Class Politics All about to kick off....

Has anybody asked Tracy if the ILCA Exec ever saw and read an actual written report from the lawyer that Jeff paid 60,000 pounds of members' money for? That's supposedly where they got the information that the builders didn't really need an agreement with Bruce Kirby Inc. because it was "mostly historical". The lawyer also supposedly advised them of the lapse of some design patents having nothing to do with the Kirby sailboat formerly known as the Laser. Competent corporate lawyers don't make mistakes like that and if there was a written statement, it would be clear on those points. Where did that info really come from?

You can't tell me they spent that much money on a phone call or two that the ILCA Exec could have then misinterpreted so wildly. The lawyers did a lot of research, and wrote up a nice, long report clearly defining the situation in order to rack up a bill that large. Maybe the Exec should be asking Jeff for the invoice from the lawyers? If there's no detailed, written report they should be asking for their money back considering how much trouble they're in now. IF there is, and they either didn't read it or didn't understand it, well . . . I can't imagine that happening.

This whole legal mess happened because Jeff wrote up the rule change based on bogus information that misled the members, and the Exec approved sending that rule change to a vote. They need to find out where that information came from and why it got so far before anyone found out it was wrong. Then they need to fire whoever the perp is, and get on their horses to put things right.

It would be a bitter pill to swallow for all the former Laser builders to find out (maybe) they really didn't have to pay BK hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties over the last 40 years, because his builder agreements were "mostly historical". Somebody made that up out of fluff and blarney.
 
Some information about the ILCA's legal advice can be found in this rather large thread: http://sailingforums.com/threads/2011-rule-changes-fundamental-rule.21064/

I have read the thread in it's entirety and recommend that anyone wanting to understand the viewpoints the ILCA held in 2011 in more depth do so too. The following excerpts are best read in context, I have selected them to get a flavour of where the ILCA was at. They are best read in context. I have attempted to add my own meaningful opinions at the end of this post.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
March 29, 2011 Tracy says (excerpt):
"I can try to answer questions that I know the answers to. The entire issue is very complex, there are agreements that ILCA is party to, there are agreements between the design rights holder and the builders that ILCA is not party too (and has no detailed knowledge of), etc. And, yes, it has required ILCA to seek legal advice in order to help guide what would be the best path forward for the Laser Class, and all Laser sailors."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
On April 2, 2011 (page-5) in response to "RockHead", Tracy said (excerpt):

"The only thing I can add, or, really, reiterate, is that ILCA is not a part of the agreement between GS and LP and, additionally, is not priviliged to the details of that document. So, ILCA has no knowledge of what GS may or may not require of LP.

Obviously the proposed rule change benefits LP over Global Sailing and certainly gives the appearance that ILCA has "chosen a side." In effect, it has, but I can assure you that it is not out of love for LaserPerformance. As stated above, when push came to shove it was determined, through the best legal advice that ILCA could get, that if the goal was to preserve Laser sailing as we know it then the trademarks trumped all. If we, as sailors, want to continue to sail the same boats we have now, including calling them Lasers with a starburst logo, then the proposed modification of the Fundamental Rule was deemed the best course of action."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
On April 8, 2011, Ottobox wrote (entire post):
"I dont normally care about Laser politics but this seems to be a tipping point. I guess you have the inside track on this whole deal.

What i do not understand is that Bruce Kirby who evidently sold Bruce Kirby Inc to Global Sailing, says there are no copyrights or patents - he seems to think he knows what is in the Kirby Inc agreements (you would figure he would).

But ILCA's case for voting Yes is based on the fact that their attorney's told them that patents have expired.

But the ILCA statements also says that ILCA has not seen the agreement/contracts.

Like I am a six year old, please explain, how do you know what you don't know?

If the guy who drew up the original docs says you are wrong and ILCA says we have not seen the docs, but we are right. - why should we believe you??"
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
On April 10, 2011, Tracy responded (excerpt):
"We could waste endless keyboard strokes debating the minutiae of various hypothetical situations. As I stated before, I am unaware of any contract/agreement between the IP rights holder and ILCA that has bearing on the proposed rule change. Until a convincing argument can be made to me of how ILCA can be subject to a builder's agreement that it is not party to (nor knows the details of) then I don't see the merits in wasting lots of time on irrelevant details."

The questioning by Otterbox in hindsight proved very pertinent. The agreements are outlined in Kirby's civil action.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
On June 2, 2011 (http://sailingforums.com/threads/2011-rule-changes-fundamental-rule.21064/page-9), Tracy said (excerpt):
"I did not know there was a lawsuit either in progress or planned, can you give more details? Also, I have not been told that the legal bill was in the 6 figure range. Admittedly, the last accounting I saw was at the last World Council meeting this past February where it was still in the range of 4 figures, though by now I'm sure its passed into the 5 figure range. From my point of view, given that ILCA's annual budget on the order of $500,000, it would seem to be in line given the seriousness of the situation (and, as well, one of the reasons to have the surplus that ILCA has maintained over the years).

Anyway, having said the above, I am also disappointed that ILCA chose, in the end, to not directly address questions further. I generally believe that more information is always better than less information, when its possible to give accurate information and not just speculate. However, I can't say that if I were in their position, with the advice given them, I might not come to the same conclusion they did."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Whitfit, Jul 6, 2011 said (excerpt):
"I am a lawyer in Canada, so have some knowledge of the issues of commercial agreements and intellectual property rights."

"....The bottom line for me is that I want to know more. I want to know what the actual legal rights are, and what path they have taken from their inception. This is not information that I have been able to learn from reading various articles and discussions on the internet about this issue. And, I think that is the critical issue at play. This is about the use of design rights, and the contracts that have been made about those rights. My view is that the rest is window dressing."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Then September 1, 2011, Tracy wrote: (entire post)

"Apologies for the delay in getting this sorted out, in the midst of a week long series of meetings at work and had to put together a presentation for this morning.

During the recently completed Master Worlds in San Francisco, Heini Wellmann took the opportunity to hold a meeting to discuss class issues with those sailors interested in listening (I understand he has been regularly doing this at events he has been attending). A good fraction of that discussion centered around the proposed change to the Fundamental Rule. As this was a public meeting I assume that what was said can be summarized here, and I'll try to do to the best of my memory (I was plenty tired after racing that day!). This is from memory, its nearly three weeks old, I just sailed my last Masters' regatta in the Standard Masters (meaning I'm getting older and my memory isn't as good as it used to be), etc., etc. Anyway, the meeting was mostly a question and answer session, so here goes:

1) "Can the Laser Class be sued?" Heini's direct answer was no. The longer answer is as has been discussed here, mainly that ILCA is not party to the contracts between the design rights holder and the builders, has no knowledge of what is contained in those contracts and is not bound by them. ILCA, with its membership, has the fundamental right to change its Class Rules subject to the constraints of its constitution and approval by ISAF.

2) "What does ISAF think?"
a) Heini said that he had made a presentation he made to the ISAF Council at the last ISAF meeting. It sounds as if they had concerns over the proposed rule change similar to discussions here but those concerns were assuaged by Heini's presentation. Apparently Heini also made the conclusions of ILCA's attorney known to the ISAF attorney who concurred with them entirely (in fact even pointing out a strengthening of ILCA's position, the details of which are a bit murky in my memory so I don't want to mis-state them, perhaps another TLF'er who was also in attendance can remember?).
b) Apparently it seems that ISAF must approve of the sale of the design rights to a new owner and it seems that they were not asked and, according to Heini, have not given this approval. Again, details are not clear enough in my memory to feel confident in recounting the exact wording here, but possibly this may be the source of what Fred alluded to in his post, regarding Bruce Kirby possibly being in discussions to regain his rights?

3) "What might happen?" It seems that is not a question of "might" anymore, the statement was that Global Sailing has terminated the contract with LaserPerformance Europe. By our current class rules, very soon LPE will run out of plaques (which are what determine whether a boat satisfies the class rules) and will not be able to produce new Lasers for Europe, Africa, South America and most of Asia. As far as I know, LP in North America still has a contract.

4) "What if the situation changes? (e.g. Bruce Kirby regains his rights)" The World Council could decide to not go forward with the results of the vote, presumably meaning the WC could decide to not adopt the rule.

Those are the main points that I remember (long day of sailing, I was very tired!). Hopefully someone else in attendance can add any missing details."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
There is far more information in the thread - lots of opinion, here say and speculation. It's repetitive, and as I said it's best to read the whole thing in context.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Crucially, the ILCA said that they were not aware of the details in the agreements.It's fair to say that even the best lawyer if given the brief or having reached the conclusion that the ILCA was not party to any of the builders agreement (and that the dispute was limited to the builder's agreement), their conclusion looks a little more reasonable - even though we can now say with hindsight that was an incorrect position to hold - it's clearer from the above that Tracy (current ILCA President) was earnest in his attempts to share information in good faith.

It's my belief that Tracy did an outstanding job of trying to inform people what the situation was based on the information he knew at the time. While it would appear that Tracy had spoken about about the ILCA's legal advice, even seen it, for reasons unknown Tracy did not share information directly from any legal document. Instead we relied on Tracy's best efforts.

May 2013
We now have the benefit of more information, including the civil action lodged by Kirby and Co. Details of agreements that Kirby say that the ILCA are party to have been lodged with the court as part of the civil action. The civil action forms the most complete picture yet about the agreements that exist, though of course there is more detail to come. And the ILCA, now they have been sued, are compelled to answer as defendants a case based on the agreements that Kirby has presented.

Here it is in summary:
"19. On or about November 30, 1983, BKI and Bruce Kirby entered into an Agreement (“ISAF Agreement”) with Performance Sailcraft, Inc., Laser International Holdings Limited, ILCA, and the International Yacht Racing Union (“IYRU”), copy attached as Exhibit 3.

20. The ISAF Agreement governed the production, distribution, and management of Kirby Sailboats approved for officially sanctioned sailboat races worldwide. Section “Agreement 1” specifies that all authorized builders of Kirby Sailboats must have a license from Kirby.

21. Section 5.1 of the ISAF Agreement stipulates that all Kirby Sailboats must be built in accordance with the Construction Manual to receive accreditation from the IYRU. Section 5.1 further stipulates that all parties agree that all Kirby Sailboats shall be manufactured in accordance with the highest possible degree of uniformity in every respect.

22. Upon information and belief, ISAF is the successor in interest to the rights and obligations of the IYRU under the ISAF Agreement."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I maintain that the right thing for the ILCA to do in light of the above is to repeal the rule change and stop issuing plaques.
 
Doing the above may get them out of most of the legal issues they have currently got themselves in.

I am sure if tney sat down and spoke to BKI a way forward could be found. LP are effectively dead in the water (at least in the UK).
 
Response from the RYA sent to me today, I doubt I will hear anything more on this but I am sure I am not the only one who has lobbied them:

Dear <name removed to protect the innocent>,

I am writing on behalf of Sarah Treseder (RYA Chief Executive) and thank you for your email, the contents of which are noted.

The decision to amend the International Laser Class Rules was taken by ISAF and we have therefore forwarded your email to ISAF at: [email protected]

As you know, the matter is now in the hands of the District Court for the District of Connecticut and it would not be appropriate for us to comment further on the matter until those proceedings are resolved.

Regards.

John Derbyshire, OBE
RYA Racing Manager/Performance Director.

Sent on behalf of Mr John Derbyshire

 
Jeffers is right, and ILCA has ignored offers by BK to sit down and find a way forward. Why? Did the lawyer tell them not to meet with him? He should have told them not to get involved.

So did they seek the very expensive legal advice before they instigated the rule change? It seems pretty obvious to me that even proposing that rule change makes them party to the builder agreement dispute. Like it or not, the rule change proposal says "here, we'll change our rule so that you can continue not paying the design royalties you owe, and you can now build Kirby's sailboats without a license from him (contrary to the ISAF agreement also, as it turns out). ISAF at first rejected the rule change, but as soon as they changed their minds and accepted it (under pressure from LP and ILCA to keep boats being built?) they're in breach of their agreement with BK, too.

I still want to know what all the money paid to that lawyer got them. It sure didn't help them stay out of trouble.
 
Jeffers is right, and ILCA has ignored offers by BK to sit down and find a way forward. Why? Did the lawyer tell them not to meet with him? He should have told them not to get involved

I can only speak of my personal experience taking somebody to court in the UK (for quite a large sum of money but nothing like the ILCA may be liable for). In the UK, the court have a very very very strong preference that you do try and settle out of court. The decision about guilt or non-guilt is established irrespective of any attempts to settle out of court, but once the guilt (or otherwise) has been established the court decision about awards will depend to a great extent on attempts each party has made to avoid it getting as far as going to court.

In my case, I (or rather my legal people) were trying to get the other party to go through "mediation" and other party was playing "awkward". In the end the judge called us (and other party) into their "chambers" (in UK=judge's office in court, so "unofficial") and went through the attempts at getting to mediation and somewhat "let-rip" into other party "strongly encouraging" them to do the mediation thing. I was surprised the Judge would go to that degree in pushing an out-of-court solution.

So, if the US legal processes are similar to my UK experiences, ILCA could be making their situation worse by not trying to reach an out-of-court settlement with BK.

Ian
 
I would like to thank Gantt for reviewing the whole case once again, without being unduly opinionated. As was mentioned in the other thread (http://sailingforums.com/threads/2011-rule-changes-fundamental-rule.21064/), it does make for 'interesting' reading. One can say that the issue developed in a way that was totally (?) unforeseen by ILCA leadership.

To get back to 'today', will we hear anything (soon) about what transpired at the recent ISAF meeting?

Gouv/Fred will point out that, rather than make love to my keyboard, I should be looking for the next shift on the water. In other words: jump in that Laser/Torch, get out there, challenge yourself in this quirky boat, and have fun :).
 
One thing to consider with respect t0 the ILCA legal costs, is that any legal advise will be considering not just the legal situation in the UK, but also Australia, Canada, Japan, USA and quite likely many other parts of the world. Possibly a lot more research needed to be done to consider the legal implications in other jurisdictions.
 
Yes Fred....and nice write-up!
Seems to me as you are on the bottom of the world you must be pǝɹɟ

and I didn't pay attention to the ISAF meeting so info will have to come from elsewhere

Too bad the wonderful John Bentley ran out of Earth time. I would have loved to hear his educated opinion about all this crap.
 
Seems to me as you are on the bottom of the world you must be pǝɹɟ

and I didn't pay attention to the ISAF meeting so info will have to come from elsewhere

Too bad the wonderful John Bentley ran out of Earth time. I would have loved to hear his educated opinion about all this crap.

Check the Cedarpoint YC regatta results from this past weekend...There is another Fred...and never even heard one comment on all this stuff....
I have great faith in the CT legal system....I'm sure its why GE makes its home in CT...Can just imagine how many lawsuits they get...
 
My opinion, based upon conversation with one attendant at the ISAF mid year meeting:

Things need to be sorted out quickly.
If not ISAF will substitute Laser/Radial with other singlehanded classes at the November meeting, and it will NOT be the Kirby Torch.

It is all at the hands of Bruce Kirby and LP.
They will either come to an agreement rather soon, or the Laser is out of the Olympics and probably other major ISAF events.

When it comes to the survival of the class the way we know it - that’s how simple this seemingly complicated case is.

Discussion here on who is wrong or who is right is waste of time in this respect.
Is there anything we – the sailors – can do to motivate the parties to get to an agreement within time?
 
My opinion, based upon conversation with one attendant at the ISAF mid year meeting:

Things need to be sorted out quickly.
If not ISAF will substitute Laser/Radial with other singlehanded classes at the November meeting, and it will NOT be the Kirby Torch.

It is all at the hands of Bruce Kirby and LP.
They will either come to an agreement rather soon, or the Laser is out of the Olympics and probably other major ISAF events.

When it comes to the survival of the class the way we know it - that’s how simple this seemingly complicated case is.

Discussion here on who is wrong or who is right is waste of time in this respect.
Is there anything we – the sailors – can do to motivate the parties to get to an agreement within time?

I (and quite a lot of people sailing the boat) think it would be much better for the class not to be an Olympic boat. So in that regard, come Nov should the ISAF select an alternative then it would (in my opinion) be good for the class.

So "When it comes to the survival of the class the way we know it" the few elite top sailors are not what I would call the class. For me the "Class" is those many many sailors who each weekend go out on small lakes/ponds/reservoirs/creeks/beaches/etc. around the world and have a race or two against each other and then a few beers afterwards (whilst other classes repair their damage, re-tune their rigs, etc.). The elite few at the top and the Olympics are irrelevant and probably hinder us far more than help us (e.g. rumoured delays to the new sail because the Olympic schedule dictates times when such developments cannot happen).

And then, to a degree it is the ISAF and ILCA who are making the entire situation worse - so they are not really in a position to start demanding people sort it out and quickly. As things were is was a commercial/contractual dispute involving a builder. ISAF/ILCA with their Fundamental Rule Change, Plaque Change, etc. have made matters far worse (as evidenced by the additional aspects BK has had to introduce following their actions).

Ian
 
My opinion, based upon conversation with one attendant at the ISAF mid year meeting:

Things need to be sorted out quickly.
If not ISAF will substitute Laser/Radial with other singlehanded classes at the November meeting, and it will NOT be the Kirby Torch.

It is all at the hands of Bruce Kirby and LP.
They will either come to an agreement rather soon, or the Laser is out of the Olympics and probably other major ISAF events.

When it comes to the survival of the class the way we know it - that’s how simple this seemingly complicated case is.

Discussion here on who is wrong or who is right is waste of time in this respect.
Is there anything we – the sailors – can do to motivate the parties to get to an agreement within time?

I (and quite a lot of people sailing the boat) think it would be much better for the class not to be an Olympic boat. So in that regard, come Nov should the ISAF select an alternative then it would (in my opinion) be good for the class.

So "When it comes to the survival of the class the way we know it" the few elite top sailors are not what I would call the class. For me the "Class" is those many many sailors who each weekend go out on small lakes/ponds/reservoirs/creeks/beaches/etc. around the world and have a race or two against each other and then a few beers afterwards (whilst other classes repair their damage, re-tune their rigs, etc.). The elite few at the top and the Olympics are irrelevant and probably hinder us far more than help us (e.g. rumoured delays to the new sail because the Olympic schedule dictates times when such developments cannot happen).

And then, to a degree it is the ISAF and ILCA who are making the entire situation worse - so they are not really in a position to start demanding people sort it out and quickly. As things were is was a commercial/contractual dispute involving a builder. ISAF/ILCA with their Fundamental Rule Change, Plaque Change, etc. have made matters far worse (as evidenced by the additional aspects BK has had to introduce following their actions).

Ian
 
My opinion, based upon conversation with one attendant at the ISAF mid year meeting:

Things need to be sorted out quickly.
If not ISAF will substitute Laser/Radial with other singlehanded classes at the November meeting, and it will NOT be the Kirby Torch.

It is all at the hands of Bruce Kirby and LP.
They will either come to an agreement rather soon, or the Laser is out of the Olympics and probably other major ISAF events.

When it comes to the survival of the class the way we know it - that’s how simple this seemingly complicated case is.

Discussion here on who is wrong or who is right is waste of time in this respect.
Is there anything we – the sailors – can do to motivate the parties to get to an agreement within time?

I echo Ian's thoughts (though I think having Olympic status helps attract sailors, both weekend joy riders and serious racers that might otherwise gravitate towards other similar single handed boats), in addition, I don't think BK and LP coming to an agreement really helps we, the sailors - we would be right back to where we were prior to this all blowing up, and I believe the majority of those viewpoints were a big dis-satisfaction with LP (not having boats to sell, lack of spare bits, dropping support of events by not supplying boats, etc).
 
Second that, ISAF just inserted artificial drama by cutting off it's nose to spite it's face! (if another class why not the torch??) Sorry athletes who traned on ex-laser now torch platforms.... But then when has ISAF made discions based on what athletes want anyway lately???
 
This is one of the early "Torch" hulls. Is that the long-awaited sail? It looks to be radial-cut.

torch7.jpg
 
My opinion, based upon conversation with one attendant at the ISAF mid year meeting:

Things need to be sorted out quickly.
If not ISAF will substitute Laser/Radial with other singlehanded classes at the November meeting, and it will NOT be the Kirby Torch.

It is all at the hands of Bruce Kirby and LP.
They will either come to an agreement rather soon, or the Laser is out of the Olympics and probably other major ISAF events.

When it comes to the survival of the class the way we know it - that’s how simple this seemingly complicated case is.

Discussion here on who is wrong or who is right is waste of time in this respect.
Is there anything we – the sailors – can do to motivate the parties to get to an agreement within time?

Sorry 'Quamme', I disagree with some of the above, particularly with the statement "It is all at the hands of Bruce Kirby and LP." Tracy summed it up when he said on April 2, 2011 (http://sailingforums.com/threads/2011-rule-changes-fundamental-rule.21064/page-5) in response to "RockHead", Tracy said (excerpt):

"Obviously the proposed rule change benefits LP over Global Sailing and certainly gives the appearance that ILCA has "chosen a side." In effect, it has, but I can assure you that it is not out of love for LaserPerformance. As stated above, when push came to shove it was determined, through the best legal advice that ILCA could get, that if the goal was to preserve Laser sailing as we know it then the trademarks trumped all. If we, as sailors, want to continue to sail the same boats we have now, including calling them Lasers with a starburst logo, then the proposed modification of the Fundamental Rule was deemed the best course of action."

(I believe that with the benefit of hindsight, this logic was flawed, as spelled out in my earlier post. http://sailingforums.com/threads/all-about-to-kick-off.27967/page-15)

While the actions of ILCA and ISAF support LP's position, this matter is in the hands of Kirby and LP AS WELL AS the ILCA and ISAF

The ILCA and ISAF are parties from agreements they have made with both Kirby and Laser Performance. Ones like Laser Performance sponsoring ISAF (eg http://members.sailing.org/32720.php), and commercial agreements between Laser Performance and ISAF for the 2016 Olympics, again signed in 2012. I am highly concerned with Laser Performance now owning the rights to using the Laser trademarks at regatta level - to me, it would be more appropriate that such rights be held by the class association - if it were necessary for such rights to be held at all.

Now that Kirby is advancing the Torch with the first ones rolling out of the production line, the potential split is happening now. It's VERY CLEAR TO ME, that a MAJOR FACTOR in Kirby pursing legal action was the proposed rule change in 2011, and the ISAF and ILCA taking sides with Laser Performance. What other options were available to Kirby? Remember that Kirby sold to Global Sailing, then bought his rights back - why? He could have just walked away, and claimed to be retired. But by staying involved, I'd say that he is 'hell bent' on doing what's right for the class - without Laser Performance - why is that? It's very probable that personalities got involved as far back as 2009. It's even possibly that some of the personalities turned a bit nasty in the heat of the moment - it's my experience that when people are very passionate about something it can happen. What's has happened in the last few years that has harmed the enormous goodwill that underpinned the class? More importantly, what will it take to get it back?

Let's say that Kirby wins the civil case. That would mean that Laser Performance would not be able to use the Kirby design to fulfil the order for the 2016 Olympics. However, Laser Performance it obligated to supply a "Laser", a one man boat between 12 and 15 feet. (Pretty good way of launching a 'new' Laser class onto the world stage, if you ask me.) If this happened, it would be deeply unpopular with many sailors, including me. If Kirby wins the case, what will the ILCA and ISAF do then? Are all the bridges burnt? Most of us simply want to go sailing in Lasers built to the Kirby design.

The split in the Laser class is happening right now.

We, the sailors, are watching the events unfold that are becoming a 'physical election' where we will be required to vote with our feet.

The ISAF and ILCA taking sides with Laser Performance was a highly political move. They may not have intended it to be so, but it certainly has turned out that way.

In my view, the first step is for the ILCA to repeal the rule change.
 
Here's another shot that appears to have the exisitng sail design, but that's not the interesting part.

torch4.jpg
 
The split in the Laser class is happening right now.

We, the sailors, are watching the events unfold that are becoming a 'physical election' where we will be required to vote with our feet.

Nobody is going to buy a Torch as it might become worthless depending on court cases/ISAF. Nobody is going to buy a new Laser as it might be worthless depending on the outcome of the court case. ILCA failed to adequately access the risks in taking the route they selected - and are doing irreprable damage to the class.

In my view, the first step is for the ILCA to repeal the rule change.
I would agree and add that they (with the ISAF) should start talking to Kirby quickly with a view to resolving this and accepting that the Torch may well be taking over.

Ian
 
I (and quite a lot of people sailing the boat) think it would be much better for the class not to be an Olympic boat. So in that regard, come Nov should the ISAF select an alternative then it would (in my opinion) be good for the class.

So "When it comes to the survival of the class the way we know it" the few elite top sailors are not what I would call the class. For me the "Class" is those many many sailors who each weekend go out on small lakes/ponds/reservoirs/creeks/beaches/etc. around the world and have a race or two against each other and then a few beers afterwards (whilst other classes repair their damage, re-tune their rigs, etc.). The elite few at the top and the Olympics are irrelevant and probably hinder us far more than help us (e.g. rumoured delays to the new sail because the Olympic schedule dictates times when such developments cannot happen).

And then, to a degree it is the ISAF and ILCA who are making the entire situation worse - so they are not really in a position to start demanding people sort it out and quickly. As things were is was a commercial/contractual dispute involving a builder. ISAF/ILCA with their Fundamental Rule Change, Plaque Change, etc. have made matters far worse (as evidenced by the additional aspects BK has had to introduce following their actions).

Ian
+2
 
---snip---
Now that Kirby is advancing the Torch with the first ones rolling out of the production line, the potential split is happening now.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe those are "new" hulls from a Torch builder.
 
I don't think it will be such a painful, long transition from Laser to Torch class. The same boats will be used, the same people will sail them and very likely the same volunteers will step up to help with organization and member support. Nothing has to change but the name, and the management!! Tooling up to build the boats, and re-establishing supply lines for parts will take some time but that just takes money and communication.

Problem is that in every one of the 160 districts around the world there will be discussions, and potentially disputes, about whether or not to change, how the change should happen. In my district we would have to change our constitution (we are an incorporated association, our constitution is registered with the government), which involves costs, a vote from the membership, etc. Seems petty, but repeated how many times all over the world? I'm sure my district and many others will have differences of opinion of how it should happen, and all of this will affect the success of the class locally - if nothing else it will turn the class association's attention away from running great events and so on, which is what encourages the sailors to come to the Laser. Then all the non-sailors and sailors from other classes who have been considering moving to a Laser - they know the brand. We will lose some of that connection with a new brand which again will be an issue the local districts will have to combat, again taking attention away from where it should be.

Or the local Laser district association can be disbanded, and a new Torch district association formed. But the bureaucracy involved with that is mind numbing, and again, all the local sailors need to be onside to make it work. Or we can have two competing associations - again, bad for the class.

But here is the most important part:

From the Australian perspective, all of this energy and all of this change is to solve a problem that doesn't even exist in our part of the world. The licensed builders for PSA's region, plus the Japanese builder's region, are fine - they are not in dispute with Kirby and are doing a reasonable job of building boats, supporting the class, etc. We are having this change imposed on us, with all the attendant risks, to solve a problem that has nothing to do with us directly.

Of course we want to be supportive of solutions to problems Laser sailors are facing in other parts of the world, but let me ask this:

If we had a problem with the Australian builder and wanted to change the name of the class worldwide to deal with it, how much support would our proposal have in North America and Europe? Do you really think you would even be aware of it?

It's not like these markets are small - we make up around 20-25% of the overall ILCA membership.
 
It would appear that the "intent" behind publishing pictures of the new class are having the intended effect. We are moving toward asking feasibility questions.

What happens if PSA announces tomorrow that they will no longer build Lasers and are moving to Torch production? If you had to choose between an LP Laser or a PSA Torch, which would you choose? Sort of depends on why you sail. Mr P will go where the competition goes. I'll make a more practical choice.

I hope the ILCA will at least speak to Kirby before this goes any further.
 
That wasn't the ISAF plaque because they are silvery and stuck to the right side of the cockpit. That was the regular manufacture's sticker with no value. As you can tell from a photo that another dolt posted on SA.

http://www.claysails.com/index.php?q=gallery&g2_itemId=1511

Fair enough, the point is that it still shows it's a rebadged LP boat, not a new hull from one of the new Torch builders. A little bit disappointing as posting the photo shows an intent to deceive.
 
Fair enough, the point is that it still shows it's a rebadged LP boat, not a new hull from one of the new Torch builders. A little bit disappointing as posting the photo shows an intent to deceive.
Not necessarily. It could well have been produced by PSA. If it had, it could still have a ISAF plaque etc. PSA and PSJ can technically produce which is legally both a Laser and a Torch hull, which have all the correct identification for either.
 
Not necessarily. It could well have been produced by PSA. If it had, it could still have a ISAF plaque etc. PSA and PSJ can technically produce which is legally both a Laser and a Torch hull, which have all the correct identification for either.

Beat me to it Alan, I did wonder if it was a PSA hull. They really are in the box seats right now as they can build 1 boat and it be legal in both classes.
 
Not necessarily. It could well have been produced by PSA. If it had, it could still have a ISAF plaque etc. PSA and PSJ can technically produce which is legally both a Laser and a Torch hull, which have all the correct identification for either.
Yes, it could be a class legal torch built by PSA (or by LP before their contract was cancelled), except that the torch class doesn't actually exist yet - it's just a website and a logo. No class association, no class rules, no organised racing, no affiliation with any governing body. I think it's pretty obvious the photo was posted to imply that torch production is happening, and to sustain the illusion that the torch class is a real thing. They were pretty quick to photoshop out the sticker when they realised it was visible - why would they do that?

No, it's just a sign that games are being played by both sides, and that we're just the bunnies stuck in the middle.
 

Back
Top