The AC 37 has started, news and rumours
- Thread starter mako23
- Start date
The current Arbitration Panel only exists under the Protocol for AC 36. That is done and dusted. Anyone who want to challenge whatever deal has been made or is being made by RNZYS and whoever the new COR is can probably only do it via the NY Supreme Court, as it is now a Deed of Gift issue outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Panel for AC 36.
porthos
Super Anarchist
I did. What he proposed -- not that it will ever happen -- could certainly happen within the four corners of the DoG. INEOS/ETNZ could agree to a 1-1 match in 2022, and have an agreement that the winner of that match would immediately accept a challenger from the loser and then hold a subsequent cup with other challengers in 2024.
Rennmaus
Super Anarchist
- 10,688
- 2,284
Right, but the other team is not bound to honor this agreement for the following Cup, at least not by the DoG.
porthos
Super Anarchist
Correct, but it could be done under the DoG. And there are all kinds of ways to contractually incentivize a party to not breach a prior agreement.
No, it seems to be reliant on a Gentlemen's agreement, and the Cup has a long history of such agreements unravelling.
That said, it seems to be becoming clearer that the 2022 ETNZ vs Ineos race - if it happens - is probably not intended to be a Cup race, just a one-off in AC75s.
Left Shift
Super Anarchist
Rennmaus
Super Anarchist
- 10,688
- 2,284
See below.
Why "no"?
Yes, as per the DoG, neither team needs to honor an agreement about the next but one Cup. Don't make things up.
Someone once explained to me like that: You can agree/have a contract to be a slave for someone. But the moment you decide to leave your slave-role, you can do so, because slavery is not allowed. So, whatever you agree can only be voluntarily in that very moment, because the actual law does not cover such an agreement.
porthos
Super Anarchist
porthos
Super Anarchist
I make a challenge under the DoG. You accept. We enter into another agreement whereunder we both deposit $500,000USD into an escrow account. If the winning party immediately accepts a challenge from the losing party, the escrow funds are released to the winner, or even back to us; if the winner fails to accept a challenge from the loser, all escrowed funds are released to the loser. It's basically buying a right of first refusal.
All valid under the DoG.
dg_sailingfan
Super Anarchist
When Alinghi Won AC31 in Auckland 2003 BMW Oracle Racing and Alinghi held the MOET CUP in San Francisco in 2003
https://www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/11105/Moët-Cup-Day-1
And Alinghi held the UBS Trophy in Newport 2004
http://cupinfo.com/en/NewportUBS2004main.php
Something similar could happen between ETNZ and INEOS now that we have the AC75 Class established.
You misunderstand me. What I meant (expanding my original statement) was "No, the other team is not bound to honor this agreement for the following Cup, it [the following Cup] seems to be reliant on a gentlenen's agreement..."
I think we're on the same page.
To Porthos' point, even if you did somehow agree a contract, it would be full of holes. Say you're all set up on the winner's support boat, ready to make an official challenge as their boat crosses the line. Suddenly a RIB races up alongside, and as the finisher crosses the line a stone is thrown onto the support boat with a letter of challenge taped to it. Your counterpart announces, "Sorry mate, I really want to honour that contract, but the challenge attached to this stone appears to be DoG compliant; my hands are tied..."
Edit: A financial penalty, even if enforceable, merely sets the price of changing your mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
dg_sailingfan
Super Anarchist
You should all consider how difficult it is to keep Teams afload for another two years in Post-COVID Terms when Economies are tanking!
ETNZ & INEOS have to attract some Sponsors, no? Now that PRADA is out as Main Sponsor. That's why they might do 1) a couple of World Series Events or 2) a couple of Exhibition Events.
And I am sure Dalton & Ratcliffe will be doing just that.
The best thing that happened to the AC were the Acts in 2005-2007 and the World Series Events in 2011-12 + 2015/2016.
That's how you get Teams involved.
ETNZ & INEOS have to attract some Sponsors, no? Now that PRADA is out as Main Sponsor. That's why they might do 1) a couple of World Series Events or 2) a couple of Exhibition Events.
And I am sure Dalton & Ratcliffe will be doing just that.
The best thing that happened to the AC were the Acts in 2005-2007 and the World Series Events in 2011-12 + 2015/2016.
That's how you get Teams involved.
Last edited by a moderator:
porthos
Super Anarchist
Fun scenario, but I would note that if you can't figure out how to keep your principals sequestered and unavailable to rock-throwing interlopers, you don't deserve to keep the cup. Are financial penalties ironclad? They aren't. Can they nonetheless be persuasive? They can.
Rennmaus
Super Anarchist
- 10,688
- 2,284
Bold:
I did, apologies.
We are.
You can agree whatever you want, but a challenge is not valid until the ongoing challenge is finished.
The $500K contract would be moot (under the DoG), because it is inherently not valid. I wager that it would even be mooted if another possible challenger brings it before the NYSC.
It's easy to keep your principals sequestered if both of them want to be sequestered. If one of them is having cold feet and secretly talking to third parties it might be a bit harder.
