As both sides wait for the ruling from the New York Supreme Court on whether the Spanish Challenger of Record is valid, the squabble between the two clubs representing Alinghi and BMW Oracle continues and shows little sign of an amicable settlement.

Earlier today (Tuesday 13 Nov) Alinghi issued the third piece of the 33rd America’s Cup jigsaw, as it revealed further detailed plans as to how the event would run under its proposal for a Cup match in 2009. Within the covering press release came some tough language in which the Société Nautique de Genève (SNG) stated that it, ‘required GGYC [Golden Gate Yacht Club] to withdraw its lawsuit by November 16 at 1700 hours, New York time, and to clarify its position with regard to its participation in the 33rd America’s Cup.’

Could this be a warning shot designed to suggest that if the GGYC is to lose in its case, that it will not be invited to participate in the next event? Whatever was read into the statement, a few hours later a response was issued from GGYC claiming that Alinghi had abruptly ended settlement talks.

In it’s press release the GGYC stated:

“Today negotiators for GGYC and the Defender had verbally agreed to most points needed for a resolution, only for Alinghi to call back and say the deal was off,” Tom Ehman, GGYC spokesman said.

“This is highly surprising and disappointing,” Ehman said. “We had accepted assurances from challengers that the new design rule was fair and we were confident yesterday that other outstanding points were well on their way to being resolved in a way that was good for everyone.

“We offered to drop our legal challenge in return for Alinghi making the agreed changes to the rules. The other challengers have been very helpful in getting us to what we thought was virtual agreement.

“But only hours later, Ernesto Bertarelli’s lawyer, Lucien Masmejan, called to say they would not proceed with the settlement.

“We hope they will reconsider their position, and we remain open to further discussions before a court ruling that could come any day.”

At best, the flurry of correspondence might indicate some tough talk designed to achieve an agreement. At worst, it provides further evidence of a stand-off that will only be resolved by the court.

The only thing that is for certain is that the clock is still ticking.