News Around the World
A man of many many (many) parts. Skiff veteran, marine industry entrepreneur, ocean racer, classic yacht enthusiast, speed record challenger, sponsor of youth and women’s teams and most recently an Admiral’s Cup skipper, Sean Langman’s stretched 69-foot Reichel/Pugh design Moneypenny approaches Tasmania after a quick crossing of the Bass Strait during the 2022 Sydney Hobart
Bertarelli imposed a prohibition preventing Coutts from joining any other team. Not so keen on a free market situation after all? Or maybe simply a case of his superstar skipper having to serve out the full term of a contract on the bench? There are other echoes of Bertarelli’s influence in the draft
protocol. The document proposes the establishment of a new body called the AC Partnership (ACP). It will comprise the Founding Teams (who have committed to participate at least for AC38 and AC39) and will ‘be responsible for the management of AC38 and future cycles of the America’s Cup’. This is reminiscent of the America’s Cup Management (ACM)
body established by Bertarelli for AC32 in 2007, with his boyhood friend Michel Bonnefous in charge. Ostensibly this was welcomed as a more inclusive set-up for the benefit of Defender and challengers alike. But the attraction faded slightly with challenger complaints that Bonnefous and his close associate Michel Hodara were being far more autocratic than democratic. But, and it is a big but, it should be noted that Valencia succeeded
in attracting 11 challengers from nine countries and the event gen- erated a ⇔60-million profit, which was distributed among all the teams on a scale proportionate to their final rankings. In financial terms Bertarelli and Bonnefous put on the most successful America’s Cup ever, before or since, while the 11-strong entry made for a superb sailing regatta. However… the next iteration quickly descended into prolonged
court disputes, with software billionaire Larry Ellison charging that the Swiss Defender had effectively set up a ‘puppet’ Challenger of Record with the newly formed Club Náutico Espanol (CNEV). Ulti- mately, the courts ruled that CNEV’s challenge was invalid, opening the way for the 2010 Deed of Gift Match, won by Ellison’s massive hard-wing trimaran… with Russell Coutts leading the campaign. However, now with Ellison in the Defender seat, the lead-up to
the 2013 San Francisco Cup was every bit as beset with challenger complaints over his ‘monopolistic’ rule. Another irony: although the validity of an Italian Challenger of Record led by Vincenzo Onorato was never in question, echoes of the CNEV/Alinghi relationship arose with other challengers branding the Italian CoR as too acquiescent – a ‘silent partner’ – to Ellison’s dictates. (Similar disquiet was expressed during the Barcelona regatta,
30 SEAHORSE
that Sir Ben Ainslie’s Challenger of Record was ‘too cosy’ with the New Zealand Defender. This no longer appears to be the case, on the surface at least.) Ellison’s second Defence in 2017 lost its Challenger of Record
altogether – an Australian initiative led by Bob Oatley – before the Bermuda venue was even announced. Oatley withdrew, complaining that the financial risk was excessive. Welcome to the America’s Cup. As next challenger in line, Patrizio Bertelli’s Luna Rossa assumed
the CoR mantle, before voluntary relinquishing the position in favour of a more inclusive Challenger Committee, which took decisions by majority vote. Soon afterwards Luna Rossa quit proceedings entirely in protest at a late rule change reducing the size of boat from 62ft to 50ft. ETNZ voted with the Italians against the rule change. Yet another irony: had Luna Rossa remained CoR it would have
had the power, under mutual consent, to stop the size reduction. But the majority rule provision of the Challenger Committee saw the Italians and Kiwis lose the vote by 3-2. The Swedish Artemis Challenge became the third CoR for the Bermuda event. The off-water politics around that Bermuda Cup continued when
New Zealand further entrenched its ‘lone wolf’ status by declining to endorse a ‘Framework Agreement’ between Oracle Team USA and the four remaining challengers, Sweden, Japan, Great Britain and France. The agreement would have circumscribed the format of future America’s Cup events under terms presented by Coutts, representing the Defender. However, ETNZ spoiled the party by defeating the American team 7-1 and reverting to the ‘winner-takes- all’ position that has prevailed since 1851. The current bad temper underscores a situation that has repeated
itself many times over the years, with challengers complaining that the field is too heavily tilted against them. The repeating irony, however, is that when one of the challengers actually succeeds in becoming the Defender, they quickly grow quite strongly attached to the status quo… Much as they revel in the possession/guardian- ship of the silver trophy, they quickly realise it is only a symbol of the real prize – which is the ability to stack the odds as far as the limits of their mutual consent arrangement will tolerate. Having won it the hard way, there is little inclination to make it easy for those lining up to take it away. Ivor Wilkins
CARLO BORLENGHI/ROLEX
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150
