Catching Up on Some Loose Ends (Background)

Back in July, the six Challengers had “team signed,” that is, they signed and sent the same exact letter to Societe Nautique de Genevo (SNG - - Alinghi) complaining that the newly formed Club Nautico Espanol de Vela (CNEW), now the Challenger of Record, was selected based on only one vague paragraph of the ancient Deed of Gift - - that famous “mutual consent” clause.

Doing so, they claimed, reduced the value of the new boats, made budgeting impossible, harms the competitive position of the Challengers, and changes the nature of the competition, among other things.

They wanted a “more balanced and fair procedure” for the Challenger of Record selection (that is, they wanted BMW/Oracle, or at least, not some new club selected by Alinghi).

These letters became part of the legal challenge in New York regarding the legitimacy of the Challenger of Record club.

Subsequently, the Golden Gate Yacht Club has issued a new release welcoming the prospect of a speedy court ruling to resolve the issues surrounding the next Protocal governing the event in 2009.

Tom Ehman of BMW/Oracle said the American Team had presented a strong case that the Club Nautico Espanol de Vela (CNEV) was invalid and the new Potocol unfairly advantaged the Defender. In the same breath (let’s see if they lose what he’ll say) he noted that Justice Herman Cahn “understands the issues.”

A few weeks later, the Golden Gate Yacht Club said it would agree to comprehensive new compromises, to get the Cup event back on track, if the Defender will disclose its Rule for the boat’s design. (This was on Oct. 25, 2007.) Ok, boys, the Rule has been issued. It’s time to put in your Challenge? This is normal practice, to reveal the Rule to all potential competitors well in advance of the event.

Yet, on Nov. 1, after the new Rule had been issued, the Golden Gaters still dither: They now want to compare today’s Rule with the original skeletal outline issued previously, so all competitors start on a level field.