Jump to content

Talk:2010 America's Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article is difficult to understand

[edit]

I think this article has a bit of a problem with its legal technicalities, i.e. it it basically incomprehensible to those without extensive knowledge about the rules of the America's Cup. I came here to find out when/where the next America's Cup would be held, who would participate, etc. (or when that would be announced). I understand as much as that there are legal disputes over who is challenging Alinghi, who is allowed to do that etc, but I believe the article would be significantly more useful with some sort of introduction summarizing the current status (not the legal status, but the general status). I'm afraid I don't understand enough to be bold and do it myself. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Done.--Paul (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Here is a link to a recent English-language Swiss newspaper.[2] I'll leave it to others to integrate any information into the WP article. N2e (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the info about the boat that is under construction however some of the info could possibly still be added to the Negotiations section. Mattlore (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of litigation

[edit]

I think that we should avoid making our own judgements on who is right or not regarding the litigation. We should only report the parties' allegations and the findings and decisions of the courts. Thus, I've added "allegedly" to what GGYC (oracle) alleged, because SNG (Alingh) disputed that. What was in dispute (as I understand the matter) is which version of the SNG rules should apply. Oracle argued that the version was the one when they first filed their challenge. Alinghi argued that it was the version valid in April 2009, becuase GGYC wasn't recognized as COR until then. In any case, the parties did dispute the point, so it seems to me that a neutral treament is to say that it was "alleged".--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent edits on the venue issue, Paul.h is correct that, logically, the Southern Hemisphere option should be excluded because the six-month notice period has expired. But GGYC's lawyers did not argue this point, and the judge is free to do what she likes because the six-month notice was imposed by the court, not the DoG. We should know by 2 November whether the Southern Hemisphere is an option. GGYC appears to have conceded the point, to judge by their public statement of 28 Oct. So I think that the current formulation "Valence or SH" is correct as of 28 Oct. --Gautier lebon (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In her 30 October decision, the judge refers to letters regarding the venue and says that she will resolve those issues on 4 November. The letters in question have not yet been posted by the parties, but presumably they refer to whether the expiration of the six-month notice means that the race must take place in Valence. So I think that we have to wait until after the 4 November hearing to find out whether the Southern Hemishpere is still an option. --Gautier lebon (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation

[edit]

This article is becoming too much like an uncomprehensible list again. I'm thinking of taking the # 1 Litigation, # 2 Timeline and

  1. 3 Negotiations sections and re-organising them by "themes", eg "litigation over challenger", "litigation over venue", "litigation over boat rules" etc. Thoughts? Hopefully this would make it easier to understand. Mattlore (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since—as far as I can tell—there haven't been any negotiations since November 2007, I'm not certain that "Negotiations" is the correct term to use. The article needs re-writing and simplifying. Let me take a look and get back with some proposals.--Paul (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. In fact I was thinking along the same lines. I look forward to your proposals.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we (for now) just combine the "Timeline" and "Parleys" sections into one timeline. Later we can rework the bullet points into narrative prose. The current organization is confusing because it is essentially two time-lines and has what looks like duplicate info (though one is court activity and the other is exchange of letters).--Paul (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would support that. Eventually, this will all have to be condensed into a few understandable paragraphs. It will be easier to do that if all the material is consolidated into a single timeline. If there is no objection, I might have time to do that next week, but I cannot promise.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been consolidated into a single timeline. Do people think that the time has come to start summarizing some of the material, in partricular for 2007 and the first half of 2008? If yes, I might be able to get started on that. Should it be done directly on the publicly-available page, or should we create a sandbox page somewhere where we can review drafts before they are published?--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to delay converting the list into prose. I think that there is a lot of PR and rhetoric that can be cut out. I also don't see any reason not to do the editing on the live page. On the live page maybe someone else will chip in and help. If we work on a special page, it will be a project for one or two only.Paul (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I'll start, but in stages (that is, a few paragraphs at a time), to make it easier to revert and/or modify.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions from Timeline

[edit]

I've copied below material that I've deleted from the Timeline of the article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008

[edit]
  • On December 31, 2008, the New York Yacht Club (NYYC), the oldest and longest holder of the America's Cup, announced in email to its members that it was filing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting GGYC's position in the Court of Appeals:
"The Club Nautico Espanol de Vela (CNEV) was in essence the Real Federación Española de Vela (RFEV), the Spanish national yachting federation, in the 2007 America’s Cup in Valencia, Spain. The NYYC believes that CNEV does not satisfy either of the criteria set forth in the Deed of Gift for yacht clubs that may challenge for the America’s Cup; namely that: CNEV is not an 'organized Yacht Club' and CNEV does not satisfy the requirement in the Deed of Gift of a challenging yacht club’s 'having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or an arm of the sea ...'
"Further, CNEV seeks to be the 'challenger of record,' a special role that requires that the yacht club in question negotiates not just for itself, but rather on behalf of all of the challenging yacht clubs. The NYYC asserts that the 'challenger of record' must satisfy the letter and the intent of the criteria set forth in the America’s Cup Deed of Gift and should be totally independent in its representation of the interests of all other challenging yacht clubs in negotiating a Protocol that will govern both the America’s Cup Match and the Challenger-Elimination Series. It is the NYYC’s opinion that CNEV does not fulfill these conditions.
"While it would have been very easy for the NYYC to avoid getting involved in this legal controversy, we feel an obligation to the history and traditions of the America’s Cup. Thus we are speaking out at this time."[1][2]

Comment I have no problem with removing this material, so long as the documents themselves are available in a footnote or through a link somewhere. It was this very material I had in mind when I said there was a lot of stuff that could be removed.--Paul (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it should be noted that the NYYC wrote a brief in support of GGYC, but we don't need the extremely long quote. Mattlore (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will add a mention and a reference to the brief.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ NYYC Email to Members 123108
  2. ^ NYYC amicus curiae brief 123108
  3. ^ SDYC amicus curiae brief 123108

2009

[edit]
  • After the April 2009 ruling GGYC said it would "immediately seek to negotiate with the Defender for a conventional, multi-challenger America’s Cup in monohulls." However, SNG implied that if GGYC won, they would not negotiate for a multi-challenger regatta and will fall back to a default Deed of Gift match. The boat specified by GGYC in its formal challenge to SNG was a 90x90-foot "keel yacht"; which turned out to be BMW Oracle Racing 90, a sailing trimaran which has been undergoing sea trials in San Diego, California. A default Deed of Gift match would be three races over a 40- (first and third race) or 39-nautical mile (second race) course between GGYC's BOR 90 and SNG's 90-ft. catamaran Alinghi 5.
  • Later, GGYC filed with the NYSC asking them to hold SNG in contempt for not committing to the court ordered date of February 8, 2010 for the match. On May 12, 2009 the court reaffirmed the February 2010 date, but did not hold SNG as being in contempt of the court.[2]
  • The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the race must take place before February 8, 2010, however Alinghi preferred a May 2010 date.[3] During a court hearing in May 2009, both parties acknowledged that the race must take place in early February 2010, unless another date is mutually agreed to.[4] The defender has the right to choose the venue, which, according to SNG could be anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.[5] GGYC maintained that without mutual consent, the defender must specify a deed-legal venue, which if the match is held in February would mean the Southern Hemisphere.[6] If Alinghi had not specified a venue six months before the match, the venue would have been Valencia as specified in the Supreme Court order of May 12, 2008.[2]
  • On August 6, 2009 GGYC sent a letter to SNG, stating the selection of Ras al-Khaimah is not a Deed Legal Venue. They also stated that they would like to work with SNG to find a Southern Hemisphere, Deed Legal Venue, if SNG decided to not hold the event in Valencia, Spain. The Letter further stated that GGYC has consistently maintained they would be happy to hold the event in Valencia. GGYC also hinted a possible legal action, no matter who wins the Cup, placing uncertainty on future Cup Events.[10]

On August 6, 2009. GGYC asked the court to publish the agreement between the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) and SNG that SNG wished to keep confidential[11]. The agreement[12] with ISAF was published by SNG on September 17, 2009.

  • On August 13, 2009, SNG replied to GGYC, stating that the announced venue in Ras al-Khaimah is compliant with the applicable court orders and with the Deed of Gift. SNG further stated that they had the right to choose the venue and that their choice of venue was irrevocable.[13] This was later subject to litigation which saw the venue ruled as not being deed legal by the courts.
  • On September 17, 2009, SNG published its agreement[12] with the International Sailing Federation (ISAF). GGYC had previously requested that that agreement be made public. On the same day, GGYC welcomed the publication of the agreement but indicated that some portions were not acceptable[14].
  • On September 19, 2009, GGYC published a letter detailing its objections to the agreement between ISAF and SNG[15].
  • On September 25, 2009, SNG wrote to GGYC, requesting that they confirm the arrival date of their team in Ras al Khaimah[16].
  • On September 30, 2009, GGYC published the Certificate of Documentation[17] for its yacht.
  • On October 1, 2009, GGYC filed a motion in court to request that race be held in Valencia, Spain[18]. GGYC argued that Alinghi had previously publicly stated that the match would take place in Valencia, and that Ras Al-Khaimah is not deed-legal and was not suitable due to security concerns (in particular proximity to Iran), lack of infrastructure and lack of wind.
  • On October 2, 2009, SNG wrote to the court requesting that oral arguments on GGYC's 2 September request be combined with oral arguments regarding the venue for the race, and that they take place the week of October 26, instead of October 6 as scheduled by the court[19].
  • On October 4, 2009, SNG wrote to GGYC, stating that GGYC's objection to the choice of Ras al-Khaimah was tardy and constituted "an example of unsportsmanlike behaviour"[20]. SNG went on to argue that the chosen venue was legally valid and that there were no serious issues regarding security.
  • On October 8, 2009, GGYC repled to SNG's letter of October 4, stating that it had sent to SNG five letters (the first on May 20, 2009) by which GGYC had made it clear that SNG had to choose a deed-compliant venue[21]. GGYC went on to reiterate that it did not consider Ras al-Khaimah to be deed-compliant, and it specifically refuted certain allegations contained in SNG's letter.
  • On October 9, 2009, SNG wrote to the court, providing documents that it had obtained from the US Coast Guard (pursuant to a Freedom of Information request) regarding GGYC's application for the Certificate of Documentation[22]. According to SNG, the documents show that on 18 September 2009 GGYC requested that the Certficate be issued rapidly because it planned to ship the yacht on September 25 to the United Arab Emirates. Further, according to SNG, GGYC misled the court by failing to inform it, during the August 10, 2009 hearing, that it had obtained the tonnage certificate already in June 2009.
  • On October 16, 2009, GGYC wrote to the court to refute the allegations made by SNG on October 9[23]. According to GGYC, it made no false or misleading statement and it did not disclose during the August 10, 2009 hearing that the tonnage certificate had already been delivered because that matter was irrelevant for that hearing. Further, according to GGYC, it was SNG, and not GGYC, that engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct, in particular because SNG attempted to avoid a legitimate challenge by agreeing to race a sham club; it promulagated self-serving rules; it agreed inappropriate racing rules with the International Sailing Federation (ISAF); it issued measurement rules designed to disqualify GGYC's yacht; and it selected a venue that violates the Deed of Gift and subjects GGYC to unnecessary danger.


  • On October 13, 2009, SNG filed its opposition papers to GGYC's October 1 motion regarding the venue for the race. In essence, SNG argued that the April 2, 2009 court ruling allowed it to choose "Valencia, Spain or any other location" for the venue of the race, including any other location (such as Ras al-Khaimah) in the Northern Hemisphere[24][25]. Further, according to SNG, Ras al-Khaimah was deed-compliant and did not present any security concerns. The government of Ras al-Khaimah itself presented an amicus curiae brief in which it stated that it was "surprised and offended" by GGYC's statements regarding security and other concerns.
  • On October 15, 2009, GGYC wrote to SNG, stating that there were serious security concerns associated with Ras al-Khaimah, in particular involving terrorism, so that the venue was not suitable for the America's Cup[26][27]. GGYC stated that it was considering filing a court action in New York against SNG for breach of fiduciary duty as Trustee under the Deed of Gift.
  • On October 19, 2009, GGYC filed its reply to SNG's opposition papers of October 13 [28]. The essential point, according to GGYC, is that Ras al-Khaimah is located in the Northern Hemisphere, which is not permissible under the Deed of Gift for a race in February. According to GGYC, Valencia was mentioned in the April 7 court order as an exception, because both parties had indicated that they agreed to Valencia. Unless GGYC agrees to some other location in the Northern Hemisphere, the race must take place in the Southern Hemisphere, because the venue must comply with the Deed of Gift. Indeed, says GGYC, the expression "or any other location" in the April 7 court order cannot be interpreted literally, because it cannot extend to a venue like the Colorado River or Walden Pond. Given that the literal meaning cannot apply, the order must be interpreted consistent with the Deed of Gift. In its reply, GGYC also reiterated its arguments regarding security concerns, citing in particular excerpts from testimony presented by SNG to the effect that there were security issues.
  • On October 20, 2009, SNG replied to GGYC, stating that GGYC's allegations of breach of fiduciary duties were baseless and reiterating that it considered that Ras al-Khaimah was an appropriate venue for the race[29].
  • On October 26, 2009, GGYC filed a new compliant alleging breach of fiduciary duties by SNG, requesting that the court remove SNG as trustee and appoint a faithful trustee to administer the 33rd America's Cup, while permitting SNG to participate in the Cup as Defender[30]. GGYC did not ask that the court strip SNG of its status as Defender, it asked that a neutral third party be appointed to organize the 33rd America's Cup. The specific breaches of fiduciary duties alleged by GGYC were that SNG accepted a sham challenge so that it could negotiate a set of one-sided rules that would virtually guarantee SNG's victory in the next America's Cup; that it consistently refused to negotiate in good faith with GGYC to agree fair rules for the next Cup; that it entered into a secret agreement with the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) that provided for an inappropriate and unacceptable level of control by SNG over the racing rules and decisions; that the measurement rules issued by SNG violated the Deed of Gift and were designed to disqualify GGYC's yacht; that the race course chosen by SNG violates the Deed of Gift's prohibition against Northern Hemisphere races between November and May and subjects GGYC to unnecessary and disproportionate danger; that SNG used its position as trustee to select venues (both Valencia and Ras al-Khaimah) on the basis of benefits granted to companies owned, controlled, or affiliated with Ernesto Bertarelli, the owner of the Alinghi team.
  • On November 4, 2009, the Appellate Division agreed to an expedited appeal for the decision regarding the venue, but refused to stay that decision, meaning that it remains in force pending the outcome of the appeal[31].
  • On November 5, 2009, SNG offered to hold the race off the East coast of Australia[32]. SNG said that it would promptly announce a specific venue if GGYC would accept this offer and cease their legal strategy.
  • The hearing initially scheduled for November 4 was postponed to November 6, 2009. After that hearing, Justice Kornreich suggested that the parties attempt to find an agreement regarding the venue, and the parties agreed to hold discussions[33]. However, the parties were unable to agree[34].
  • Also on November 10, GGYC stated that it was pleased to see that SNG had finally agreed that Valencia was the correct venue to hold the 33rd America's Cup[35].
  • On November 12, 2009, GGYC filed its response to SNG's appeal of November 4. GGYC pressed its case, stating in particular that the venue issue was moot because SNG had agreed to hold the races in Valencia, and that "load water line" is a term of art in sailing that refers to the length of the hull, without including rudders[36].
  • On November 13, 2009, SNG submitted its reply brief to the Appellate Division, regarding the venue and the measurement rules[37]. In essence, SNG pressed its case, arguing the the court decision regarding the venue must be understood to allow it so specify any Northern Hemisphere, not just Valencia, and that the plain language of the Deed of Gift specifies that rudders must be included when measuring Length on the Water Line.

Is Archiving needed?

[edit]

I think that we are now in a position to start summarizing the 2009 timeline. I think that it would be appropriate to create sub-sections within "The Dispute", that is "The Dispute concerning the Challenger", "The Dispute concerning the Venue", "The Dispute concerning the Rules". Many of the current 2009 timeline entries would be deleted. Should they be saved somewhere for reference, in an archive? Or is it sufficient to leave them on this talk page for a little while and then delete if nobody wants them restored?--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More deletions

[edit]

I've copied here more material that I've deleted in order to condense the article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GGYC immediately replied that Ras al-Khaimah was not a Deed Legal Venue. They also stated that they would like to work with SNG to find a Southern Hemisphere, Deed Legal Venue, if SNG decided not to hold the event in Valencia, Spain.[38][39][40] SNG replied that their selection of Ras al-Khaimah was compliant with the applicable court orders, and that under the Deed of Gift they had the right to choose the venue. They said their choice of Ras al-Khaimah was irrevocable.[41]

In September 2009, SNG wrote to GGYC, requesting that they confirm the arrival date of their team in Ras al Khaimah.[42] Then GGYC filed a motion in court to request "that the Court issue an Order directing that the 33rd America's Cup be held in Valencia, Spain, in February 2010, unless the parties mutually consent otherwise."[43] GGYC argued that Alinghi had previously publicly stated that the match would take place in Valencia, and that Ras Al-Khaimah was not deed-legal and was not suitable due to security concerns (in particular proximity to Iran), lack of infrastructure and lack of wind. The essential point made by GGYC in its subsequent briefs to the appeals court was that Ras al-Khaimah is located in the Northern Hemisphere, which is not permissible under the Deed of Gift for a race in February.[44] According to GGYC, Valencia was mentioned in the April 2 court order as an exception, because both parties had indicated that they agreed to Valencia. Unless GGYC agreed to some other location in the Northern Hemisphere, the race must take place in the Southern Hemisphere, because the venue must comply with the Deed of Gift. Indeed, said GGYC, the expression "or any other location" in the April 2 court order could not be interpreted literally, because it could not extend to a venue like the Colorado River or Walden Pond. Given that the literal meaning could not apply, the order must be interpreted consistent with the Deed of Gift.

On October 27, 2009, Justice Shirley Kornreich ruled from the bench that Ras al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates was not a deed legal venue and that the race must take place either in Valencia or in a Southern Hemisphere venue.[45][46][47] SNG appealed[48] the decision to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, but the appeal was denied on 15 December 2009.[49]

On November 10, 2009, SNG wrote to the court stating that it would hold the race in February in Valencia, Spain.[50] Further, it published on the same day the Notice of Race.[51] That Notice of Race specified, among other things, that the races would not take place if the wind exceeded 15 knots or the waves were taller than 1 meter.

On August 6, 2009, SNG sent a letter to GGYC, containing the measurement procedures for the yachts.[52]. GGYC did not accept these procedures, in particular because the SNG procedure would include the rudders in the LWL measurement and thus result in GGYC's boat BMW Oracle Racing 90 being disqualified.[53] On September 2, 2009, GGYC requested the court to declare that the measurement procedure proposed by SNG was not valid (in particular the rudders should not be included when measuring length on the load waterline).[54] On September 18, 2009, SNG filed its opposition papers to the September 2, 2009 court motion by GGYC[55]. In essence, SNG argued that the court had already ruled on all the contentious issues, so they can only be considered on appeal. Further, SNG argued that its measurement procedure was valid. On September 29, 2009, GGYC replied to SNG's 18 September opposition papers[56]. In essence, GGYC pressed its case, stating in particular that the rules that should apply to the race must be the SNG rules that were in force when GGYC filed its challenge. Othewise, said GGYC, SNG could arbitrarily change the rules so as to make it impossible for the challenger to win. For example, said GGYC, the modified rules could specify that the challenger would have to race while dragging an anchor. According to GGYC, it did not make sense to envisage that the rules could be changed after the challenge was issued, since the challenger based its challenge on SNG's rules at the time of the challenge. GGYC also challenged certain provisions of the agreement between ISAF and SNG, in particular concerning the powers of the jury. And it confirmed that it challenged the measurement procedures proposed by SNG which, according to GGYC, were drafted so as to disqualify the challenger's yacht and to give an unfair advantage to SNG's yacht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gautier lebon (talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Top clubs urge rivals to agree NZ Herald, April 11, 2009"
  2. ^ a b http://www.ggyc.com/20080512_DecisionAndOrder(1409756_1_NY).PDF New York Supreme Court Decision and Order, May 12, 2008
  3. ^ Standoff may spark Cup-like regattas New Zealand Herald, April 26, 2009
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference scuttlebutt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/05/090526_SNG_letter_to_GGYC_2.PDF
  6. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC-SNG%2023%20May%2009.pdf GGYC to SNG letter 23 May 2009
  7. ^ http://www.alhamravillage.com/
  8. ^ [1]
  9. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/en/33ac/news/index.php?idIndex=656&idContent=20233 5 August 2009 letter from SNG to GGYC
  10. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC-SNG%20letter%206%20Aug%2009%20final%20signed.pdf
  11. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/Brief%20(Unredacted).pdf
  12. ^ a b http://www.alinghi.com/en/news/news/index.php?idIndex=200&idContent=20494
  13. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/08/090813_SNG_Letter_to_GGYC_re._Venue.pdf
  14. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/17%2009%2009%20GGYC%20Press%20Statement%20FINAL.pdf
  15. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/09%2008%2024%20RC-ISAF%20Letter.PDF
  16. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/09/090925_SNG_letter_to_GGYC_Arrival_in_Venue.pdf
  17. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/USA%20Certificate%20of%20Documentation.pdf
  18. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC%20Memo%20of%20Law.pdf
  19. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/10/091002_SNG_letter_to_Justice_Kornreich.pdf
  20. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/10/091004_SNG_letter_to_GGYC.PDF
  21. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC-SNG%208%20Oct%2009%20(RAK)%20signed.pdf
  22. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/10/091009_Letter_to_Justice_Kornreich_with_exhibits.pdf
  23. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/10-16-09%20Letter%20from%20D.%20Boies%20to%20Justice%20Kornreich.pdf
  24. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/10/091013_SNG_Opposition_Papers.pdf
  25. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/en/news/news/index.php?idIndex=200&idContent=20617
  26. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC-SNG%20letter%20(venue)%2015%20Oct%2009%20signed.pdf
  27. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC-SNG%20letter%2015%20Oct%2009%20(venue)%20pre-sig%20final.doc
  28. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/2009.10.19%20Reply%20Memo%20of%20Law%20in%20Support%20of%20GGYC%20Motion%20re%20Venue%20Issue.pdf
  29. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/10/091020_SNG_to_GGYC_Letter.pdf
  30. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC%2010%2026%2006%20Complaint.PDF
  31. ^ Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Societe Nautique De Geneve, 602446 Seq. No. 007 (New York Appellate Division November 4, 2009).
  32. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/en/33ac/news/index.php?idIndex=656&idContent=20805
  33. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/en/33ac/news/index.php?idIndex=656&idContent=20819
  34. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/11/091110_SNG_letter_to_Justice_Kornreich.pdf
  35. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/Nov%2010,%202009%20GGYC%20StatementFINAL.pdf
  36. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/11-12-09%20Brief%20of%20Plaintiff-Respondent%20GGYC.pdf
  37. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/11/091113_SNG_Reply_Brief.pdf
  38. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC-SNG%20letter%206%20Aug%2009%20final%20signed.pdf
  39. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC-SNG%20letter%20(venue)%2015%20Oct%2009%20signed.pdf
  40. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC-SNG%20letter%2015%20Oct%2009%20(venue)%20pre-sig%20final.doc
  41. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/08/090813_SNG_Letter_to_GGYC_re._Venue.pdf
  42. ^ http://multimedia.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/09/090925_SNG_letter_to_GGYC_Arrival_in_Venue.pdf
  43. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/GGYC%20Memo%20of%20Law.pdf
  44. ^ 2009.10.19 Reply Memo of Law in Support of GGYC Motion re Venue Issue
  45. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/en/news/news/index.php?idIndex=656&idContent=20696
  46. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/Oct%2028%202009%20%20GGYC%20Statement%20FINAL.pdf
  47. ^ UAE port loses America's Cup New Zealand Herald, October 28, 2009
  48. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/en/33ac/news/index.php?idRubr=&idIndex=656&idPage=1
  49. ^ Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Societe Nautique De Geneve, 602446/07 1764 1765N (New York Appelate Division December 15, 2009).
  50. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/11/091110_SNG_letter_to_Justice_Kornreich.pdf
  51. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2009/11/091110_33rd_Americas_Cup_Notice_of_Race.pdf
  52. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/en/33ac/news/index.php?idIndex=656&idContent=20260
  53. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/02%2009%2009%20GGYC%20Press%20Statement.pdf
  54. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/Brief%20(Unredacted).pdf
  55. ^ http://www.alinghi.com/en/33ac/news/index.php?idIndex=656&idContent=20521
  56. ^ http://www.ggyc.com/2009%2009%2029%20Reply%20Memo%20of%20GGYC.pdf

The races: too much detail?

[edit]

I see that various contributors have added considerable detail regarding the cancelled first race. It is good to see that others are contributing to this page, but I wonder whether we should include so many details about the races. The various details, such as names of crew members, can be readily found on the official website. Maybe we should only include in the article overall information about the races? What do others think?--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to use the templates from the 2007 America's Cup for races and crew but hadn't got around to it yet - it depends how much the crews change from race to race but I think they can be listed once (even if in brackets it lists which races they participated in). Mattlore (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect solution. The presentation of the 2007 race details also evolved as the competition progressed. Boatman (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my changes which hopefully are an improvement. I kind of envisage the article ending up in three main parts "The Dispute", "The Regatta" and "The Aftermath" (which currently only includes the LVTrophy series). Mattlore (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the way it looks now.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one contender?

[edit]

The article does nothing to explain why there are only two boats racing, rather than multiple contenders as in previous years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Boatman, below. The article goes into great detail explaining why there are only two contestants in this edition of the Cup. The explanation just wasn't in the lead, which has now been fixed.--Paul (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of section 1.2 explains why no multiple contenders. In summary SNG/Alinghi said no multiple challengers but they did not issue a public statement on the reasoning for their position on this. Boatman (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit more complicated than that. What happened is that GGYC/Oracle and SNG/Alinghi were unable to agree on anything, so the default provision applied, and that is a two-boat race. I've added a sentence to that effect to the introduction.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref the sentence you have added - Alinghi and BOR both separately stated that they wanted a multi challenger event hence it would seem that they were in agreement on this issue. To say "GGYC/Oracle and SNG/Alinghi were unable to agree on anything, so the default provision applied, and that is a two-boat race" is just an opinion which does not have any proof points to make this a factual statement suitable for an encyclopedia. The facts are that the public statements from both teams is the opposite ie they both wanted a multichallenger event but I suggest that it is not possible to come up with factual reasons why they ended up with a two team event and therefore not possible for us to construct a factual judgement suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Boatman (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It it abundantly clear that the match defaulted to Deed-of-Gift conditions because the parties could not agree on mutual consent terms. It is also arguable that it was SNG who insisted on a Deed-of-Gift match. Read [3], [4], [5], and [6]. --Paul (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both Boatman and Paul are correct. Both parties issued various statements to the effect that they would prefer a multi-challenger event, but they were unable to agree on the actual terms of such an event. Both parties made proposals which the other party refused. It is correct that, in the end, Alinghi broke off negotiations and insisted on a DoG match. It seems to me that the sentence I added is factually correct. However, I have no objections to reverting the the previous text.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good reasoning. I am happy to leave unchanged. Thanks Boatman (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

34th America's Cup

[edit]

During the post race press conference, of race 2 of the 33rd America's Cup, questions were asked about the the 34th America's Cup.

As Larry Ellison answered the questions, it became clear that there is a Challenger of Record for the 34th America's Cup[1]

It was also revealed without Ellison officially confirming it, that, that Challenger is Mascalzone Latino.

Regarding Venue, Ellison also stated that Valencia could also be the host. --Subman758 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.americascup.com/en/actualite/news/they-saidquotes-from-bmw-oracle-racing-and-alinghi-19-2913

Wind strength for the races

[edit]

Since we don't have access to the committee boat(s) wind readings (at least I don't think we do), we have to make an estimate of the wind strengths given the sources available. There is some disagreement on the wind strengths; I am convinced the wind was stronger on Friday, and others think it was stronger on Sunday. Here is my reasoning.

@33ACup twitter feed from AmericasCup.com had tweeted the following about 20 minutes before the start of race one "Top mark - 175° 6 knots | Race Committee Boat - 185° 7 knots". Later, as the yachts approached the top mark, the wind there was reported at 10 knots. Further, USA-17 flew a jib at the start, but found there was enough pressure further up the course to take it down, which improves their upwind performance. Finally, USA-17 averaged 13.7 knots VMG upwind on Friday. I'd tag the wind range on Friday at 6 to 10 knots.

On Sunday, the pre-race twitter from @33ACup said "90deg - 100deg 4.5 - 6 knots on the whole race course". USA-17 flew a jib the entire time upwind, not having enough power to take it down, and Mike Drummond said at one of the post race press conferences that Sunday was "marginal conditions for flying a hull". USA-17's average VMG upwind on Sunday was 13.2 knots. Regarding the 33 knot speed recorded by USA-17 on the first reaching leg Sunday, this was not due to more wind, it is because that was a close reach, the fastest point of sail for these boats. Finally, as the sun went down, so did the wind pressure and both boats slowed down at the end of the race (as see on the GPS speed readouts from the AC broadcast feed). I'd estimate the wind range on Sunday at 5 to 8 knots.--Paul (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, everything you say is correct. But, as I stated earlier, I think that we should retain 5-9 for the first race because that's what appears in the only citation that I could find. The citation is not far off what I had written down while watching the race (on the basis of what was said on the soundtrack), which was 6-8 knots. Regarding the second race, my written record of the soundtrack gives 7-9 knots. Looking down at the water from the helicopter (via the video, of course), I would have said at least 10 after they turned downwind. The point of sail downwind raises an interesting question. Upwind there was clearly a wind shift that favored Alinghi, it was said to be about 20 degrees. Since Alinghi was on port tack and USA on starboard tack, the shift must have been counter-clockwise , unless I am getting something wrong. But then the first downwind leg would have been a broad reach, not a close reach, and USA could not have gone that fast. So there must have been a second wind shift, clockwise. If you accept that USA can sail at about 13 degrees off the apparent wind, and that the second shift was 30 degrees with respect to the wind at the time (thus 10 degrees clockwise with respect to the course), then, according to my calculations, USA would have been be able to do 3.4 times wind speed, which matches nicely with the observed 33 knots and an assumed 10 knots of wind. The wind clearly dropped after the gybe mark. The slower VMG upwind during the second race can be due to the wind shift. I haven't yet had time to do any calculations to see whether the times are consistent with a 20-degree shift, which of course resulted in USA having to cover more distance through the water. I realize that this is all pretty speculative, but, for now, we don't have any reliable citations.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have taken so long to get back to this, but I was on vacation and didn't have access to my video recordings of the races. I've looked at them again, and here is what I find.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the beginning of race 1, USA was running at about 18.5 knots, vs. 17 for Alinghi. When USA dropped its jib, its speed was up to 20 knots, vs. 18 for Alinghi. So indeed the wind strenghtened during the windward part of the first race. From my recording (which is high quality, taken of the Swiss TV live broadcast), I can see only very rare small white crests during this part of the race. So the wind was at most Beaufort 3, meaning 7-10 knots. This is not really inconsistent with the citation, which gives winds at 5-9 knots, so I propose that we retain the wind speed as it stands for the first race.
  • At the beginning or race 2, USA was running at about 18 knots, vs. 15 for Alinghi. This went up to 20 (vs. 17), 19 (vs. 17), 20 (vs. 17) and 22 (vs. 17), all on the upwind leg. I conclude that the wind speed during the second race was not much different from the first race for the upwind leg. Indeed, I couls see some very very slight wave crests during part of the last leg, so again it was a weak Beafort 3. Maybe 5 to 9 knots would be more accurate for Race 2, but we don't have a citation, and the numbers that are currently published match what was said by the commentators during the race. So again I propose taht we retain the wind speed as it stands also for the second race.
  • The 20-degree wind shift easily explains how Alinghi got ahead. Alinghi was trailing by about 660 meters, then tacked (while USA did not) and would up 460 meters ahead after only a few minutes. But the VMG difference due to a 20% shift is about 8 knots (assuming that USA was at 20 knots and Alinghi at 17), which works out to 250 meters per minute. Add the fact that the wind was probably stronger on Alinghi's side (because of the shift), and there you have it.
  • USA clearly slowed down after the gybe mark. They can be seen to reduce sail. Presumably they preferred to avoid risks, given that their lead was ample. As a result, their lead was reduced. Thus their slower progress on the last leg was probably due not only to the fact that the wind was not exactly dead down the course, but also due to a decision not to go flat out. Further, they had to gybe to reach the line, which also reduced their lead.
  • USA was about 1100 meters ahead of Alinghi when it crossed the line. If Alinghi was doing 19 knots (reasonable, since USA was doing 22), and if it had not had the penalty, Alinghi would have crossed the line about 2 minutes behind USA. Given that the wind was dropping, I think that the current statement of 2-4 minutes for the final delta is the best we can do.
  • Regarding the delta for the first race, the separation was about 3800 meters at the end. If Alinghi was doing 20 knots, it would have crossed the line 6 minutes after USA. So I think that, for the first race, it would be better to say "Without the penalty turn the delta would have been somewhere between 6 and 9 minutes", but I'm also comfortable with leaving the text as it stands, since it is based on Paul's careful review of the video.
At America’s Cup, the numbers of a victory, wind for race one is given as 6 to 10 knots, and race two 7 to 9 knots. As to the non-penalty turn delta for the first race, it is easy to estimate, as they didn't start the turn until they were at the finish line and the video shows the finish delta clock counting up. Regarding the non-penalty delta on the second race, it is harder because the video feed did not show A5 making the penalty turn. In the early part of leg 3, USA kept increasing its lead over A5. As USA approached the finish line, the wind died. Even though the lead distance-wise was cut way down, the lead time-wise, didn't change much at all because A5 also sailed into the low pressure zone at the finish and slowed way down. I've heard an independent observation from someone on the water that A5's penalty turn was about 90 seconds, which would make USA-17's gain on L3 about 1:15, and the resulting delta without the penalty turn about 4 minutes. Saying that the non-penalty delta was 2 minutes would mean that the penalty turn took three and one-half minutes, which isn't reasonable. --Paul (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. Regarding wind speed for Race 1, we now have conflicting citations. We can either give both, or choose one. If we choose one, I would prefer the existing one, which is from the Geneva newspaper: their journalist was there and was able to speak to the Alinghi crew. Alternatively we can take the min,max of both and say 5-10 knots, which has, by definition, a better chance of being correct. Regarding wind speed for Race 2, I propose that we use the new citation and change it to match that, meaning 7-8 knots (note that there was a typo in Paul's comment above: the site gives 7-8 for race 2, not 7-9). Regarding the time for the penalty turn, Alinghi took at least 7 minutes the first time, but of course they weren't really trying to do it quickly. Of course they could have done it in less that 3.5 minutes the second time, if they had cared. But did they care? As you say, the video doesn't show what they did, so we have no way of knowing. By saying 2-4 minutes, we cover all bases and provide correct, albeit imprecise, information. As indicated above, I think that we should do the same for race 1: provide a range. That way we alert readers to the fact that we don't have accurate information. But I don't insist.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's go with 5 to 10 knots for race one, and 7-8 knots for race two. As to penalty turns, in race one A5 did TWO penalty turns because the first one was on the wrong side of the finish line. Go back and look at the end of race one, the first penalty turn starts at 8:32 after USA-17 finishes, and ends at about 10:01, or 89 seconds. Then they sail around for a bit and are told they have to do it again. The second turn starts at about 14:20 and ends at 15:28, or about 70 seconds (and this one was without a jib). In the second race, they set up for the turn earlier and did it correctly. I'd bet the turn took less than 90 seconds in the second race, but I'll go with 90-seconds to be conservative. I really think that a 4-minute delta for race two is much, much closer to the truth than a 2-minute delta.--Paul (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
Agreed. Indeed, I do recall the two turns at the end of the first race. I will now proceed to edit the article accordingly.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Western Asia

[edit]

This talk page has {{WikiProject Western Asia}}, but I am mystified what Western Asia has to do with this article. Someone should either explain relevance of Western Asia, or else remove the template.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 America's Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 America's Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2010 America's Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_America%27s_Cup&oldid=1247684090"