Americas Cup - and Alinghi drops out

[Chris 249]

A lot of truth in that. But I think the issue is that displacement monos have never made for a good spectacle to anyone other than committed sailors. And the budgets required, even for a displacement mono, are such that you need either a large sponsor (who would expect visibility and return) or a billionaire willing to chuck money at it.
With foiling the teams can at least pretend to potential sponsors that they're going to grow the audience beyond hardcore sailors. And to an extent sail GP is quite a good argument for that.

Well back in the 1800s, there’s no doubt that spectator interest was enormous. Read contemporary accounts on newspaper archives. So they certainly did make a good spectacle for the general public. However, that was a long time ago.

But why is that the point? The fleets of over a dozen IACC boats and 12 Metres didn’t come out of nowhere. They got sponsors and they got billionaires, and they got enough spectators to keep people happy.

The numbers I’ve seen for SGP don’t seem to show a viable business model unless, like the SGP, it is underwritten by a billionaire. The AV is not so cannot operate the same way.

I’d hazard a guess that the limited AC fields of today show that most sponsors don’t believe the AC claims. If the claims were so attractive why do so few sponsors hand over the cash?

 

[flaming]

Well back in the 1800s, there’s no doubt that spectator interest was enormous. Read contemporary accounts on newspaper archives. So they certainly did make a good spectacle for the general public. However, that was a long time ago.

But why is that the point? The fleets of over a dozen IACC boats and 12 Metres didn’t come out of nowhere. They got sponsors and they got billionaires, and they got enough spectators to keep people happy.

The numbers I’ve seen for SGP don’t seem to show a viable business model unless, like the SGP, it is underwritten by a billionaire. The AV is not so cannot operate the same way.

I’d hazard a guess that the limited AC fields of today show that most sponsors don’t believe the AC claims. If the claims were so attractive why do so few sponsors hand over the cash?

You're a little bit mistaken on Sail GP. Someone I was at uni with is now the CEO of one of the teams. I can't say too much, because it's not my info to share, but it's moving pretty rapidly towards being entirely self sufficient - and unlike the AC the teams are starting to have an intrinsic value.

But on the AC, even in 2007 the budget for a campaign capable of winning was north of 100 million Euros.

Here's a report from 2007, team budgets are in there.
https://www.ivie.es/downloads/docs/mono/mono2007-02.pdf

Budgets for last time out were "North of 150 million". And 2007 was obviously before the 2008 crash, when companies loved sponsoring things.

With even a full fat "in it to win it" IMOCA campaign coming in at less than 1/4 of that and giving you race coverage and event village presence over a 4 year cycle, you can see why sponsors struggle to see the value. I can't think of another sport that has an operating expenditure of anything close to the AC without also having a stadium or a circuit that they can fill every other week in the season and generate revenue from.

 

[dunedin]

And now American Magic statement that unless things improve they may also quit the next AC - NYYC American Magic team statement regarding 38th America's Cup

Which follows an announcement of concerns about the NZ process by Athena / GBR - Athena Racing concerned over 38th America's Cup transparency

 

[flaming]

And now American Magic statement that unless things improve they may also quit the next AC - NYYC American Magic team statement regarding 38th America's Cup

Which follows an announcement of concerns about the NZ process by Athena / GBR - Athena Racing concerned over 38th America's Cup transparency

Defender being a little underhand and seeking to stack the deck in their favour…?

I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you.

 

[Pump-Out]

But why is that the point? The fleets of over a dozen IACC boats and 12 Metres didn’t come out of nowhere. They got sponsors and they got billionaires, and they got enough spectators to keep people happy.

The Twelve Meter Fleet could host events, the current foliers cant.

Sponsors want to be able to woo clients, showing off what they have sponsored. A CEO cant host his opposite number and his/he current squeeze on one of the current foilers cats. A 12M, even with a reduced crew, can give a pretty good experience.

 

[dunedin]

The Twelve Meter Fleet could host events, the current foliers cant.

Sponsors want to be able to woo clients, showing off what they have sponsored. A CEO cant host his opposite number and his/he current squeeze on one of the current foilers cats. A 12M, even with a reduced crew, can give a pretty good experience.

But the Americas Cup aims to be the ultimate pinnacle in big boat racing (the Olympics are accepted as the pinnacle for small boat racing, and feed talent into the AC and other top events).

The 12 Metre class would not be recognised as a pinnacle event any more (and why it was replaced by the IACC more than 3 decades ago) and would not attract any interest. Indeed the 12 Metres still do run events, often back at Newport RI, and some of the old stars return - if mainly for the social side. But nobody other than the competitors is interested and minimal media coverage.
The TP52 seem to fill the role of big conventional monohull racing. But suspect would struggle to keep up with an offshore IMOCA 60 in a straight line.
Going back to old lead mines is not going to work for the AC. Needs to find a way forward with exciting fast boats - or fall into abeyance like the Admirals Cup did.

 

[Pump-Out]

Sorry, I was not suggesting that 12M was the answer, just that hulls of that type lend themselves to cooperate/sponsor hosting, which may be an easier sell to a potential sponsor.

 

[benjenbav]

I struggle to see a viable future for the AC. Take the last event. In all conditions bar one day of flaky wind one boat was so obviously faster than the other that it was crystal clear that it would just sail away and win by a substantial margin. The commentators tried to put a brave face on it by trying to evoke some jeopardy but there really was none.

So a minority sport where the apex features a procession.

Only really appealing to the reducing numbers of insecure billionaires who still need to measure their egos and a thousand or so participants (design and execution) who can’t believe they’re pulling down a good wage for doing something with little utility or public interest.

Emperor’s new clothes, methinks.

 

[Chris 249]

You're a little bit mistaken on Sail GP. Someone I was at uni with is now the CEO of one of the teams. I can't say too much, because it's not my info to share, but it's moving pretty rapidly towards being entirely self sufficient - and unlike the AC the teams are starting to have an intrinsic value.

But on the AC, even in 2007 the budget for a campaign capable of winning was north of 100 million Euros.

Here's a report from 2007, team budgets are in there.
https://www.ivie.es/downloads/docs/mono/mono2007-02.pdf

Budgets for last time out were "North of 150 million". And 2007 was obviously before the 2008 crash, when companies loved sponsoring things.

With even a full fat "in it to win it" IMOCA campaign coming in at less than 1/4 of that and giving you race coverage and event village presence over a 4 year cycle, you can see why sponsors struggle to see the value. I can't think of another sport that has an operating expenditure of anything close to the AC without also having a stadium or a circuit that they can fill every other week in the season and generate revenue from.

Interesting info about SGP however there seems to be little chance that it would have got to the stage it is without Ellison losing vast amounts of money, so to me it’s still an illustration that the “stadium/TV pro sailing” model remains basically impractical as a business proposition, just as it was when it first failed in the ‘80s.

That’s an interesting financial breakdown in the link, thanks, and it shows that half the teams had budgets of 50m or less. As you say, one can understand why sponsors can’t see the value.

The money thrown into 2007 illustrates one of my points, which is that today the spending seems to be concentrating on a smaller number of people earning more each, whereas in earlier events the financial benefit was spread among more sailors, riggers, etc. To me that indicates that there’s nothing really good about the fact that the cost of running an individual team may be increasing - there seems to be little benefit in one guy earning 300k as a trimmer compared to a bigger fleet of cheaper boats where three guys earn 100k each as a trimmer.

We seem to agree that the basic business model of the AC is pretty dubious. To me that means that the foiling era has failed to live up to its aims and therefore there should be serious consideration to dumping the model and trying a new one. If something hasn’t worked after half a dozen tries then surely the basic idea should be questioned.

 

[Chris 249]

But the Americas Cup aims to be the ultimate pinnacle in big boat racing (the Olympics are accepted as the pinnacle for small boat racing, and feed talent into the AC and other top events).

The 12 Metre class would not be recognised as a pinnacle event any more (and why it was replaced by the IACC more than 3 decades ago) and would not attract any interest. Indeed the 12 Metres still do run events, often back at Newport RI, and some of the old stars return - if mainly for the social side. But nobody other than the competitors is interested and minimal media coverage.
The TP52 seem to fill the role of big conventional monohull racing. But suspect would struggle to keep up with an offshore IMOCA 60 in a straight line.
Going back to old lead mines is not going to work for the AC. Needs to find a way forward with exciting fast boats - or fall into abeyance like the Admirals Cup did.

But the “ultimate pinnacle” does not have to mean that it uses the most radical and fastest gear. The Tour de France is the ultimate pinnacle of cycling but it uses the same UCI bikes that weekend racers and cafe riders use. The football World Cup is the ultimate pinnacle of football but they don’t use a different-size field with special balls that travel further and different goalposts. The 100 metres may be the ultimate pinnacle of running but they don’t tilt the track downhill or something to make it faster.

So the simple fact is that in other sports, the “ultimate pinnacle” is an event that uses pretty normal gear and rules, but is played at the very highest level of preparation, skill etc. Why should sailing demand to use a different model to the one that works for the biggest sports like football, cycling, etc?

Car racing uses a different model. F1 cars are pretty restricted and motor racing is, given the cash poured into it by the vast parent industry, not a very big participant sport so one can say it’s a bad model to follow. Why follow the model that is used by the 35th (or so) most popular participant sport instead of the model followed by the ones that get the most participants?

The Cam Am motor racing class had far fewer rules than F1, far more power and far more speed - and it lasted just 72 events. So motor racing shows that events that use the fastest technology can collapse while more restricted types survive and remain the ultimate pinnacle of the sport.

The 12 Metre class was not the performance pinnacle from about 1968-74, when a new breed of big radical offshore boats (Manureva/Pen Duick III, Vendredi Trieze, Windward Passage, British Oxygen, Kialoa III, etc) arrived. By the time the 12 Metre entry into the America’s Cup peaked no sensible person thought the 12 was the performance pinnacle since at the same time there were boats like the 85 foot foiling tri Charles Hiedsick III (which had a windward-raking wingmast, double-surface sail and massive crossbeam intended to create lift through ground effect, etc), other foiling multis, carbon IOR maxis that would kill a 12 on any point of sail, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that everyone knew the 12s were an ancient concept and eons behind the “ultimate pinnacle” of performance, the America’s Cup events at the end of the 12 Metre period were extremely successful events with big entries, just like those of the IACC period. Why ignore the model that attracts more teams in favour of a model that attracts fewer entries?

Yes, an event can collapse if it doesn’t move forward with technology - but events that DO push technology also collapse, and probably far more often. The Admiral’s Cup fell over but so did the WMRT on foiling cats, the 18 Footer Grand Prix with development boats, the Ultimate Yacht Race, the Superfoiler Grand Prix, the ORMA 60 foot tris, the development-class windsurfing World Cup, and literally dozens of other events that have tried to be the technological pinnacle and collapsed.

PS - In fact the reality is that the 12s were never the fastest yachts afloat since there were always a few active M Class and offshore racers that were bigger and faster.

 

[flaming]

Interesting info about SGP however there seems to be little chance that it would have got to the stage it is without Ellison losing vast amounts of money, so to me it’s still an illustration that the “stadium/TV pro sailing” model remains basically impractical as a business proposition, just as it was when it first failed in the ‘80s.

That’s an interesting financial breakdown in the link, thanks, and it shows that half the teams had budgets of 50m or less. As you say, one can understand why sponsors can’t see the value.

The money thrown into 2007 illustrates one of my points, which is that today the spending seems to be concentrating on a smaller number of people earning more each, whereas in earlier events the financial benefit was spread among more sailors, riggers, etc. To me that indicates that there’s nothing really good about the fact that the cost of running an individual team may be increasing - there seems to be little benefit in one guy earning 300k as a trimmer compared to a bigger fleet of cheaper boats where three guys earn 100k each as a trimmer.

We seem to agree that the basic business model of the AC is pretty dubious. To me that means that the foiling era has failed to live up to its aims and therefore there should be serious consideration to dumping the model and trying a new one. If something hasn’t worked after half a dozen tries then surely the basic idea should be questioned.

But now we come back to the point I’ve made across a number of threads, and that you kept rejecting…

Which is that the cup is a Billionaire Willy waving contest, and attracting an audience isn’t key to the event, other than to massage the egos of the billionaires…

Only when the supply of billionaires wanting to wave their willies runs out will those left holding the cup be forced to look for alternatives.

 

[dunedin]

But the “ultimate pinnacle” does not have to mean that it uses the most radical and fastest gear. The Tour de France is the ultimate pinnacle of cycling but it uses the same UCI bikes that weekend racers and cafe riders use. The football World Cup is the ultimate pinnacle of football but they don’t use a different-size field with special balls that travel further and different goalposts. The 100 metres may be the ultimate pinnacle of running but they don’t tilt the track downhill or something to make it faster.

So the simple fact is that in other sports, the “ultimate pinnacle” is an event that uses pretty normal gear and rules, but is played at the very highest level of preparation, skill etc. Why should sailing demand to use a different model to the one that works for the biggest sports like football, cycling, etc?

…..

The 12 Metre class was not the performance pinnacle from about 1968-74, when a new breed of big radical offshore boats (Manureva/Pen Duick III, Vendredi Trieze, Windward Passage, British Oxygen, Kialoa III, etc) arrived. By the time the 12 Metre entry into the America’s Cup peaked no sensible person thought the 12 was the performance pinnacle since at the same time there were boats like the 85 foot foiling tri Charles Hiedsick III (which had a windward-raking wingmast, double-surface sail and massive crossbeam intended to create lift through ground effect, etc), other foiling multis, carbon IOR maxis that would kill a 12 on any point of sail, etc etc etc.

……

PS - In fact the reality is that the 12s were never the fastest yachts afloat since there were always a few active M Class and offshore racers that were bigger and faster.

The “gold standard” in sail racing in “pretty normal gear” is undoubtedly the Olympics. And within that the most difficult medal is the one in the supplied fleet of Laser / ILCAs. An Olympic Gold Medal is definitely recognised as the badge to have a top sailor.

But beyond this, sailing is massively more diverse than football, or rugby, or cycling.
- Boats vary from hydrofoiling kite boards to 50m superyachts, with huge variety of windsurfers, dinghies, dayboats, monohulls, multihulls etc.
- Courses and durations vary from 15 minute in harbour sprints to round the world events that ma take a year - and sometimes many months non stop.

The 12 metres were only one brief manifestation of Americas Cup. As ever, people hanker after what they remembered as a teenager or similar. But the 12 metres were nothing special in the long history of the cup, except for Australia being the first one to take the Cup from the NYYC trophy room.
There is no point nostalgising - not least as each age group nostalgists about different eras and those that grew up in the 12m age are starting to fade away!
To appeal to the top professionals the Americas Cup boats need to be something special. But it might be that this particular event has run its course and needs to be paused for a decade or so and then reinvented with a new formula. After all there is no shortage of top racing, and the Cape 31 for example are probably more competitive.

 

[Chris 249]

The “gold standard” in sail racing in “pretty normal gear” is undoubtedly the Olympics. And within that the most difficult medal is the one in the supplied fleet of Laser / ILCAs. An Olympic Gold Medal is definitely recognised as the badge to have a top sailor.

But beyond this, sailing is massively more diverse than football, or rugby, or cycling.
- Boats vary from hydrofoiling kite boards to 50m superyachts, with huge variety of windsurfers, dinghies, dayboats, monohulls, multihulls etc.
- Courses and durations vary from 15 minute in harbour sprints to round the world events that ma take a year - and sometimes many months non stop.

The 12 metres were only one brief manifestation of Americas Cup. As ever, people hanker after what they remembered as a teenager or similar. But the 12 metres were nothing special in the long history of the cup, except for Australia being the first one to take the Cup from the NYYC trophy room.
There is no point nostalgising - not least as each age group nostalgists about different eras and those that grew up in the 12m age are starting to fade away!
To appeal to the top professionals the Americas Cup boats need to be something special. But it might be that this particular event has run its course and needs to be paused for a decade or so and then reinvented with a new formula. After all there is no shortage of top racing, and the Cape 31 for example are probably more competitive.

The Olympics cater for a certain range of small boats. There’s no reason to say that there shouldn't be a gold standard of racing in pretty normal gear in big “inshore” boats as well. That’s what we’ve had through much of the history of the sport, in the form of the America’s Cup

Sailing is diverse but in many countries, the most popular part of the sport is day racing in conventional big boats. For many years, that had a “gold standard” event in the form of the America’s Cup, Admiral’s Cup and Ton Cups. Now not many events come close - maybe only the TP52s. Why is it a good thing to leave a major portion of the sport largely unrepresented? Who benefits? Why is it that small and the tiny number of extreme big boats can have a gold standard event, but not the thousands of normal big boats and the vast numbers who sail them?

I’m not “nostaligising", I’m using logical data and evidence such as comparative participation rates, comparative AC activity of different classes, actual documented AC history to make remarks that are based on the realities of the situation.

For example, to say that the 12s were “a brief manifestation” of the Cup is very dubious based on simple statistical data. Here’s a list of the rough proportion of time, challenges and boats built for challenges for each type since the first challenge in 1870;

1- If we look at each class or type by the percentage of the AC’s history in years that the class was used for the AC, the list runs like this;

12 Metres - 20%; L x SA sloops (Thistle, Reliance etc) 12%; IACCs 10%; J Class 5%; schooners 4%; AC 75 4%; Cubic Contents Rule sloops 2%; Deed of Gift multis 2%; AC 72 2%; AC 50 2%. The Universal Rule 75 footers are ignored because of the WW1 interlude.

So since the 12s were by far the longest-lived class in the Cup it is arguably completely untrue to say they were a “brief manifestation”. If the class that lasted 20% of the time was “a brief manifestation” then the Js and AC75s are not even worth mentioning.


2- If we look at each class or type by the percentage of AC challenges the class was used for, the list runs like this;

12 Metres - 24%; L x SA cutters - 22%; IACC - 14%; J Class 8%; schooners 8%; AC72 5%; Deed of Gift boats 5%; AC 50 3%; Universal Rule 75 Footers 3%; AC60 3%

Clearly the 12s were NOT “a brief manifestation” when they were used for more ACs than any other class, over a longer period of time! That IS special.


3- If we look at the number of boats built for the AC, the numbers go pretty much like this;

IACC -98 boats (!) 46%; 12s - approx 50 boats/24%; L x SA cutters - about 22 boats/8%; AC75 14 boats/6%; J Class 9 boats/4%; AC60 6 boats/3%; Deed of Gift boats, 4 boats/2%; CC rule sloops 3-4 boats/2%; schooners 3 boats/1%; Universal Rule 75 footers 3 boats/1%.

Again, the reality is clear - the facts are that the AC activity was strongest in the era of 12s and IACC boats and they were nothing remotely like “a brief manifestation”. The AC is strongest by objective data when the boats are essentially large versions of the sort of boats that are sailed by a very large proportion of weekend warriors. The classes that are the most radical do not attract many entrants, they do not create much activity within the industry, and they don’t last in the AC, so arguably they are the worst model to try to emulate.


4- The top pros go where the money and competition is most of the time. In the later 12 Metre era they could have gone on IOR maxis, offshore foiling maxi multis, skiffs, the first of the water-ballasted singlehanded round the world 60 foot monos, etc. Many of them instead chose to race the 12s although everyone knew the basic design was ancient and slow. They knew that and they didn’t care. They don’t need to sail the fastest craft and most of the time they don’t.


5- I own and sail two cats (one fast, one slow) and a foiler. My last offshore season was on a shorthanded tri. I’m not sure what you sail, but there’s no reason to imply that I am a conservative driven by what was happening when I was a kid or nostalgia. I rely on things like hard data and academic work on the effects of sports equipment design on participation trends.


6- Since as you say, the current format seems to have lost momentum, and the shift to foilers and multis clearly failed to live up to the BS hype, why not open our minds and try to re-imagine the Cup in a more successful format?

 

[Chris 249]

But now we come back to the point I’ve made across a number of threads, and that you kept rejecting…

Which is that the cup is a Billionaire Willy waving contest, and attracting an audience isn’t key to the event, other than to massage the egos of the billionaires…

Only when the supply of billionaires wanting to wave their willies runs out will those left holding the cup be forced to look for alternatives.

There is historical, documentary and contemporary evidence for why various people challenged or defended the AC. Even allowing for the fact that people don’t tell everyone when they are willy waving, the fact is that there are logical motives for many of the AC challenges. Henn, for example, on independent evidence just wanted to find out whether the US sloop was faster than the British cutter in a breeze. Once he found it was, he readily admitted the fact with fine sportsmanship. That’s from US accounts so on what evidence do you insult him?

Sure, there’s willy waving - but as noted earlier, if we say that spending money on sailing is “willy waving” then we must admit that the same happens in plenty of places. If we say that it’s willy-waving for someone with 200 billion dollars to spend 130 million on an AC effort then how can we say it’s not willy-waving to turn up to the Little Puddle Sailing Club with a new carbon Merlin to beat old Ents and Herons? If a billionaire spends a tiny fraction of their wealth on an AC boat and it’s willy-waving, what is it when someone spends proportionately more of their worth on buying a 40 foot production boat, fills it with a couple of hundred thous of North sails, and sends it onto the Solent with a semi-pro crew? In all cases, people are showing their financial power. Why single out the America’s Cup and not expensive development dinghies or big offshore boats?

The only AC challenger I’ve sailed with is Syd Fisher who famously was a complete tight-arse and certainly wasn’t showing off his willy with his challenges. I have no respect for many of the AC guys but the point is that there seems to be no reason to apparently put them in a separate category to other yacht owners.

I completely agree that attracting an audience isn’t a key to the event. One of my beefs with recent America’s Cups is that they have claimed that getting a huge audience is vital (when as we agree, it isn’t) and that the boat would provide that, when they clearly have not.

 

[flaming]

There is historical, documentary and contemporary evidence for why various people challenged or defended the AC. Even allowing for the fact that people don’t tell everyone when they are willy waving, the fact is that there are logical motives for many of the AC challenges. Henn, for example, on independent evidence just wanted to find out whether the US sloop was faster than the British cutter in a breeze. Once he found it was, he readily admitted the fact with fine sportsmanship. That’s from US accounts so on what evidence do you insult him?

Sure, there’s willy waving - but as noted earlier, if we say that spending money on sailing is “willy waving” then we must admit that the same happens in plenty of places. If we say that it’s willy-waving for someone with 200 billion dollars to spend 130 million on an AC effort then how can we say it’s not willy-waving to turn up to the Little Puddle Sailing Club with a new carbon Merlin to beat old Ents and Herons? If a billionaire spends a tiny fraction of their wealth on an AC boat and it’s willy-waving, what is it when someone spends proportionately more of their worth on buying a 40 foot production boat, fills it with a couple of hundred thous of North sails, and sends it onto the Solent with a semi-pro crew? In all cases, people are showing their financial power. Why single out the America’s Cup and not expensive development dinghies or big offshore boats?

The only AC challenger I’ve sailed with is Syd Fisher who famously was a complete tight-arse and certainly wasn’t showing off his willy with his challenges. I have no respect for many of the AC guys but the point is that there seems to be no reason to apparently put them in a separate category to other yacht owners.

I completely agree that attracting an audience isn’t a key to the event. One of my beefs with recent America’s Cups is that they have claimed that getting a huge audience is vital (when as we agree, it isn’t) and that the boat would provide that, when they clearly have not.

If someone wants to buy a 40 footer and go racing in the Solent, the principal difference is that they are going to be on the boat, normally driving.

None of the backers of the cup have even been on the boat as spectators for a long time. That is the difference.

And again you are guilty of conflating the history of the cup, which clearly you are an expert, with the current and near future reality.

 

[flaming]

Sailing is diverse but in many countries, the most popular part of the sport is day racing in conventional big boats. For many years, that had a “gold standard” event in the form of the America’s Cup, Admiral’s Cup and Ton Cups. Now not many events come close - maybe only the TP52s. Why is it a good thing to leave a major portion of the sport largely unrepresented? Who benefits? Why is it that small and the tiny number of extreme big boats can have a gold standard event, but not the thousands of normal big boats and the vast numbers who sail them?

By the way, the Admirals cup is back. Starts in about a month I think. Some serious hardware assembling in the Solent right now. IRC nationals in a fortnight looks to be something of a dress rehearsal.
Will be entertaining to watch for sure.

 

[Chris 249]

If someone wants to buy a 40 footer and go racing in the Solent, the principal difference is that they are going to be on the boat, normally driving.

None of the backers of the cup have even been on the boat as spectators for a long time. That is the difference.

And again you are guilty of conflating the history of the cup, which clearly you are an expert, with the current and near future reality.

I've sailed with owners who sat and quietly let pros run the boat and with owners who were crap sailors but insisted on driving badly and calling the shots (fair enough, they paid for it) and from that experience I can't see how the level of active involvement in the boat has any relationship to the amount of willy-waving. In fact the guy who can let his ego fall away and let better sailors do the sailing normally is far less of a willy-waver IME than the guy who insists that because he did a sailing course two years ago and bought a boat this year, he is now an expert in everything from bow work to starting technique.

So I can't see how the fact that someone is actively driving (perhaps like a complete wanker, perhaps well) means that they are not willy-waggling, while someone with years of experience who gets off the boat and watches from a tender to make management-level decisions is by definition a willy-waggler. If I got on my typical 36 footer next weekend and drove instead of letting someone better drive, that would seem to make me a wanker more than if I handed over the driving and learned from someone better. Ironically some of the owners who drove in the America's Cup (Bic and Sopwith) were called WWs because they drove!

Surely if the mere fact of not actually competing on the field of play makes an owner a willy waver, then every single owner in all the sports where they don't get on the playing field (F1, football, pro cycling where teams are owned by legendary ex-champs, etc etc etc) is nothing but a complete and utter willy waver even if they used to be a legend on the field?

What about the owners of TP52s Sled, Interlodge, etc, who sometimes steer and sometimes stay in the office and let others sail the boat? Are they willy-waving one regatta and being good blokes the next? If being on the boat or driving means one is not a willy-waver and getting off the boat means one is a willy-waver, then Syd Fisher, Larry Ellison, Hap Fauth, Doug de Vos, Alan Bond, Lipton and others must have multiple personality disorder or something, because all of them get on the boat for some serious events but get off the boat for the America's Cup. Sorry but I just don't understand why approaches which some top owners alternate between from event to event or class to class allegedly proves such a dramatic change in personality or motivation.

You keep on claiming that I'm conflating the history of the Cup with its current and future reality but don't seem to explain in what way I am doing that. The history shows that the Cup can be far bigger, in terms of entries and even total spending by all teams, than it currently is. The history gives some clues about what ingredients work. Surely that is a critical matter when we are assessing the current reality and near future possibilities?

 

[flaming]

The history shows that the Cup can be far bigger, in terms of entries and even total spending by all teams, than it currently is. The history gives some clues about what ingredients work. Surely that is a critical matter when we are assessing the current reality and near future possibilities?

I don't disagree at all with that analysis.

I disagree with the idea that "the good of the cup" will overcome, and the cup will ever revert to that sort of event. It just isn't going to happen precisely because the cup has started to attract people, Ratcliffe being a prime example, that have no history in the sport. All your examples of cup backers / owners from years gone by were people who had a long history in sailing, and campaigning yachts, and who saw the AC as the pinnacle they could aspire to.
Ratcliffe is not that, to the best of my knowledge he had no racing experience at all, he saw the cup purely as a way he could gain kudos for being "the man behind the 1st British team to win it".

The gossip now is that significant money is now likely to flow into cup teams from the gulf states. Again, not people who have long history of yacht racing looking to climb the pinnacle of the sport that they've been involved with since childhood, but people looking for some other gain in involvement.

And THAT is why you cannot be too focused on what the cup was when you consider what it is. Because the motivations of the people putting up the money are completely different now. No longer is it people steeped in the sport wanting to win the ultimate accolade. Now it's people with little or no history in the sport looking at the kudos or influence that involvement can bring.

 

[benjenbav]

I don't disagree at all with that analysis.

I disagree with the idea that "the good of the cup" will overcome, and the cup will ever revert to that sort of event. It just isn't going to happen precisely because the cup has started to attract people, Ratcliffe being a prime example, that have no history in the sport. All your examples of cup backers / owners from years gone by were people who had a long history in sailing, and campaigning yachts, and who saw the AC as the pinnacle they could aspire to.
Ratcliffe is not that, to the best of my knowledge he had no racing experience at all, he saw the cup purely as a way he could gain kudos for being "the man behind the 1st British team to win it".

The gossip now is that significant money is now likely to flow into cup teams from the gulf states. Again, not people who have long history of yacht racing looking to climb the pinnacle of the sport that they've been involved with since childhood, but people looking for some other gain in involvement.

And THAT is why you cannot be too focused on what the cup was when you consider what it is. Because the motivations of the people putting up the money are completely different now. No longer is it people steeped in the sport wanting to win the ultimate accolade. Now it's people with little or no history in the sport looking at the kudos or influence that involvement can bring.

I suppose it serves a useful function in that it diverts some of them from firing rockets into space.

 

[flaming]

I've sailed with owners who sat and quietly let pros run the boat and with owners who were crap sailors but insisted on driving badly and calling the shots (fair enough, they paid for it) and from that experience I can't see how the level of active involvement in the boat has any relationship to the amount of willy-waving. In fact the guy who can let his ego fall away and let better sailors do the sailing normally is far less of a willy-waver IME than the guy who insists that because he did a sailing course two years ago and bought a boat this year, he is now an expert in everything from bow work to starting technique.

So I can't see how the fact that someone is actively driving (perhaps like a complete wanker, perhaps well) means that they are not willy-waggling, while someone with years of experience who gets off the boat and watches from a tender to make management-level decisions is by definition a willy-waggler. If I got on my typical 36 footer next weekend and drove instead of letting someone better drive, that would seem to make me a wanker more than if I handed over the driving and learned from someone better. Ironically some of the owners who drove in the America's Cup (Bic and Sopwith) were called WWs because they drove!

Surely if the mere fact of not actually competing on the field of play makes an owner a willy waver, then every single owner in all the sports where they don't get on the playing field (F1, football, pro cycling where teams are owned by legendary ex-champs, etc etc etc) is nothing but a complete and utter willy waver even if they used to be a legend on the field?

What about the owners of TP52s Sled, Interlodge, etc, who sometimes steer and sometimes stay in the office and let others sail the boat? Are they willy-waving one regatta and being good blokes the next? If being on the boat or driving means one is not a willy-waver and getting off the boat means one is a willy-waver, then Syd Fisher, Larry Ellison, Hap Fauth, Doug de Vos, Alan Bond, Lipton and others must have multiple personality disorder or something, because all of them get on the boat for some serious events but get off the boat for the America's Cup. Sorry but I just don't understand why approaches which some top owners alternate between from event to event or class to class allegedly proves such a dramatic change in personality or motivation.

On the subject of willy waving....

In no way was I saying that willy waving is absent from the sport other than the cup. The difference of course is that all the names you mention have so much history with the sport. Ratcliffe, as the prime example, does not. Anyone who stared their sailing in smaller modest boats and worked their way up as their business boomed and they could afford more, to be honest that's different. They're sailors first. If they're too busy to be on the boat for every event, but still let it compete without them, whilst still paying the bills, then that's the opposite of willy waving. That's generosity to the crew and also to the competitors who want decent fleets.

But just answer this question... Ratcliffe, the rumoured middle eastern backers... They're not sailors, wouldn't know the history of the cup before they became involved. What's the attraction? Why have they suddenly decided to get involved? If you cannot see the difference between them and the likes of lifelong sailors like Bertarelli, and why that is completely changing the direction that the cup is going.....

The difference with other sports is that the owners of a football club, or an F1 team etc can reasonably expect to actually profit from their ownership. For sure there is going to be an element of willy waving, of ego boosting, but ownership of a Premier league team is a good investment. The going rate for an F1 team is in the hundreds of millions.
Cup teams have no value, generate no income from ticket sales, almost none from TV rights, don't sell replica kits by the thousand etc... They're simply money pits. All the Billionaires putting their cash into the cup know it's just spent money, it's not an investment that could possibly generate returns in cash terms. So why do those who have no sailing history do it?