(Assuming it happens) it is an interesting question. My opinion would be that if Laser Performance stayed as the Olympic boat then there would be no specification for the boat so nobody could tell if they were sailing a real Laser or not, if their boat measured or not. I assume the ISAF would need a better "specification" that "must be made and certified by LPE"). So they would have to draw up rules, etc. which may then exclude all the existing Lasers out there (unless they just copied the existing rule book - which might cause problems).
You and me both. So this "Laserish" thing is actually gonna happen? What does this mean? I'm so confused.
Seems like it's Kirby who is going "legal"
Part of our dues will continue to flow to the legal profession.Seems to me that ILCA was stuck in the middle and there was no way out...The complaint shows that ILCA should have stayed away from the rumble. What a big mistake by our previous 'leaders'!
What an offensive post. Are we to assume that Jeffers and only Jeffers knows what is right and wrong and only Jeffers should ever decide?? Does Jeffers prefer dictatorships and tyrants to a system of justice where trained, degreed, and sorted by subsequent examination representatives professionally advocate for that which their employers believe is right?
Uh, Gouv, perhaps you might want to take a look in the mirror yourself? You make no secret of your loathing for those elected and volunteering to run the class. Here, there, everywhere you run them down with a bus, back it up over them and do it again, and again, over and over. And now you declare that some Lasers - declared legal by the class and ISAF (BTW, I gather you would be including those boats and sailors from the Olympics in your definition) as not welcome. I am sure you will not miss me, but thanks anyway.
If you look back over the treads when the ILCA were trying to cut Kirby/rights holder out of the deal and siding with Laser Performance, it was said back then that the ILCA were heading for more legal action given their unnecessary actions and decision to take sides (I was one of those pointing this out). It was predictable. Quite a few were commenting on how "unwise" the ILCA action was and I guess now we are proven right.The complaint shows that ILCA should have stayed away from the rumble. What a big mistake by our previous 'leaders'!
It was always likely this would happen to the ILCA. The actions the ILCA took back then are now going to result in members subscriptions paying out to defend themselves. I'm glad I left (or did not renew) after the fiasco of the "vote".
I suspect a new boat (or two) will be happening first.
More of an emotional thing. If somebody tried to exclude you from what is rightfully yours then you are less likely to behave in a generous manner to them when it becomes time to settle accounts.
BK's claim against ILCA (and ISAF) is about supplying building plaques since he terminated the LP building contract late last year. The rule change doesn't come into it.
My memory (which is not as good as it used to be) was that ILCA were trying to change the rules so that the BK/Right Holder part of the triangle of rule requirements was no longer part of the definitions of a "Laser". Before the vote, for a Laser to be a Laser the builder had to have a contract with BK/Right Holder. I thought the vote was to change things so it no longer needed BK/Rights Holder contract - i.e. exclude BK.
I would agree. If LP can get plaques they have an argument that ISAF/ILCA (those in a position to determine the rules?) had judged the situation and that LP were in effect acting on their advice (indirect advice that they can continue to build Lasers). Maybe we will see something happen in the near future - even if only an announcement about the status of LP boats since the builder contract termination.
Yes that's true, but my point was that ILCA were acting to protect their member's interests - any potential downside to BK was a byproduct of that action rather than the intent. ILCA weren't 'taking sides' - they were acting in the interests of their own membership.
I would have expected they could pass the relevant contracts and regulations to a decent lawyer who could say if LP were complying or in breach and tell them to continue or stop sending plaques. Given the contracts were created by lawyers, there should be some around who can establish who is in breach of contract. If contracts do require a builder/BK contract/royalties and BK has notified the ISAF/ILCA that those contracts have been terminated, were LP to pursue ISAF/ILCA for not supplying plaques then they maybe they can defend themselves by "redirecting" to BK (or (counter-)suing BK given they would have been acting on his instruction).
That's a great name and symbol. How do I re-baptize my boat or will that lead to doom and eternal damnation by ILCA?The Kirby sailboat seems poised to be named the Kirby Torch, with this as its sail insignia:
Not a bad name for an Olympic class to carry the torch of the former Laser class.
The ILCA/ISAF were not a part of the contracts between Kirby and the builders and probably don't have access to those documents. I would imagine there was a separate legal agreement covering the conditions for the ILCA/ISAF to supply plaques to builders.
