Open Letter to James Farmer KC

James, I was interested to see your views expressed in The Herald a few days ago laying out your ‘prosecution’ case against Grant Dalton and the America’s Cup event being staged, very successfully, up here in Barcelona. As a King's Counsel I trust you are open to someone presenting a defence to the case you laid out.

You opened with the line “I begin this piece with an apology to New Zealand readers.”

I thought this would be where you might have taken the opportunity to give some personal background to the case, and your potential conflict of interest.

As I understand it, the rift between you and Dalton began back in 2013 when you stepped?down as a director of Team New Zealand to take part, as an independent adviser, in a process to make a change to the rules for the 34th America’s Cup. A change that would ultimately disadvantage Team New Zealand and the innovative design they had brought to building a multi hull that could foil. Something none of the other teams thought could be done.

Dalton’s team had the skills to build a boat that could do this, within the wind range that had been set for the boat design, and now everyone else was playing catch up.

A fatal accident on one of the boats, trying to do something their boat was simply not designed to do, saw others join them in asking for a change in the wind range so they could attempt to meet the challenge Team New Zealand had laid in front of all of them. To get their boats foiling, safely.

ETNZ had done that within the rules that had been set.

You, as an independent adviser, voted in favour of the change that lowered the upper wind limit from 33 knots, the wind Team New Zealand had built their boat for, and got it foiling, to 23 knots, taking away the huge advantage that Team New Zealand had designed their boat for.

A foiling catamaran that no one else thought could be done.

Everyone talks about the 8:1 turn around in San Francisco but no one ever points to the number of times races weren’t held because of the revised wind limit that meant that Team New Zealand could not take advantage of a boat that had been structurally designed to be able to foil in conditions others couldn’t.

There could even be an argument to be had that because this boat was initially designed to withstand these higher winds it was never going to be light enough to foil up wind as well as down - something Oracle finally managed to do.

As one might imagine, your role in taking away this design advantage did not impress Grant.

You expected to come back as a director of Team New Zealand, but Grant had other ideas about that. In his mind, you had acted against the interests of Team New Zealand and the innovative solution the kiwi team had created, so you were gone.

I understand your role as a KC does not require you to present anything that might lessen the impact of your argument. But, as you know, there are always two sides to every story and I thought it might help the New Zealand readers to understand things a little better with this additional perspective on the case you have laid against Dalton.

A case that continued with this statement:

‘In his interview for the Herald, Dalton took the opportunity to defend the Barcelona decision by asserting that New Zealand had suffered financially from Covid to a greater extent than anywhere else in the world and to an extent that “it was impossible to have the Cup in New Zealand financially” – a view that is hard to sustain given the offer of further public money of $100 million increased further by the offer of $40m from Mark Dunphy.’

This is definitely where I would be on my feet raising an objection with the judge.

First let’s look at the evidence to support Grant’s original argument that New Zealand had suffered financially from Covid to the extent? “it was impossible to have the Cup in New Zealand financially”

As this event is being staged in Barcelona, back home we have a cost of living crisis, we have a health crisis, we have an education crisis, we have the downsizing of Dunedin hospital, the cancellation of the new ferry service, nurses, teachers, fire fighters, ambulance drivers, all seeking more funding, and the government desperately trying to find ways to lower spending. Imagine how staging this event in Auckland, funded by the government, would look.

Grant was right - this was no longer an event that the New Zealand government could, or should fund. He needed to find other ways to do this. And he did that, putting New Zealand’s brand on the world stage, with no public funding needed.

Which leads me to your claims on government funding.

The government never offered $100 million. They offered $32 million in cash, leaving a $68 million dollar hole you fail to account for, unless you are referring to the rather ill-defined “costs” government and Council had scrambled together to make the number look bigger than it was. None of that helped the team defend the Cup.

They needed cash to mount a defence that matched those coming with much bigger budgets and they found that in Barcelona.

As for Mark Dunphy? My understanding is not so much as one dollar was put forward by him, let alone $40 million. I welcome any factual evidence you might have to counter that.

And finally, your claim that 30% of members of the RNZYS resigned because of the Barcelona decision has consistently been described as a gross exaggeration, some even arguing that your number included people who had died!

There was no mention at all of the half million dollars that Team New Zealand has invested in the Yachting Academy, alongside the 10 new Eliott keel boats they have purchased for the Youth programme.

Jim, I am fully aware of the huge contribution you have made to New Zealand's past efforts in the America's Cup but isn't it time to acknowledge that, without Grant Dalton's tenacity, single mindedness and yes, an eye for the deal that would give his team the best shot at winning or keeping the Auld Mug, New Zealand would simply not be on show up here in Barcelona, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

I rest my case.