Americas Cup
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
was quite clear that that was purely from the standpoint of a non sailor
Yep, that was clear.
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
the reasons for calling it off actually sounded like something that would be really interesting to watch
Nope, that is why they called it off. Dogmeat's post did explain it quite well as to why it wouldn't be interesting at all.
As for the rules, they have a set of conditions that fall within parameters to create a contest and they followed them. Nice work.
-
Sounds like a no brainer if Ineos is locked into having the AC regatta here in the event that they win
@canefan said in Americas Cup:
Sounds like a no brainer if Ineos is locked into having the AC regatta here in the event that they win
It sounds good in some ways - certainly be a big event.
If we did lose though, they are the defender, and get to set all of the class rules, boat design, competition rules, wind limits (can be contentious to some), time limits (was an issue in SFO - cost us the cup), etc. Those are all a big advantage that we give away, which is why it has been so hard to take it away in the past. We would also have to the challenger of record at home next time to mitigate some of that.
We might well win anyway, but we are gambling quite a bit. Sounds like a chance for the Brits to finally get their hands on it again and get the monkey of their back. Can't blame them for that.
-
Who cares if it's only held once every 4 years and only 3 challengers come? It's a historic cup that we've worked hard to get and keep. It should be held only in NZ, as long as we can retain it-8, 12, 20, 40 years.
And the first order of business should be changing the deed to introduce a nationality clause.If we lose it to INEO for a silly gamble, guaranteed the Royal Yacht Club will find some way to shaft us and hold the next cup in England. We should not be fools.
Instead, I'd like to see exhibitions held by TNZ and others around harbour and around the islands off Auckland.
-
I thought the whole point of spending taxpayer money on this was we get to host a massive international event with huge exposure in Auckland. If they take it offshore I'll be pissed.
@tewaio said in Americas Cup:
I thought the whole point of spending taxpayer money on this was we get to host a massive international event with huge exposure in Auckland. If they take it offshore I'll be pissed.
But if there is a guarantee the next even will be back in auckland but after a bit event that might raise more interest/challengers?
-
@canefan said in Americas Cup:
Sounds like a no brainer if Ineos is locked into having the AC regatta here in the event that they win
It sounds good in some ways - certainly be a big event.
If we did lose though, they are the defender, and get to set all of the class rules, boat design, competition rules, wind limits (can be contentious to some), time limits (was an issue in SFO - cost us the cup), etc. Those are all a big advantage that we give away, which is why it has been so hard to take it away in the past. We would also have to the challenger of record at home next time to mitigate some of that.
We might well win anyway, but we are gambling quite a bit. Sounds like a chance for the Brits to finally get their hands on it again and get the monkey of their back. Can't blame them for that.
@snowy said in Americas Cup:
@canefan said in Americas Cup:
Sounds like a no brainer if Ineos is locked into having the AC regatta here in the event that they win
It sounds good in some ways - certainly be a big event.
If we did lose though, they are the defender, and get to set all of the class rules, boat design, competition rules, wind limits (can be contentious to some), time limits (was an issue in SFO - cost us the cup), etc. Those are all a big advantage that we give away, which is why it has been so hard to take it away in the past. We would also have to the challenger of record at home next time to mitigate some of that.
We might well win anyway, but we are gambling quite a bit. Sounds like a chance for the Brits to finally get their hands on it again and get the monkey of their back. Can't blame them for that.
Aren’t the rules and stuff agreed between the defender and CoR? Not just set by the defender?
-
@snowy said in Americas Cup:
@canefan said in Americas Cup:
Sounds like a no brainer if Ineos is locked into having the AC regatta here in the event that they win
It sounds good in some ways - certainly be a big event.
If we did lose though, they are the defender, and get to set all of the class rules, boat design, competition rules, wind limits (can be contentious to some), time limits (was an issue in SFO - cost us the cup), etc. Those are all a big advantage that we give away, which is why it has been so hard to take it away in the past. We would also have to the challenger of record at home next time to mitigate some of that.
We might well win anyway, but we are gambling quite a bit. Sounds like a chance for the Brits to finally get their hands on it again and get the monkey of their back. Can't blame them for that.
Aren’t the rules and stuff agreed between the defender and CoR? Not just set by the defender?
-
I should also clarify that the CoR is chosen by the defender (technically RNZYS last time not ETNZ but I'm sure they do it)) - so you see the point. In order to agree to races in the U.K but have the next one here, we need to be sure that we are CoR to get back some of the home advantage.
The defender is always going to be in the stronger negotiating position I would say. It's an "here's the cup, come and take it" stance.
-
I should also clarify that the CoR is chosen by the defender (technically RNZYS last time not ETNZ but I'm sure they do it)) - so you see the point. In order to agree to races in the U.K but have the next one here, we need to be sure that we are CoR to get back some of the home advantage.
The defender is always going to be in the stronger negotiating position I would say. It's an "here's the cup, come and take it" stance.
@snowy said in Americas Cup:
I should also clarify that the CoR is chosen by the defender (technically RNZYS last time not ETNZ but I'm sure they do it)) - so you see the point. In order to agree to races in the U.K but have the next one here, we need to be sure that we are CoR to get back some of the home advantage.
The defender is always going to be in the stronger negotiating position I would say. It's an "here's the cup, come and take it" stance.
Each challenge needs to be backed by a yacht club, which is essentially a rubber stamp exercise. I remember when Chris Dickson had his Tag Heuer challenge, it was the Mercury Bay yacht club
-
@snowy said in Americas Cup:
I should also clarify that the CoR is chosen by the defender (technically RNZYS last time not ETNZ but I'm sure they do it)) - so you see the point. In order to agree to races in the U.K but have the next one here, we need to be sure that we are CoR to get back some of the home advantage.
The defender is always going to be in the stronger negotiating position I would say. It's an "here's the cup, come and take it" stance.
Each challenge needs to be backed by a yacht club, which is essentially a rubber stamp exercise. I remember when Chris Dickson had his Tag Heuer challenge, it was the Mercury Bay yacht club
@canefan said in Americas Cup:
Each challenge needs to be backed by a yacht club, which is essentially a rubber stamp exercise. I remember when Chris Dickson had his Tag Heuer challenge, it was the Mercury Bay yacht club
Yes I know that a yacht club has to be behind a challenge. The comment was about who is actually putting their name to it and who is in reality the challenger.
I think you remember incorrectly. Mercury Bay was the big boat challenge in 1988 with Michael Fay. They weren't involved in any others that I know of, nor was Dickson involved.
The Tag challenge was from Tutukaka yacht club.
-
@canefan said in Americas Cup:
Each challenge needs to be backed by a yacht club, which is essentially a rubber stamp exercise. I remember when Chris Dickson had his Tag Heuer challenge, it was the Mercury Bay yacht club
Yes I know that a yacht club has to be behind a challenge. The comment was about who is actually putting their name to it and who is in reality the challenger.
I think you remember incorrectly. Mercury Bay was the big boat challenge in 1988 with Michael Fay. They weren't involved in any others that I know of, nor was Dickson involved.
The Tag challenge was from Tutukaka yacht club.
@snowy said in Americas Cup:
@canefan said in Americas Cup:
Each challenge needs to be backed by a yacht club, which is essentially a rubber stamp exercise. I remember when Chris Dickson had his Tag Heuer challenge, it was the Mercury Bay yacht club
Yes I know that a yacht club has to be behind a challenge. The comment was about who is actually putting their name to it and who is in reality the challenger.
I think you remember incorrectly. Mercury Bay was the big boat challenge in 1988 with Michael Fay. They weren't involved in any others that I know of, nor was Dickson involved.
The Tag challenge was from Tutukaka yacht club.
I stand corrected Sir
-
@kiwiwomble To an extent yes. That is why I said that we had to be the CoR.
@snowy said in Americas Cup:
@kiwiwomble To an extent yes. That is why I said that we had to be the CoR.
so assuming there is a guarantee the next full one is held in Auckland (so we get back the home field advantage) and they do all the usual stuff to make sure ETNZ/RNZYS are the CoR should we lose this, thoughts?
-
@snowy said in Americas Cup:
@kiwiwomble To an extent yes. That is why I said that we had to be the CoR.
so assuming there is a guarantee the next full one is held in Auckland (so we get back the home field advantage) and they do all the usual stuff to make sure ETNZ/RNZYS are the CoR should we lose this, thoughts?
-
@kiwiwomble in theory a good idea to make money... But the deed of gift doesn't appear to allow future challenges to be bound. We'd be relying on the British to play fair, and in America's cup that's high risk
-
@nzzp does the DoG specifically preclude additional agreements? a separate contract securing the CoR status to the loosing team from the Deed challenge?
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
@nzzp does the DoG specifically preclude additional agreements? a separate contract securing the CoR status to the loosing team from the Deed challenge?
Nope, but you'd be left trying to enforce a separate agreement. It wouldn't(and couldn't) bind the holder of the cup as far as I know.
Anyway, have a read. It's not long.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
@nzzp does the DoG specifically preclude additional agreements? a separate contract securing the CoR status to the loosing team from the Deed challenge?
Nope, but you'd be left trying to enforce a separate agreement. It wouldn't(and couldn't) bind the holder of the cup as far as I know.
Anyway, have a read. It's not long.
@nzzp yeah, read that before (as best as i could), didn;t think it it specifically precluded a separate contract
I would have thought a contract if written well enough could and would be binding
-
@nzzp yeah, read that before (as best as i could), didn;t think it it specifically precluded a separate contract
I would have thought a contract if written well enough could and would be binding
@kiwiwomble I'm not a lawyer, but I think you could sue and win, but you wouldn't get the cup. Just damages. The deed of gift trumps outside contracts I think
-
@nzzp yeah, read that before (as best as i could), didn;t think it it specifically precluded a separate contract
I would have thought a contract if written well enough could and would be binding
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
I would have thought a contract if written well enough could and would be binding
It should be, and you would be dealing with modern law and wording, but Ineos have a billionaire backer...
I assume that if they are the holders, and decided to disregard any contracts / agreements that were made, jurisdiction will come into it. A hearing could be held in British courts, even if the laws were drawn up in NZ? Not sure about that. The point is I wouldn't trust it as a binding document. It's the AC.
We would need to get some serious cash (I reckon it would draw that as an event too) to take the risk of losing. I also think that we would be a better than 50/50 chance of winning too.
-
@kiwiwomble I'm not a lawyer, but I think you could sue and win, but you wouldn't get the cup. Just damages. The deed of gift trumps outside contracts I think
@nzzp said in Americas Cup:
@kiwiwomble I'm not a lawyer, but I think you could sue and win, but you wouldn't get the cup. Just damages. The deed of gift trumps outside contracts I think
This. History would suggest that the holder gets to keep it.
