Class Politics Stuff it Kirby!!

Are you one of the 122 or the 1017?


  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
There would be a lot less speculation based on assumption if the ILCA leadership could actually give out some information. They were repeatedly asked for it during the voting process and kept silent. They are now releasing the minimum. Maybe it is a cultural thing because in Europe we believe that organisations "for the membership" should be transparent. They should communicate with the membership (those who elect them and who they are meant to be acting on behalf of). I'm quitting the Class Association now because it is a joke. When you are told nothing except "Vote Yes and really urgently" it makes a farce of the concept of a Class Association. Maybe in the US it is normal to accept people in charge to treat their roles more akin to dictatorial, but over here we are more used to greater transparency, more information and some communication.

Let's not turn this into a US vs Europe thing. I think all of us, at least those of us living in western style democracies, expect transparency, information and communication from our leaders. And let's remember that it is the North American President of ILCA, Tracy Usher, who has been the most forthcoming on this forum about the issue (including clearing up my recent confusion about baby buggies.)
 
Let's not turn this into a US vs Europe thing. I think all of us, at least those of us living in western style democracies, expect transparency, information and communication from our leaders. And let's remember that it is the North American President of ILCA, Tracy Usher, who has been the most forthcoming on this forum about the issue (including clearing up my recent confusion about baby buggies.)

I'm not trying to turn it into a US vs Europe, but I cannot understand why so many are happy to work on such limited information, how so many fail to want to hold the leadership of their association to account (or even explain why they have done what they have done on behalf of the membership).

I appreciate that Tracy has given what information he has/can but otherwise the "leadership" has been all but silent - which beggars belief when they are meant to be acting for the membership !! From my own experience at my club (at least one which I will be at next year), after 31 Dec this year the Laser fleet will have no Class Association members (some certainly not renewing because of this farce).
 
From what I gather, Laser sailors in Europe as just as much in the dark as we are in North America.
 
The baby buggy company has been involved in sailing for a while now, most recently as Anna Tunnicliffe's sponsor, as well as sponsor of the Laser Slalom last summer. Interestingly, the sponsorship does not offer anything more than the name, no mention of what the company makes. Not sure what they get out of it.

Hmmm. When I saw all that Maclaren sponsorship I never even thought about who they were. But if Maclaren really are somehow involved in the ownership structure of LaserPerformance (as 49208 suggested) then maybe they are getting something out of their sponsorship of Anna and the Laser Slalom: brand name recognition in the sailing community. I wonder what they might be planning to do with that??? Will we see Maclaren Sailboats competing with Kirby Sailboats somewhere down the road?
 
Hmmm. When I saw all that Maclaren sponsorship I never even thought about who they were. But if Maclaren really are somehow involved in the ownership structure of LaserPerformance (as 49208 suggested) then maybe they are getting something out of their sponsorship of Anna and the Laser Slalom: brand name recognition in the sailing community. I wonder what they might be planning to do with that??? Will we see Maclaren Sailboats competing with Kirby Sailboats somewhere down the road?

If you are interested, Financial info about LPE http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00922893. Towards the bottom there is a list of one director, so click on that and get to http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/912764531 and you will see he is also a director of Full Moon Holdings http://companycheck.co.uk/company/01898682 together with a Mr Gogol Kafi;so click on this guy's link http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/913635227 and from that director's information screen you can see Mr Gogol Kafi os also a director of several MacLaren companies (as well as Laser Sailboats). Thnk I got all the links in

Several links to follow through as all these "who knows who and works for who, etc." can weave quite a cryptic link. But the above links are from information submitted to Companies House - the body regulating companies in the UK - who maintain lists of directorships and annual audited financial accounts from companies (mandatory).

Ian
 
From my own experience at my club (at least one which I will be at next year), after 31 Dec this year the Laser fleet will have no Class Association members (some certainly not renewing because of this farce).

This is an uncommon situation. I think at Hunts we only have 1 or 2 who are CA members and that is only because they attend Open Meetings and Class training days. For the grass roots club member it is difficult to justify to them the value that their CA fee is going to give them (I have had this discussion with several people who are fairly high up in the UK CA and whilst they accept there is an issue they are unwilling or unable to do anything about it).
 
Interestingly, LPE are now rather late in filing their accounts to the regulatory regulatory body. There were actually due to be filed by Sept 2011 and so far have still not been filed ! http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/91121bd26e6136b867c4e6f0b1dd47d4/compdetails (link is to the UK Companies Regulatory body so their info would be up to date). I'm not an accountant but from when I used to hold company directorships there is normally a reason for withholding your accounts. You have 9 months after the companies financial year end (companies chose their own year end) so there is loads of time. Given that you are fined for late submission. We always used to think that late submission meant there was something you did not want to disclose to the world - though who knows.

Ian
 
But if Maclaren really are somehow involved in the ownership structure of LaserPerformance (as 49208 suggested) then maybe they are getting something out of their sponsorship of Anna and the Laser Slalom: brand name recognition in the sailing community.
Maclaren also sponsored the Sunfish Worlds in Curacao last summer. I don't know if demand for Maclaren baby buggies skyrocketed in Curacao following that event or not.
 
Why measure any boats at regattas other than spot checks followed by lifetime bans for those caught with modified boats??

It seems my suggestion proposed we continue certifying buiilders with regular inspections of their products and we allow anyone to build a boat and it may be raced forever once individually inspected.

Did you fail to comprehend my post or are you just making up arguments for the sake of argument??

I believe my system would allow for tighter controls than simply trusting anyone who has a traemark to build our toys.
 
Why measure any boats at regattas other than spot checks followed by lifetime bans for those caught with modified boats??

It seems my suggestion proposed we continue certifying buiilders with regular inspections of their products and we allow anyone to build a boat and it may be raced forever once individually inspected.

Did you fail to comprehend my post or are you just making up arguments for the sake of argument??

I believe my system would allow for tighter controls than simply trusting anyone who has a traemark to build our toys.
You are aware that virtually all boats are illegally rigged or have some piece of illegal equipment on them. Does this mean we give a life time ban all the fleet. I can just see my world championship cube on the shelf.
 
You are aware that virtually all boats are illegally rigged or have some piece of illegal equipment on them. Does this mean we give a life time ban all the fleet. I can just see my world championship cube on the shelf.

Well put Alan, you beat me to that and I am no measurer!

Perhaps a ban for those told to change thier boats and are then caught with the same modification at the same event (subsequent events would be impossible to police given the current resources).
 
Well put Alan, you beat me to that and I am no measurer!

Perhaps a ban for those told to change thier boats and are then caught with the same modification at the same event (subsequent events would be impossible to police given the current resources).

Whilst I cannot see any change happening, I think it is a question of degree. Somebody who has e.g. incorrectly knotted the end of their mainsheet is very different from somebody using e.g. an illegal sail. Questions of intent and advantage come in. If you broke a rule deliberately to gain an advantage then it becomes worthy of stiffer penalty than accidentally breaking a rule that gave you no advantage. So you could implement a judgement based penalty system, small time penalty for the trivial with no advantage to points penalties for more serious violations. But in practice, those organising open meetings (regattas) have more than enough work already so to introduce a sliding scale of measurement failure penalty, with a right of appeal, etc. - would it really enhance the sport ?

For years I rigged my Cunningham/kicker illegally (I used fast-pins/push-pins to attach as it made rigging much easier and faster and gained me no performance advantage - legal now but I was doing it long before the rule change). Although I knowingly broke the rules, would such a transgression really warrant a ban for life ?

I appreciate that some sailing events now have on the water judges, but I've never been to one and I suspect most events most people go to rely on the sport being self policing and an occasional protest hearing.

Ian
 
Whilst I cannot see any change happening, I think it is a question of degree. Somebody who has e.g. incorrectly knotted the end of their mainsheet is very different from somebody using e.g. an illegal sail. Questions of intent and advantage come in. If you broke a rule deliberately to gain an advantage then it becomes worthy of stiffer penalty than accidentally breaking a rule that gave you no advantage. So you could implement a judgement based penalty system, small time penalty for the trivial with no advantage to points penalties for more serious violations. But in practice, those organising open meetings (regattas) have more than enough work already so to introduce a sliding scale of measurement failure penalty, with a right of appeal, etc. - would it really enhance the sport ?

For years I rigged my Cunningham/kicker illegally (I used fast-pins/push-pins to attach as it made rigging much easier and faster and gained me no performance advantage - legal now but I was doing it long before the rule change). Although I knowingly broke the rules, would such a transgression really warrant a ban for life ?

I appreciate that some sailing events now have on the water judges, but I've never been to one and I suspect most events most people go to rely on the sport being self policing and an occasional protest hearing.

Ian

I fully agree with you Ian. The intent must be the over-riding factor. In my mind it is clear. If a competitor is instructed to change their boat because it does not comply, they change it for measurement then change it back after that is a blatant disregard for the rules and some kind of sanction should be available. Whether it be them getting thrown out of the event or something more.

I am sure that had you gone to a nationals/euros/worlds event you would not have used this setup.
 
Some answers to the patent and trademark rights of Bruce Kirby and some theories ...

http://www.impropercourse.com/2012/05/kirby-sailboat.html

Some clarification on your next-to-last paragraph. Bruce Kirby actually sold his rights/trade secrets to Global Sailing, which seems to be a parent company of the Australian manufacturer. A few days before the voting deadline on the rule change, there was a press release stating Bruce Kirby had bough the rights back from Global Sailing.

I think it was all rather pointless, because LP had already passed the "tipping point" you mention in your blog post. They weren't going to pay royalties to anyone.
 
Some answers to the patent and trademark rights of Bruce Kirby and some theories ...

http://www.impropercourse.com/2012/05/kirby-sailboat.html

Mrs P,

I think I have to disagree, or wonder at least...

The argument you make is that that Kirby or his asignees still hold "design right" and/or "trade secrets." It can be implied that these are in part the contents of the builders manual which appears to be at the heart of the disputed contracts. I am with you so far but here is where we may part company.

All the rest in my uninformed opinion...

The term design rights is confusing. There are patents, copyrights, and trademarks,but you say and we agree they either expired or are not the issue here. So what design rights? There is such a thing as a trade secret and I agree they are likely at the heart of this but lets think that all ther way through and speculate as best we can base on what is in the public domain.

For a contract to be valid there has to be consideration. If the consideration is the trade secret... is has to be secret for it to have value and be the consideration! Problem is, there are no secrets left in building a Laser. None. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing! We all know the materials, the weights, the dimensions... we know everything. In fact, most any skilled in the art - even marginally so - without ever looking at or seeing the builders manual could manufacture an exact copy of the Laser and meet every single class requirement of the Laser, and even sell the boat - LEGALLY - just so long as they do not call it a Laser or put the Laser symbol on it. You could not tell the copy from the original and that copy could be made based on information in the public domain.

Should you doubt this can happen, I offer for consideration that it does. In our industry. You need look no further than the Opti!

I am guessing here - and I have no dog in this hunt - that what Kirby calls a contract, LPE might be calling blackmail, claiming that Kirby has nothing of value to sell. I am guessing they are right. The Laser class lawyers may have seen this as well and realized the only hold-up was an old outdated class rule for a builders contract that no longer had any basis since the party they had to contract with no longer had anything of value to sell. So the class lawyer may have concluded: Take that out-dated class rule away and the whole problem goes away.

Of course then ILCA step in and sees they make less money if this happens (how big is the Laser class again) and that they can stonewall and stop the class fix from happening and here we are today!

All in my uninformed wild speculation opinion!

The post about the Olympic boats is interesting if true and certainly fits the facts that we all know and agree.

Anyway, just the idle ramblings of an,

Old Dude
 
Correction: Had typed ILCA when I was referencing ISAF - fixed below!

Mrs P,

I think I have to disagree, or wonder at least...

The argument you make is that that Kirby or his asignees still hold "design right" and/or "trade secrets." It can be implied that these are in part the contents of the builders manual which appears to be at the heart of the disputed contracts. I am with you so far but here is where we may part company.

All the rest in my uninformed opinion...

The term design rights is confusing. There are patents, copyrights, and trademarks,but you say and we agree they either expired or are not the issue here. So what design rights? There is such a thing as a trade secret and I agree they are likely at the heart of this but lets think that all ther way through and speculate as best we can base on what is in the public domain.

For a contract to be valid there has to be consideration. If the consideration is the trade secret... is has to be secret for it to have value and be the consideration! Problem is, there are no secrets left in building a Laser. None. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing! We all know the materials, the weights, the dimensions... we know everything. In fact, most any skilled in the art - even marginally so - without ever looking at or seeing the builders manual could manufacture an exact copy of the Laser and meet every single class requirement of the Laser, and even sell the boat - LEGALLY - just so long as they do not call it a Laser or put the Laser symbol on it. You could not tell the copy from the original and that copy could be made based on information in the public domain.

Should you doubt this can happen, I offer for consideration that it does. In our industry. You need look no further than the Opti!

I am guessing here - and I have no dog in this hunt - that what Kirby calls a contract, LPE might be calling blackmail, claiming that Kirby has nothing of value to sell. I am guessing they are right. The Laser class lawyers may have seen this as well and realized the only hold-up was an old outdated class rule for a builders contract that no longer had any basis since the party they had to contract with no longer had anything of value to sell. So the class lawyer may have concluded: Take that out-dated class rule away and the whole problem goes away.

Of course then ISAF (NOT ILCA) step in and sees they make less money if this happens (how big is the Laser class again) and that they can stonewall and stop the class fix from happening and here we are today!

All in my uninformed wild speculation opinion!

The post about the Olympic boats is interesting if true and certainly fits the facts that we all know and agree.

Anyway, just the idle ramblings of an,

Old Dude
 
Old Dude,

I’m afraid I cannot disagree with your disagreement. My thoughts actually went where yours went but, admittedly, out of respect and admiration for the man that designed such a remarkable boat, I chose to look for support that somehow, Kirby’s attorneys had drafted a contract that protected his rights. I’m still hoping that is the case.

Regardless, I realize now that my post started in one direction (information) and then went another (opinion) and I’ve decided to re-write it. It’s my blog and I control it (with Mr. P, our course) and can call do-over if I feel like it and just wipe the slate clean and try to make a more objective attempt. Look for the re-write soon.

The re-write will be with one purpose ... publicly available information without attempting to draw a conclusion about any of the parties but to simply show that a vote was taken without enough information being made available to those casting the votes and a demonstration that there is enough evidence now to prompt a do-over. Hopefully, the World Council and/or the ISAF will agree and toss the existing vote and allow the class to vote again and this time let us hear from the ILCA, Kirby, LPE, and GS so that we can make an educated decision.
 
Old Dude,

I’m afraid I cannot disagree with your disagreement. My thoughts actually went where yours went but, admittedly, out of respect and admiration for the man that designed such a remarkable boat, I chose to look for support that somehow, Kirby’s attorneys had drafted a contract that protected his rights. I’m still hoping that is the case.

Regardless, I realize now that my post started in one direction (information) and then went another (opinion) and I’ve decided to re-write it. It’s my blog and I control it (with Mr. P, our course) and can call do-over if I feel like it and just wipe the slate clean and try to make a more objective attempt. Look for the re-write soon.

The re-write will be with one purpose ... publicly available information without attempting to draw a conclusion about any of the parties but to simply show that a vote was taken without enough information being made available to those casting the votes and a demonstration that there is enough evidence now to prompt a do-over. Hopefully, the World Council and/or the ISAF will agree and toss the existing vote and allow the class to vote again and this time let us hear from the ILCA, Kirby, LPE, and GS so that we can make an educated decision.

Mrs. P,

I am sorry but alas I must continue to offer a contrary opinion.

Again, just my opinion...

If we agree the facts available and are of a similar opinion of where they lead as you note, then I should stress I think it is Mr Kirby that is at fault here.

Mr Kirby designed a great boat that we all enjoy and in part for this he made a considerable sum of money by all accounts in the press. But rights eventually expire and that is a good thing for society. Without such a concept there would be no generic drugs for example and half our population could not afford medication!

Whatever IP existed has since expired and he reaped benefit from same. His trademark he sold and reaped benefit from same. And now it seems he wants to sell a secret that is not a secret and is using an out-dated class rule to force people to pay for what legally they likely don't have to pay... in my best guess and opinion. Further since he had sold all rights - and would not be bound in terms oof what he could communicate in public as our class officers are - he was best positioned to make a clear and fact based case in the press about how he was being ripped off. He could have filed legal action. But he did none of this. His comments were in my opinion wildely misleading, noting IP or patents if I recall that everyone seems to agree don't exist.

I may be wrong and can only guess at what this is like the rest of us but for sure I support our class officers. Kirby has not made a case and clearly seems to want to make money off me (the sailors). It is us that ultimately pay afterall. Based on what I can tell from what is in the press, I prefer Kirby to get his hand ourt of my pocket and off my wallet, want to ISAF to stop stalling and explain themselves because they too appear to want to keep their hand in my pocket, and applaud our class ILCA officers for doing what they can to stop the insanity.

I absolutely agree and wish ILCA would say more but equally recognize that they are privy to confidential information that directly or indirectly is in dispute between two parties and if they say much of anything they risk having themselves or the class dragged into a libel suit and court action from one or the other party and that is not a good use of class dues!

The good news is that this does not touch the club level sailor. From the posts on your blog, I wonder if it however sadly will touch the Olympic level sailors.

Regards from a hopefully still somewhat sane,

Old Dude
 
I am sorry Old Dude but I cannot offer a contrary opinion to most of your contrary opinion. But I have to disagree with your accusation that Bruce Kirby made comments that were "wildly misleading, noting IP or patents if I recall that everyone seems to agree don't exist."

Bruce was the one who corrected the ILCA assertion that patents were part of the issue here. In this interview with Sail-World in September 2011, he said,

"There never were any patents. You can't patent a sail boat design. These were contracts, legitimate contracts drawn up by lawyers and there is no suggestion that I had a patent on the boat. These were long term contracts that were renewable every so many years."
 
Old Dude, I agree with Tillerman's disagreement above and would add a clarification that the public trademark records show Kirby never owned the trademark rights to the word LASER; therefore, he could never have sold the rights or reaped benefit from them. The builders have always owned the trademark rights and that is easily verified with the US Trademark Office and there are similar findings in other countries:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=73024301 (you can also click on the Serial Number to see the TM record).

Further, as torrid clarified for me, Kirby had sold his rights to Global Sailing two years prior and Kirby wasn't involved in the original dispute that prompted the ILCA to step in. When Kirby was asked for comment, he said 'Now it would appear that Laser Performance Europe doesn’t want to recognize the fact that this transfer has taken place. It is really weird because they paid the royalties to Global Sailing for two years as they were supposed to do, and then all of a sudden they stopped doing that. That action has caused issues between LPE and Global Sailing and they will have to sort it out.' I could be wrong but it sounds like, at 80+ years of age, having sold his rights, he was enjoying his retirement and staying out of it. His re-engagement came toward the end of the voting period when the parties remained deadlocked and he decided to re-acquire his rights from GS and put things back to the way they were before there was a dispute. So, I can't fault Kirby for his inaction/action because it makes perfect sense given the circumstances.
 
Dear Mr. T and Mrs. P,

You may well be correct and thank you for noting it. I recall in very early stuff from Kirby that he referenced IP in some form or the other but could be wrong and more than anything I was frustrated that the one person who likely knew the whole story gave and still gives an incomplete story.

Mrs. P's noting that Kirby sold his rights to GS is well established as is the fact that Kirby reacquired those rights. I have always assumed those rights were the builders manual with secrets (since evryone seems to agree there is nothing else) that were notsecret and wondered if the way this went down was GS trying to squeeze more from LPE, LPE then looked at it and said "but there is no basis for this contract at all (other than the ILCA class rules that says so)" and stopped paying. The odd thing is rather than GS taking LPE to court for breach - or Kirby doing samed after he reacquired said rights from GS - they did nothing other than point fingers.

I can only speculate from that, that both GS and Kirby concluded their case was weak, there was little or no basis in law for the contract and could even speculate that Kirby was forced to buy the "rights" back from GS when/of GS concluded there was no value in what Kirby sold them.

Anyway, all opinion and best guesses from the,

Old Dude
 
Dear Old Dude,

You may well be correct in your speculation that one of the reasons that Kirby was forced to buy back the "rights" (actually the company Bruce Kirby Inc. that apparently owns whatever "rights" may or may not exist) was that "GS concluded there was no value in what Kirby sold them."

But according to Tracy Usher, North American Class President, in the The Laser Sailor magazine Spring 2012 issue, "During the voting period (for the rule change) it was also realized that permission from ISAF and ILCA was required for the sale of Bruce Kirby Inc. to Global Sailing and it had not been requested, with the end result of Bruce Kirby and Global Sailing agreeing that Bruce Kirby would reassume his company."

As Tracy puts it, in more polite language than I would be tempted to use, "The situation remains complicated and, obviously, unresolved."
 
Old Dude, your opinions and guesses are most interesting. Another angle to ponder. I will say that I recall reading that GS did take action against LPE and terminated the contract and, as was commented on my blog, LPE hasn't been building new boats and the supply is limited or gone. I certainly didn't hear about any further legal action taken by GS or Kirby.

It does beg the question of whether LPE's alleged default was a financial can't or won't issue (or both).
And as you pointed out, was the return of rights to Kirby because of an unenforceable contract issue or was it some type of cleverly drafted buy back clause.

Answers would certainly be nice. I believe you are saying, yes, you'd like more answers but you also understand the need for confidentiality and trust that the ILCA is more informed and making good decisions.

I wish I had that same trust but I do wonder about the ILCA. While in Brisbane for the Laser Master Worlds, Jeff Martin, who I understand is always at the Worlds, was not there. I heard that he had been made "redundant" and was either on his way out of the ILCA or would soon be out. Mr. P and I mentioned the this several people, and before we left, we received a message that Jeff Martin "had survived". I've seen absolutely nothing disclosed about this going and returning. Now, Eric Faust has been named General Manager and Tillerman has been asking, so what will Jeff Martin do? Without speculating as to what that all means, it makes me wonder what's happening inside the ILCA. More transparency would certainly be nice. Somehow, I'm expecting Eric Faust to restore my confidence in the ILCA.
 
Mrs. P, your opinions and guesses are most interesting...

Personally I'm not surprised that nothing has been said officially by ILCA about the issue related to the employment of a long-serving senior employee. If there really is, or has been, some discussions or negotiations about the ending of ILCA's relationship with that individual, then one would expect them to be held strictly confidential until something has been decided or agreed, or never publicly announced at all if the employee stays with ILCA.
 
Old Dude, your opinions and guesses are most interesting. Another angle to ponder. I will say that I recall reading that GS did take action against LPE and terminated the contract and, as was commented on my blog, LPE hasn't been building new boats and the supply is limited or gone. I certainly didn't hear about any further legal action taken by GS or Kirby.

It does beg the question of whether LPE's alleged default was a financial can't or won't issue (or both).
And as you pointed out, was the return of rights to Kirby because of an unenforceable contract issue or was it some type of cleverly drafted buy back clause.

Answers would certainly be nice. I believe you are saying, yes, you'd like more answers but you also understand the need for confidentiality and trust that the ILCA is more informed and making good decisions.

I wish I had that same trust but I do wonder about the ILCA. While in Brisbane for the Laser Master Worlds, Jeff Martin, who I understand is always at the Worlds, was not there. I heard that he had been made "redundant" and was either on his way out of the ILCA or would soon be out. Mr. P and I mentioned the this several people, and before we left, we received a message that Jeff Martin "had survived". I've seen absolutely nothing disclosed about this going and returning. Now, Eric Faust has been named General Manager and Tillerman has been asking, so what will Jeff Martin do? Without speculating as to what that all means, it makes me wonder what's happening inside the ILCA. More transparency would certainly be nice. Somehow, I'm expecting Eric Faust to restore my confidence in the ILCA.

Indeed, indeed, I can certainly agree your and Mr. T's comments above.

There has been a lot more than this issue revolving around ILCA with limited or no communication. It is frustrating and does not bode well for the long term health of the class association as many have noted this as an issue. Fairly so.

In my opinion and if I recall correctly, I absolutely agree there was some comments about GS terminating theLPE contract but they also had clearly said that LPE had stopped paying on the contract. In so many words, over and over again, both Kirby and GS seem to have claimed that LPE did not abide by the contract. But at the same time they have not initiated any court or legal action - have not sued them for breach of contract!! Huh?! Why?? The only thing I can piece together from what is public is that either LPE did not breach (but this does not seem possible given the only thing that all parties agree is that LPE stopped paying!), or that both GS and Kirby know the contract is weak and runs a risk of being declared invalid if they did try to enforce it. That also aligns with ILCA's recommended vote but of course they could not dare state in public that they think there is no legal basis for a contract they are not party to (a sure way for the class to be sued I gather) which would explain the communication (lack thereof).

But all I can do is guess like everyone else and hope it does not impact the Olympics.

For now everyone seems to be playing a big game of chicken. Kirby and/or GS (previously) have not truely terminated LPE and named another distributer for the territory. LPE has maybe stopped making boats, maybe putting the Olympics at some(??) risk?? ISAF has managed to do absolutely nothing with a class rules changed they alone hold the keys to... which is maybe the most disgusting aspect of this all. Heck, like it or not at least ILCA tried to find a path out of this.

But you, I, and all Laser sailors sit here, still stuck in the middle.

It is all very odd to the...

Old Dude
 
Employee? I thought our leaders were volunteers.

I was speaking of the Executive Secretary of the ILCA. Excuse me if I am wrong and that is a volunteer position. I always understood that the holder of that role was a salaried employee of the ILCA.
 
Old Dude, I have another possibility on why there has been no follow up legal action. It might be totally incorrect information, but I thought I read somewhere on this forum that the financial health of LPE was in question. If they didn't pay because they couldn't pay, then suing them would be throwing good money after bad with little promise of any return. And to further speculate based on possibly incorrect assumptions, if their financial health is in question, then the rule change might not have the desired affect. Perhaps the delay is because things have become further complicated.

And the longer we speculate, we could soon have Tillerman accepting a volunteer position at the ILCA as the official blogger.
 
Old Dude, I have another possibility on why there has been no follow up legal action. It might be totally incorrect information, but I thought I read somewhere on this forum that the financial health of LPE was in question. If they didn't pay because they couldn't pay, then suing them would be throwing good money after bad with little promise of any return. And to further speculate based on possibly incorrect assumptions, if their financial health is in question, then the rule change might not have the desired affect. Perhaps the delay is because things have become further complicated.

And the longer we speculate, we could soon have Tillerman accepting a volunteer position at the ILCA as the official blogger.

Absolutely agree its possible but I doubt it. Here is why:

If I had legimate rights to sell and the person I had sold to was not paying (had breached) and was in such poor shape that they could likely not recover, I would sue for breach immediately so I could reobtain my legitimate rights and grant another party those rights to the territory.

That Kirby now and GS before, have not and do not sue LPE for breach - especially when LPE is weak - just means those legitimate rights in that territory - if they (the rights) actually exist - are getting less and less valuable each day as the brand (Laser) suffers.

The situation you describe leads me to a very different conclusion from what you suggest... namely that the rights are not legimate and/or have no value... or else why would they do nothing and let them gets less valuable with each passing day.

In the mixed up and distorted opinion of an,

Old Dude
 
Old Dude, I have another possibility on why there has been no follow up legal action. It might be totally incorrect information, but I thought I read somewhere on this forum that the financial health of LPE was in question. If they didn't pay because they couldn't pay, then suing them would be throwing good money after bad with little promise of any return. And to further speculate based on possibly incorrect assumptions, if their financial health is in question, then the rule change might not have the desired affect. Perhaps the delay is because things have become further complicated.
Absolutely agree its possible but I doubt it. Here is why:

If I had legimate rights to sell and the person I had sold to was not paying (had breached) and was in such poor shape that they could likely not recover, I would sue for breach immediately so I could reobtain my legitimate rights and grant another party those rights to the territory.

That Kirby now and GS before, have not and do not sue LPE for breach - especially when LPE is weak - just means those legitimate rights in that territory - if they (the rights) actually exist - are getting less and less valuable each day as the brand (Laser) suffers.

The situation you describe leads me to a very different conclusion from what you suggest... namely that the rights are not legimate and/or have no value... or else why would they do nothing and let them gets less valuable with each passing day.

In the mixed up and distorted opinion of an,

Old Dude

One reason it would be worthwhile going after LPE even if they have no money would be to force a foreclosure and thus allow an administrator to sell the copyright "Laser" and for a new builder to be established - one who would pay as per the contractually agreements. Or to force LPE to be sold. Thaat might mean losing past revenues but at least it would start them again from a new company.

Might even help the class. I read the post about SB3 managing to extract themselves but Lasers seem to not be similarly motivated (or maybe that option is not available). Has anybody tried buying any spared from LPE recently. I have urgently needed two things (unable to trail/sail without them) and it has been a nightmare.

Ian
 

Back
Top