over the legacy of the team or the cup itself, pack the team up in a box and put it in the attic as a keep sake.

 

JonRowe

Super Anarchist
1,769
941
Offshore.
That isn't how contract law works under the terms of the Deed of Gift, as soon as the Match is decided the existing contract is complete. Again, your example is flawed as that was a commercial agreement outside the Deed.
You miss my point entirely.

Contract law is contract law. The Deed of Gift is in essence a contract for the cup itself, and in order to hold it the winner must comply with it. That says nothing about other contracts on top of it, my point is it is possible for both sides to be correct here. That there can be a legally enforceable (as in financial penalties) agreement that they'll use the AC75 for two cup, at the same time as the winner being legally able to hold the match in any class they like.

 

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
16,207
1,237
South Coast, UK
This statement is predicated on the rumours being true. 
Not exactly, the statement can be parsed without any assumptions about the actualities. However I agree there's an awful lot of premature hypothesising going on. You and I have both been here long enough to find that unsurprising. 

 

The Advocate

Super Anarchist
This is the relevant clause

No vessel which has been defeated in a match for this Cup can be again selected by any Club as its representative until after a contest for it by some other vessel has intervened, or until after the expiration of two years from the time of such defeat. And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided.

The last sentemce seems to prevent the proposed arrangement. Wait for the court case if they are foolish enough to attempt it
Well pointed out, thank you.

Now watch the arguments over "vessel".

 

The Advocate

Super Anarchist
That isn't how contract law works under the terms of the Deed of Gift, as soon as the Match is decided the existing contract is complete. Again, your example is flawed as that was a commercial agreement outside the Deed.
You miss my point entirely.

Contract law is contract law. The Deed of Gift is in essence a contract for the cup itself, and in order to hold it the winner must comply with it. That says nothing about other contracts on top of it, my point is it is possible for both sides to be correct here. That there can be a legally enforceable (as in financial penalties) agreement that they'll use the AC75 for two cup, at the same time as the winner being legally able to hold the match in any class they like.
I didn't miss your point at all, you are suggesting they write a contract to out contract the Deed contract. Good luck with that. Why do people assume that when someone disagrees they has missed the point?

Any contract that changes the terms of the Deed (not discussing MC in relation to a CoR event) would be tossed and unenforceable by the NYSC.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rennmaus

Super Anarchist
10,466
1,997
If this is true GD wants his cake and eat it too, greedy cunt.

If you win the cup, you are lord and master for exactly 1 cup cycle. If you want to be lord and master for another cup cycle, win the fucking thing again.

This basically says we won It once but want to be lord and master for 2 cycles.

Very Bertarelli-esque if you ask me.
Ran out of "likes" last night, so: +1 (as in the old days).

You are working on the assumption that whoever wins AC37 will abide by an agreement that is not enforceable. Why would the Brits, if they won, just give all the advantages back to NZ. Be idiots if they did and far from the worst shit that has happened.

So a dangerous gamble to spend time and money on a boat that may not be needed.
Especially if the relationship between INEOS and ETNZ falls foul. Has happened before that Defender and Challenger/CoR were best buddies at the time of the challenge and hate each other during the event. The RYC officials could hide during the 1:1 and accept a challenge by whomever when (if) their boat crosses the finish line first - and vice versa with ETNZ. 
This 1:1, if really sailed for the Cup, could be a rather dangerous thing.

"The loser of the 2022 match will immediately present a challenge for the following, multi-challenger match, in the expectation of being the CoR for the 2024 match."

It is this kind of bullshit that is why the NYSC needs to be more progressive in their thinking. To date they have refused, as best I recall, to make decisions on anything but the intent of the deed. I think it would be wise of them to accept that the application of the Deed has changed and they should be putting provisions in place to better protect the Deed from those changes in how the event is now.
The NYSC decides based on the four corners of the Deed, not intent. Not sure if you wanted to say/write that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Advocate

Super Anarchist
The nationality rules are an abomination.  Why not all the design work to be covered by nationality. Dalton goes on about how he is happy to be going back to the origins with crew nationality, but the only thing that was covered by that was design and build. Crew, no one gave a toss.

But that would be bloody hard for ETNZ, so Dalton bullshits and makes up a lie to cover his assholeness. The Poms just go along with it, makes them just as big on the assholeness.
The above is from @Gissieon the ETNZ thread.

Spot fucking on.

The nationality issue has morphed so much it is nothing like what it was so who gives a flying fuck about it?

Oh GD, because it gives him an advantage. Make the nationality rule across the whole team and I would be more likely to buy it.

Another issue the NYSC should be addressing IMHO.

 

The Advocate

Super Anarchist
"The loser of the 2022 match will immediately present a challenge for the following, multi-challenger match, in the expectation of being the CoR for the 2024 match."

It is this kind of bullshit that is why the NYSC needs to be more progressive in their thinking. To date they have refused, as best I recall, to make decisions on anything but the intent of the deed. I think it would be wise of them to accept that the application of the Deed has changed and they should be putting provisions in place to better protect the Deed from those changes in how the event is now.
The NYSC decides based on the four corners of the Deed, not intent. Not sure if you wanted to say/write that.
I understand that, but I think given how much the game has shifted, I really hope that they could see their way to adopted a wider view, given that they are the sole arbitrator of the Deed.

Might be wishful thinking, but meh.

 

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
16,207
1,237
South Coast, UK
My sympathies to Kiwi and other ETNZ fans finding themselves not necessarily in love with what may (or may not) be going on. I went through similar alienation when BA decided to take Ineos sponsorship, so I know the feeling. 

 

The Advocate

Super Anarchist
My sympathies to Kiwi and other ETNZ fans finding themselves not necessarily in love with what may (or may not) be going on. I went through similar alienation when BA decided to take Ineos sponsorship, so I know the feeling. 
Nicely said mate. I just wish we had a team we could have issue with, we have to share all yours lol

 

Sailbydate

Super Anarchist
11,179
2,963
Kohimarama
My sympathies to Kiwi and other ETNZ fans finding themselves not necessarily in love with what may (or may not) be going on. I went through similar alienation when BA decided to take Ineos sponsorship, so I know the feeling. 
Thanks, Dog. I'm wondering if it's maybe time to put my SAAC involvement aside for another year - or two. Pretty sad after such a fantastic AC36 event.

Still, it wouldn't be the AC without all this shit would it?

 

Rennmaus

Super Anarchist
10,466
1,997
I understand that, but I think given how much the game has shifted, I really hope that they could see their way to adopted a wider view, given that they are the sole arbitrator of the Deed.

Might be wishful thinking, but meh.
Ah, o.k., I understand. It could be court approved Interpretive Resolutions, like the ones implemented by the YCs since 1958. I think it was SNG/Alinghi that deleted them all from the regulations when they became the Defender.
Unfortunately, the AC is probably too unimportant for the NYSC to bother at all and throw resources at it.

 

Fiji Bitter

I love Fiji Bitter
4,379
1,257
In the wild.
IANAL, but I don't see why the Defender and Challenger couldn't agree on a valid contract outside and totally independent of the DOG.

This contract could stipulate that the loosing party will have the first opportunity to hand over the challenge documents for consideration by the Defender. It can further stipulate the proposed class and any other conditions "for consideration upon the presentation of the challenge documents". 

And then the parties agree to pay $100 million compensation if they wish to change their mind...  :p .

The tinfoil madhatters and dogmoralist here must realise that, unlike Team Fiji, both TNZ and Team Ineos, and their respective Yacht Squadrons, have proper lawyers who know the intricacies of the DOG and the NYSC.

Go and DOG yourselves!

 
Top