Jump to content

The Cup is gone


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, waikiore said:

PS another excellent cartoon in the Herald today

What a useful comment.

Who reads the Herald? 
 

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, waikiore said:

BP he did specifically mention the hosting fee, as opposed to operational costs so you are on the right track.

I’m not following you guys.

The hosting fee is not a cost to TNZ but a payment to them by the host city. That’s what the $99m Govt offer to TNZ is. And they’re saying it’s not all cash but part cash and part benefits-in-kind like free rental of the HQ.

Whatever you want to call it TNZ is saying they want / need much more cash from the host city on top of whatever sponsorships they get to fund their overall campaign.

Alinghi invented the hosting fee concept when they decided not to defend the AC on Lake Geneva but take it to another city / country (Valencia) who paid them a hosting fee. So TNZ wouldn’t be the first team to choose to defend away from home - all be it for different reasons to Alinghi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Fogg said:

 

Alinghi invented the hosting fee concept when they decided not to defend the AC on Lake Geneva but take it to another city / country (Valencia) who paid them a hosting fee. 

and I seem to recall part of the deal was a "tax free " zone in the area where the teams were located, with enough space conveniently available for Berty to build on of his pharmacy plants

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, marinheiro said:

and I seem to recall part of the deal was a "tax free " zone in the area where the teams were located, with enough space conveniently available for Berty to build on of his pharmacy plants

Possibly. I recall Spain / Valencia put a lot of money into the event both for infrastructure investment and fees to Alinghi + teams. Like lots. Like billions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I’m not following. It’s the public that creates this money. Where else do you think it comes from - the fairies?

Even after the Spanish invested billions into the event they regarded it as such a massive commercial success that they paid bonuses ‘dividends’ to the teams after the event. That came from money the public spent on the viewing spectacle.

It’s like saying all footballers are rich pricks. Some earn huge and some don’t. But it comes from a combination of corporate sponsorship and the public appetite to spend. Why single out sailing as the only ‘rich pricks’ when other sports are also full of them.

I’d call that selective discrimination / conscious bias.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you use giveaway terms like ‘blackmail’ you make it obvious you’re not looking at this objectively. So in your book anybody trying to legally negotiate the best commercial outcome they can for their side / team is performing a criminal act. Your bias here against free markets isn’t even subtle!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, maybe negotiate the best outcome for their backpocket not country Fogg.

BP at least we can engage in real yachting here, I will be racing and cruising this weekend and look forward to the coastal and Three Kings events -see you on the beach sometime -or at Tall Ships.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, waikiore said:

Wow, maybe negotiate the best outcome for their backpocket not country Fogg.  

I’m prepared to be proven wrong on this. So can you show me where it’s written that TNZ’s primary purpose / mission statement is to promote the interests of this country? I thought they were a sport team trying to win a trophy? Which as a by-product might create a nice halo effect for NZ. A bit like the All Blacks in that regard.

But I thought there were other bodies whose role was promoting NZ’s interests eg government ones?

Did I miss something and does TNZ have a different purpose now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fogg said:

Which as a by-product might create a nice halo effect for NZ. A bit like the All Blacks in that regard.

Or Peter Jackson, or Tourism NZ, or any other business that sticks its hand out and says "We need more $$$ but there will be a byproduct return ot the country".

The problem TNZ now have is of their own making though - the NZ bit in the name.  Whether it was a primary purpose or not, the strongly implied message was "we are doing this for the country - winning will provide a return to NZ".  They traded on that and the jingoistic stuff that goes with it, and it should be no surprise if Mr and Mrs J Public feel a bit shafted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Or Peter Jackson, or Tourism NZ, or any other business that sticks its hand out and says "We need more $$$ but there will be a byproduct return ot the country".

The problem TNZ now have is of their own making though - the NZ bit in the name.  Whether it was a primary purpose or not, the strongly implied message was "we are doing this for the country - winning will provide a return to NZ".  They traded on that and the jingoistic stuff that goes with it, and it should be no surprise if Mr and Mrs J Public feel a bit shafted.

And I have some sympathy for that. After all, there are many many flaws with a free-market model the likes of which we are seeing play out here. But nobidy said it would be clean & perfect.

And the argument about “halo effect for NZ” is simply a reasonable negotiating tactic for TNZ (or any other team) negotiating a fee. The govt / donor of that fee can choose to believe it or disregard it. We’re talking big boys’ & girls’ games here.

And of course the reality is that when we are talking about multi-million dollar games like this there are no such things as “implied contracts”. There’s either a hard contract or none at all. And TNZ /  Dalton have never pretended it’s any other way - they’ve always been brutally honest about the commercial realities of their sport.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sabre said:

It is a fine line between good business acumen and just plain greed.

TNZ being the defender can make all sorts of rules including a cap on costs which is something the other syndicates are in support of.

you would think, if it were just a sport.

It's not.  Its entertainment.  That drove the race format at the cup just been and previous - fast, tv-friendly timeframes, at times that suit northern hemisphere live TV as much as they suit the local tide and weather conditions.

AC is a business, and its the business of entertaining sport.  End of story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fogg said:

When you use giveaway terms like ‘blackmail’ you make it obvious you’re not looking at this objectively. So in your book anybody trying to legally negotiate the best commercial outcome they can for their side / team is performing a criminal act. Your bias here against free markets isn’t even subtle!

OK they are negotiating a deal. If I were the other party (nz govt) at this point I would say sorry that offer is now off the table, good luck.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Dalton will want his legacy to be the guy that took the cup away from New Zealand. 

He is at that stage of his career. My guess more negotiation to come. I did quite like the one off defence in the UK to pay the bills, then back here regardless of outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Black Panther said:

OK they are negotiating a deal. If I were the other party (nz govt) at this point I would say sorry that offer is now off the table, good luck.

Well usually these kinds of negotiations involve an offer with either an expiry date or “The offer is there if you change your mind and want to come back.” Withdrawing the offer immediately is unusual (or petulant) behaviour. Not that that would concern TNZ - they would already have some idea via the back channels  what other offers might be out there.

I checked and Spain invested over $3 billion to make Valencia happen. Which kind of puts into perspective both TNZ’s request for ‘only’ $200m and the Govt offer of $99m.

I’m not saying TNZ should have asked (or settled) for less or the NZ Givt should have offered more.

I’m just saying that going offshore is probably an unfortunate but inevitable outcome for which I don’t blame nor harbour any resentment.

Unlike some folk here who think someone must be wrong or bad or greedy just because you don’t like the way this movie might end.

Maybe nobody is actually wrong or greedy here  - have you considered that as a possibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sabre said:

Yes and TNZ is a brand. A good public image is something most brands protect at all costs. 

Only if a good ‘clean’ brand is worth something. And they’ve discovered TNZ’s brand is apparently worth $99m in the NZ market but could be worth a lot more overseas. Nobody to blame for that - just reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Governments offer to TNZ expired today and are free to go do what ever they like.Minister Nash told Kerre Woodham on Newstalk this morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...