Ernesto Bertarelli on the America's Cup

The Alinghi Team Principal shares his latest views

Earlier this week, during a media event in Gstaad, Switzerland, hosted by Alinghi and Dona Bertarelli’s LadyCat D35 team, after lunch half way up a snow-capped mountain Ernesto Bertarelli answered the questions of the assembled British, French, Swiss, Italian and Spanish press.

Obviously while there has been considerable progress between Alinghi and the challengers, at present, ultimately, the America’s Cup is on hold, awaiting the decision of the Appeal Court in New York. If the Societe Nautique de Geneve/Alinghi win, then the 33rd America’s Cup will be a multi-challenger event in 2010 in new generation boats with one boat teams. If the Golden Gate YC/BMW Oracle win then they have said repeatedly that they would like to negotiate a multi-challenger event (which, ironically, seems to be along almost identical lines to what the challengers have already negotiated with Alinghi). But given the distrust between the two parties, any chance of mediation between them seems to have dissolved and the likelihood is that a Golden Gate YC/BMW Oracle win in New York will result in a Deed of Gift match in big multihulls.

So nothing new there.

However Ernesto Bertarelli recently surprised many when he said that even if he loses in New York and there is a resulting DoG match, then the venue is still likely to be Valencia, thereby ending speculation that tactically he would use the choice of venue to beat his opponent, either by choosing a place where it would be difficult for an American team to compete (Cuba or Iraq seemed good if unlikely options) or, more realistically, by choosing a venue where the conditions would better suit the giant Alinghi multihull.

So far the Alinghi team have confirmed that their giant multihull is currently built and awaiting assembly on the shore of Lake Geneva, but to date there has not been the slightest confirmation from the team of what it might look like. It is rumoured to be a giant D35 style catamaran and if this is the case our concern is that trimarans such as the one BMW Oracle have been sailing, have repeated proven faster than cats – as witnessed during the evolution of Formula 40s in the 1980s and then the ORMA 60s, both classes limited by length as the giant multihulls in a DoG match would be. However given the competitive glint in Grant Simmer’s eye whenever we ask him about their new multihull, they clearly have something special, even if it is possibly a hull light and evidently special enough for them not to require a change of venue from Valencia to bludgeon the point home.

Here is what was said by Ernesto Bertarelli, Brad Butterworth and Grant Simmer as we gathered around the fire in the mountain top restaurant.

Q: There’s hiatus, credit crunch, loss of all momentum - how difficult is that going to make it to get the show back on the road?

EB: Certainly more difficult. We would never have got off the horse in 2007. There are regattas every month, people still go sailing, so there is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to organise a regatta in 2010. It is not going to be the same – thank God - because if it was the same, it would be boring, but it is going to be different. We are going to have to do with what we have, with the environment we have, with the teams we have, with the boats we have, with the decision we have, I guess. But there is no reason we couldn’t entertain an America’s Cup. At the end of the day you need two buoys, a start line and two boats. And I think we can get that.

Q: You said last week in Valencia that finally if we have a Deed of Gift match it will be in Valencia.

EB: I am trying to provide as much certainty in today’s uncertain environment to our partners and people who are following us and are supporting us and work in our direction. We have worked – and Brad in particular – with the challengers, who have been very supportive of our concept, of our vision for a new boat, for a cheaper America’s Cup and I continue to feel that there is tremendous support for the America’s Cup in Valencia. They have been wonderful partners to work with and if there is some certainty that can be given to our team and to the city through an agreement, I think we will consider it very, very seriously. We don’t have one yet, but we are seriously working towards one. Today we are trying to provide as much certainty as we can and Valencia is certainly a good place for the Cup. It has been a good place. There is the infrastructure. In the current environment it is probably the more sane thing to do – to keep what we have built there.

Q: So you won’t keep the advantage of the weather?

EB: We need to come to an agreement with Valencia first and I don’t think it is necessarily going to come before we have a decision [in New York]. What I am trying to do is to provide short term certainty to the city and to the team. There is a real need for teams to have a base to start working and that is what I am working towards. I think DoG match or multi-challenge regatta, it is not for us to decide unfortunately. We have done everything we could and now it is for the New York Supreme Court to decide. Then we’ll see where it leads us. Again, we have a very very strong partnership with the city of Valencia. We have an established working relationship, we have a proven record, we have a beautiful infrastructure we can use, so it would be crazy not to consider Valencia as a location and to work in that direction.

Q: Oracle keeps repeating that if they win they want a multi-challenger event?

EB: The reality with BMW Oracle is that they have taken a position that favoured their ultimate objective. They have taken different positions depending on when and where and for what reason, to service their only one objective which is to win the America’s Cup. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they changed their views one more time. The reality of our understanding is that they submitted a Deed of Gift challenge with a certificate that is still somewhat dubious, but certainly it is a large boat. They have publicised quite openly that they have a 90ft trimaran in San Diego, which we believe is going to be used for an America’s Cup. They had several opportunities to participate in a multi-challenger event, either by entering like any other team or by agreeing some mutual consent Protocol when they had the decision of Justice Cahn. They proved that when we met them after Justice Cahn’s decision in Geneva: they pressed heavily on a date that would not give us time to prepare, they never talked about a multi-challenger race and they forced us either to a forfeit or an appeal. They were surprised to lose that appeal and now they are scrambling to again reposition themselves for possibly what they think is their best position to win the America’s Cup.

They possibly feel that their chances are not as good as they were when we didn’t have a boat. Now they know we have a boat that is ready to launch if needed. They were given the opportunity to participate in an event that was agreed and promoted by 18 teams – and everyone feels the boat is a great boat and the rules are great rules. We have given them plenty of opportunity to save face by going down the path of making changes that they had asked for, which are normal changes that were due, but they were made, such as the choice of two additional jury members. All those opportunities were there.

The reality is that we are in court today. The reality is that there has been no concrete step made to date. The reality is that over the years, their cards have been played and the path is not one that is necessarily transparent or that has some continuity. So I think that their only objective is to win the America’s Cup – which is what a challenger’s objective should be, but I don’t think they have any other motive.

So our position is one where we see a very difficult situation, where after trying for two and a half year and in some instances…myself making the trip to go to California to try to attempt a resolution…[it is unlikely] that two and a half years later we come down with some miracle agreement. I think that what they hope to achieve with a victory is to force some advantage. It was a multihull then, when Justice Cahn gave them the win they wanted. I don’t know what it is going to be following the judgement, because for the judgement on their favour to be clear, there are a lot of things that need to happen. We need to hear a court that says that the CNEV is not valid. We also need to hear from the court that their challenge IS valid. So there are a lot of things that we need to ask. We try again to create certainty. It is not easy for a team to entertain two programs, so we are working towards a multi-challenger event. In the case that the decision went against us, we will revert to a DoG match, because we just don’t believe it is possible to negotiate with them. We have failed to do so for two and a half years and it is difficult to believe that all of a sudden that that will change. I just don’t think it is possible. But we will have to sit down with them for sure.

So right now the position of the team I think is fairly straightforward: If we win – we go racing with 18 challengers. If we lose, we will prepare for a DoG match.

Q: When the next decision is made in New York, how much do you expect that to be the final decision of the New York Supreme Court?

EB: I really hope that the decision is one in favour of CNEV, because it is a simpler decision. What worries me most is not so much having to race BMW Oracle as a Challenger of Record, it is the uncertainty of a decision in their favour: From the standpoint of their certificate, the boat, the date of the regatta and all those things that haven’t been fully debated in the previous instances in the Appelate Division. That is my biggest worry – that we end up with a decision that carries another set of question marks. Because honestly from a very selfish point of view – and that is not our role as Defender and Trustee of the Cup – but if I am selfish for a second - multihull or monohull? Actually from a cost point of view, since we already have the multihull, that is cheaper for Alinghi! So if I am really selfish, if there is a clear decision… We need to race. We are the Defender, we have to come to the line and race someone.

Q: If you were forced into the DoG match how soon could you have your boat on the water?

Grant Simmer: A couple of months.

Brad Butterworth: That is to put it in the water and not to race it. It will take a bit of time to get it ready.



Q: If GGYC win and we are heading in the DoG match direction, doesn’t that make it more of a lottery for you? It could be that your boats go up against one another and we know within minutes whether one is faster than the other – isn’t it a lot more risky going down the multihull route?

Brad Butterworth: You have got to back your team. The guys have put a lot of effort into that boat and I think it will be quite special. But you are right, it is over in a heartbeat. It is the first to two and probably one of the boats is going to break and in one of the races won’t finish. Who knows what is going to happen? It is risky, but you have to back your guys and I would be happy to back our guys.

Q: You could negotiate a longer series?

Brad Butterworth: But you’d have to have some common agreement there and that looks difficult.

Q: 18 challengers is a lot, how many will start?

EB: I think 18 says one thing that the concept is the right concept. Everyone understands the concept now. My mistake for not setting ACM and Alinghi in a position to communicate properly the concept, but I think we have got over that. And I think that concept is the right concept. That is what 18 teams say – it is cheaper to participate and you have a better chance because you have a new boat. I think everyone sees it is a better concept and 18 teams think that way now. Now – are there going to be 18 teams in the America’s Cup? I don’t think it really matters, because as we saw in the last Act in Valencia where we first had a fleet race and then we split the fleet in two with a top fleet and a lower fleet: both fleets had a lot more fun racing and the spectators had a lot more fun watching the boats going against each other. I don’t think you are going to have 18 teams at the same level. You are always going to have teams – and they can be new teams, because the proof of Damiani in New Zealand is a demonstration that you can have young teams, when the boats are somewhat equivalent, that they can do well. So you will always have strong teams, but how many do you need? If you have six strong teams, or four strong teams you are still going to have great semis and finals and the match and that is what people really want. But 18 is nice because it fills the Darsena, it is more people, it covers more markets, more journalists, more interest, if you have people from China, Germany and Sweden – we will always have an Italian team I guess! – Russia, Greece – it makes the America’s Cup bigger, but from a sport point of view, you really only need 4-6 very competitive teams and you have a great event.

Q: You mentioned that you would like to revolutionise the America’s Cup in the future – what is your vision for how the 35 or 36th AC should be set up? Do you think there should be an independent organisation?

EB: There was one thing which we touched upon, which was highly criticised if you remember in 2003, which was this idea of the Act. Then there has been this attempt by Louis Vuitton, which I don’t think really works honestly, because the boats are never the same and the America’s Cup is not one design, there is always a design component. I think what we are trying to do, which seems to be very appealing to the owners of the teams, is to be able to use this new class of boat outside of America’s Cup racing in inshore regattas and that requires some design specification, which Grant can speak about, whereby these boats will be capable of participating in regattas such as Palma, Copa del Rey or Sardinia and give them a life after the Cup, with an engine to make them more economical to run.

Grant Simmer: The concept is that the first boats that will be built will be used in 2010 for the 33rd America’s Cup and after that, that fleet of boats will be available to do regattas, mainly in the Med or on the east coast of the States out of Newport and the boats will comply with European law in terms of their structure. So they will be available to do those regattas from an insurance standpoint. But also you will be able to put an engine inside the boats. Obviously we don’t want to race the America’s Cup with engines in the boats, but in the interim years, those boats can be fitted with an engine and then when the next Cup cycle comes around, teams will start building new boats anyway and hopefully they will help the class survive and grow over time. And it also gives teams like Alinghi the opportunity to provide their sponsors with value in years when we are not racing the America’s Cup, because we are out doing other regattas.

EB: If you see what happened since 2007 is that most of the well sponsored teams went to the TP52 event, which is an expensive event, almost a Cup program, because you have got to build a new boat, so I think there is some synergy by using the same boat, the same infrastructure, putting the boat in a condition where they can stay in the water – you don’t have to lift them out every night - with an engine, and I think it would just be nice. When you go to events today, the Maxi class today is somewhat disappeared, there are the 60 footers, so there is a space that could be taken by this class, which could be the [new] Maxi class. People are looking for a boat of that size to campaign. The fact is that Alfa Romeo and these canting keel boats kind of killed the class. It is the usual sin of owners: you spend, you spend, you spend and then there is no one to play with any more, because you either end up in court in some cases, spending more (!) or there is no one else to compete against because you have just bought yourself the Trophy, but you don’t have anyone to race with. I think that class could really take a place in the Maxi tour. The events are dying for it. You go to the Sardinia Maxi Worlds and there were two boats there. And they are so different too. I think that would provide a lot of value for organisers and sponsors and teams.

Q: Independent organisation in the future – is that possible?

EB: I really think that we should get the owners of these boats to have a say a lot more than they do today in these sorts of circuits. It works elsewhere, in the Farr 40s, in the Maxi Association, etc. There is no reason why we can’t maybe use this platform for a discussion on what to do in between America’s Cup years.

Q: You win in New York and Oracle decides to challenge - you can say yes or no to the challengers?

EB: The others all entered under a certain set of rules. We have some yacht clubs and have some teams which today would like to enter and we are saying ‘no’ independent of BMW Oracle. There was a deadline. Everyone was aware of the deadline. Everyone had to compete with the same set of rules. Teams have to make choices with their designers, with their sailors and I think the competition has started.

So I am not saying I am going to say no. It is not my decision or the Alinghi team or anyone alone. Everyone is involved and we have a Competitors Commission to discuss about that. Frankly there were plenty of opportunities for Oracle to enter. I still don’t know why they didn’t, because the argument ‘we would like to go back to the 32nd America’s Cup rule’ doesn’t mean anything in today’s environment. Because everyone wants a new boat, not a Version 5, they all want budgets which are a half to a third of what they used to be and the 32nd America’s Cup is behind us. And we raced Team New Zealand! It is almost like nostalgia of not having had the performance that Larry maybe expected. But that is not my problem! Now we are in the 33rd and with the economy, maybe not everyone has the finances. The economy is different. And of all teams we would be in the best position with a V5 boat. SUI100, and you have seen it in Valencia when we went racing and everyone admits it, is just a better boat all round. So we would be in a position of strength.

Everyone is excited about the new boats. They are sexy, they are fun, they are going to be fast, we are going to be able to use them elsewhere – so why didn’t they enter? Can anyone tell me? Does anyone understand what ‘we want the rules of the 32nd America’s Cup’ means in today’s world? Two boat testing? V5? Two skippers, two teams? I just don’t get it. And all the points that were raised early on in 2007 have been addressed. The problem is that whenever we address one point, one more emerges.

Some of you were at the ISAF dinner and I bumped into Russell [Coutts] and I said to Russell ‘we have just finished a Competitor’s Meeting in Geneva. You have a golden opportunity to drop this law suit. We are doing exactly what you have been asking for for quite some time, which is to move from three to five judges. And he didn’t expect to hear that. So he was taken aback. He thought for a second and he said ‘why don’t we get seven?’ And I said ‘Russell, you see that is exactly what I am saying. Every time we give you something, you want something more – where is it going to end?' ‘Well, you know actually, you have three, so if there are three more it is six and then we have a neutral one, it is seven’. And I said ‘Russell, that is not the point – just take the opportunity, you can say they finally moved’. I don’t know what they want. Honestly.

They are a lot better than we are at the PR game. If I was in their position, obviously I would say if I win I want a multi-challenge Cup. That is the PR position, especially when you know that the only way they are going to get that is if they are going to put down a Protocol which has horrible rules for Alinghi that we aren’t going to accept. It is a lot of hot air like it has been for two and a half years. Do you know the rules that they would suggest? First of all the America’s Cup will change, whereby the rules are dictated by the challenger, which in the history of the America’s Cup….maybe we read a different history. Even if – do we know what rules they are going to propose? I can imagine.

Q: The same as yours I think?

EB: Then – what else? If they take our Protocol. If they are going to court it is because there is a reason. I think it is just hot air, just a PR position. I think if we go down that path we will be in a very very difficult position.

BB: I think we are getting better at the PR thing!