America's cup new rules

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › America's cup new rules

nzcloud9

47 posts

Geek

#146970 4-Jun-2014 18:10

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on the latest rules for the America's cup?

I think they (oracle) will keep changing the rules so nobody will be able to afford to race.
I love watching the racing, but think it is time to give up for now.

1 | 2 | 3

15443 posts

Uber Geek

#1059289 4-Jun-2014 18:47

I think many people are now over it. With all the money involved, and the huge amounts these people get paid, it should be self supporting now by sponsorships. Personally I have always enjoyed watching it and the techonolgy involved, and quite like sailing. But I see it now very similar to Formula One racing, and think NZ would be better to support a formula one team, as it gets more coverage.

surfisup1000

4508 posts

Uber Geek

#1059290 4-Jun-2014 18:54

i was so disappointed after the last cup i will rip the face off the next yacht i see.

Sideface

5620 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1059309 4-Jun-2014 19:20

The defenders have been outrageously bending the rules for a very long time.
eg in 1885–1887 The NYYC Rule - challenger yachts must sail over seas to the venue on their own hull.

Sideface

Inphinity

2549 posts

Uber Geek

#1059312 4-Jun-2014 19:22

Personally, couldn't care less.

mattwnz

15443 posts

Uber Geek

#1059318 4-Jun-2014 19:32

From what was on TV this time, the rules heavily favor the defender. eg. The defender can have 2 boats, the challenger only one. Only the defender knows where the venue is, and that won't be known until challengers have paid their entry fee (A million bucks) which is required in a few months. SPonsors won't signup until they know the venue. The defender can also race in the challenger series. etc. If the rules were set up by an independent authority, and it was a proper world race, rather than this challenger and defender thing, then I think it could be a good thing. But not this sort thing, which is a rich mans game, and it is not a level or fair playing field. I don't think we should be teaching our kids that in sport, one team can make all the rules to favour themselves. So on that basic, I am out of it and wouldn't invest.

MikeB4

14666 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1059321 4-Jun-2014 19:38

9 people support this post

Not $1 of tax payer funds should go into this.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

There is no planet B

mattwnz

15443 posts

Uber Geek

#1059322 4-Jun-2014 19:40

KiwiNZ: Not $1 of tax payer funds should go into this.

Haven't they already committed something towards this one? I recall after the last one, at the cloud when they were celebrating the loss, the government minister said something about supporting the next campaign.

hairy1

2892 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1059363 4-Jun-2014 20:09

One person supports this post

It's a "no" from me. Pull the pin. It is getting outrageous. There is better stuff to spend money on than this thing. I used to be a huge fan but not anymore....

My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.

scuwp

3256 posts

Uber Geek

#1059396 4-Jun-2014 20:46

One person supports this post

I'm with KiwiNZ...pull the pin, it's time to get off the stupid train.

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

itxtme

1711 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1059436 4-Jun-2014 22:21

Here we go again! The economics of funding the Americas cup has been well and truly proven. Tax payer money is an emotive subject. The fact is they (the government) makes more money than they fund.

With that being said, I think Larry is taking the piss, which is ironic given the lengths he went to sue Alinghi after what he deemed was grossly unfair Challenger rules

mattwnz

15443 posts

Uber Geek

#1059440 4-Jun-2014 22:30

itxtme: Here we go again! The economics of funding the Americas cup has been well and truly proven. Tax payer money is an emotive subject. The fact is they (the government) makes more money than they fund.

With that being said, I think Larry is taking the piss, which is ironic given the lengths he went to sue Alinghi after what he deemed was grossly unfair Challenger rules

I don't know if it has been proven. If it has been, where? People can massage figures and stats to suit a point of view, as economic benefits are very difficult to measure, as there are so many things to consider. I think they were adding in benefits such as different countries boats being built in NZ. Which may have happened even if NZ didn't have out own team, as we have some of the better designers and boat building companies in the world But if NZ didn't have a team, does this mean that NZ wouldn't get those jobs for building other countries boats?
Economically, we may not make a loss, but is it a good return, especially as NZ is still borrowing billions of dollars from overseas.

itxtme

1711 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1059453 4-Jun-2014 23:13

mattwnz:
itxtme: Here we go again! The economics of funding the Americas cup has been well and truly proven. Tax payer money is an emotive subject. The fact is they (the government) makes more money than they fund.

With that being said, I think Larry is taking the piss, which is ironic given the lengths he went to sue Alinghi after what he deemed was grossly unfair Challenger rules

I don't know if it has been proven. If it has been, where? People can massage figures and stats to suit a point of view, as economic benefits are very difficult to measure, as there are so many things to consider. I think they were adding in benefits such as different countries boats being built in NZ. Which may have happened even if NZ didn't have out own team, as we have some of the better designers and boat building companies in the world But if NZ didn't have a team, does this mean that NZ wouldn't get those jobs for building other countries boats?
Economically, we may not make a loss, but is it a good return, especially as NZ is still borrowing billions of dollars from overseas.

Bizarre, without going to every purchaser of a super yacht from NZ we would not be able to substantiate your claims. If you truly believe the Americas cup has no bearing on the brand that is NZ nautical engineering you are deluded. Maybe you could put forward your solid argument for how this industry pushes ahead when NZ is preforming well in Americas cup?

I would like to think our government departments are not so corrupt that they can put out a document analyising the cost vs benefit, and they do, but for some reason its just them "massaging figures". Might need to get out the tin foil.

And you went and said it again "as NZ is still borrowing billions of dollars". I dont meant to sound patronising but if Jimmy has 3 beans and he plants those 3 beans beans and waits, a year later on that tree grows 10 beans. Should Jimmy have planted those 3 beans?

mattwnz

15443 posts

Uber Geek

#1059480 4-Jun-2014 23:50

itxtme:

Bizarre, without going to every purchaser of a super yacht from NZ we would not be able to substantiate your claims. If you truly believe the Americas cup has no bearing on the brand that is NZ nautical engineering you are deluded. Maybe you could put forward your solid argument for how this industry pushes ahead when NZ is preforming well in Americas cup? I would like to think our government departments are not so corrupt that they can put out a document analyising the cost vs benefit, and they do, but for some reason its just them "massaging figures". Might need to get out the tin foil.

And you went and said it again "as NZ is still borrowing billions of dollars". I dont meant to sound patronising but if Jimmy has 3 beans and he plants those 3 beans beans and waits, a year later on that tree grows 10 beans. Should Jimmy have planted those 3 beans?

I am not saying that there hasn't been an economic benefit overall, but where are these figures to prove it, and do the benefits match the projections when they first invested the money? I was literally asking you for your source of your previous statements. I did not say in this case, that figures have been massaged, just in general, stats can be picked out to suit a particular stance, or to justify something, it's called spin.

I don't recall any cost benefit projections when it was first lent by labour, but I do recall National saying that they were obligated to give them the money as it had been promised from the former labour government. I do recall that the public at the time were keen to lend the money. I am saying that the financial benefits from lending moeny for this type of activity is very difficult to measure, as you may get a tourist who decides to visit NZ, solely due to hearing about NZ from seeing the americas cup on TV, but that benefit wouldn't be included in the figures. I presume a lot of it is educated guess work based on statistics. NZ is borrowing billions to build infrastructure, which should bring in economic benefits, but does a boat race fall under that category?

sdav

836 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1059492 5-Jun-2014 01:36

Sideface: The defenders have been outrageously bending the rules for a very long time.
eg in 1885–1887 The NYYC Rule - challenger yachts must sail over seas to the venue on their own hull.

As opposed to flying?

Kyanar

3124 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1059505 5-Jun-2014 07:08

sdav:
Sideface: The defenders have been outrageously bending the rules for a very long time.
eg in 1885–1887 The NYYC Rule - challenger yachts must sail over seas to the venue on their own hull.

As opposed to flying?

I assume as opposed to being flown or container shipped over and assembled on site.

1 | 2 | 3