Who gets the to sail in the Olympics "The Laser Class" or "The Loser Class".
Checks the calendar....no, it is not 1st April.....
Word is out that there is a meeting next week somewhere in US. Kirby, PSA and a European group will sign and agree the distribution for newly named Laser. Laser Performance are out.....though no doubt they will kick up, bitch and moan and try and go legal.....
Gonna get messy (messier)......
The complaint shows that ILCA should have stayed away from the rumble. What a big mistake by our previous 'leaders'!
Part of our dues will continue to flow to the legal profession.
Oh what a mess......and now only the lawyers will profit...blood sucking parasites!
Looks like the new sail is some way off then!
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?
Half the lawyers involved in this fight will be defending all that is good and proper . The lawyers on the losing side will have been doing their very best to serve those who hired them.
Each of those occupations is noble.
The lawyers will probably be well paid for their work. I am curious why you believe that makes it proper to call them bloodsuckers.
What does Jeffers do for a living?? Is Jeffers a boodsucker??
The complaint shows that ILCA should have stayed away from the rumble. What a big mistake by our previous 'leaders'!
Part of our dues will continue to flow to the legal profession.
Oh what a mess......and now only the lawyers will profit...blood sucking parasites!
Looks like the new sail is some way off then!
I guess I don't see what the rule change vote has to do with it. They took a vote which the membership approved, but that the ISAF vetoed. The class rules never changed. The issue is that they continued to supply plaques.
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.
I don't think ILCA were trying to exclude BK from what was rightfully his per se. They were trying to ensure continued availability of boats in Europe and NA
It seems at this point that ILCA/ISAF should be able to answer to the ILCA membership if they will continue to issue the plaques to LP
To my simple way of thinking that would let us know if we will have new boats available (I don't think the filing of the suit is going to stop LP from building if they can get the plaques)
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.
Ian
The thing is, as with 3rd party gear not being acceptable in Open Meetings/Regattas, so counterfeit boats are not acceptable. So, when some hot-shot turns up and wins a regatta in a new boat next week, will he be subject to protest on the basis he is sailing a counterfeit boat ? In fact, should medals from the 2012 Olympics be "recalled" because the races used counterfeit boats ? (OK, unlikely to happen but who knows - 'cos if I raced a regatta using a Rooster sail I would not be placed in the results).
Ian
ILCA and ISAF were in a pickle no matter what. They keep sending plaques, Kirby sues them. They stop sending plaques, LP sues them.
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.
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).
I can't see them being stuck with no way out when caught in the middle. Their problem would be if they switched direction now - as either the before or after will be "wrong" and they will have done both. I assume their lawyers have advised them, based on contracts and notifications received that they are obliged to continue to supply plaques. Because, to have not taken legal advice or to ignore such advice would be putting themselves "in a pickle" as you say.
Ian