23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

and the meter is running on both sides.
I wonder how much it cost for filing suits against the NFL, F-1, and IndyCar? Trying to get into their books so they can cherry pick? Oh look, F-1 charges this and Indycar charges that lol and look at Nascar they charge this. ridiculous.

They are subpoenas relative to the NASCAR lawsuit. No separate lawsuits were filed against the NFL, F1, and IndyCar. That is a pretty severe misunderstanding.

Whether it is a worthwhile legal strategy is beyond any of our knowledge and experience. Whether Kessler and company have communicated with any of these parties outside the court filings is also unknown.
 
They are subpoenas relative to the NASCAR lawsuit. No separate lawsuits were filed against the NFL, F1, and IndyCar. That is a pretty severe misunderstanding.

Whether it is a worthwhile legal strategy is beyond any of our knowledge and experience. Whether Kessler and company have communicated with any of these parties outside the court filings is also unknown.

Given the excessive reach of these subpoenas and the immediate HELL NO GET BENT responses coming from those leagues, I’d say it’s pretty certain Kessler didn’t get a cozy chat with these leagues pre-filing. 🏈🏎️ 🫤🤬👎
 
Nope they got spanked pretty good. Ouch.

Now, the NFL has already chosen to respond by rejecting the request to offer sensitive financial information. It stated that the subpoena is not based on a strong foundation and that the information sought is not connected to the dispute between the two teams and NASCAR. The response from the NFL stated:

"The Subpoena is based on the flimsiest of premises: that because Plaintiffs are suing NASCAR, they can obtain — by way of federal process — financials, financial projections, research, studies, analyses, and other highly confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information belonging to almost every other major sports league in the United States.

"To be clear, there is no legitimate basis for any assertion that the information sought has any direct connection to the substantive dispute between the parties. ... Put simply, not only does the Subpoena seek the NFL's most confidential information, it would put that information into the hands of some of the NFL's most consistent legal opponents and a participant in the broader sports and entertainment marketplace."
 
Given the excessive reach of these subpoenas and the immediate HELL NO GET BENT responses coming from those leagues, I’d say it’s pretty certain Kessler didn’t get a cozy chat with these leagues pre-filing. 🏈🏎️ 🫤🤬👎

You’re projecting basic emotions onto the scenario, perhaps due to your own emotional investment in it, without considering that everyone involved is far more calculating and experienced at defending their interests at a high and technical level.

I don’t see much of this extreme black and white, heroes and villains thinking among those who express support for racing team owners. The few who are blatant NASCAR haters wishing for NASCAR’s downfall reveal themselves quickly and are rightly ignored. I wish we could get some more nuanced thinking on the pro-France family side, because I’d like to read it. There is a lot of room for serious discussion beyond reacting with mock horror to every action one side takes.
 
For instance, I agree that the subpoenas are overly broad. I can’t imagine a court wholesale granting any of them as they are. Therefore, rather than assuming that Kessler lost his mind or is committing malpractice, I tend to think there is a longer strategic play at work.
 
You’re projecting basic emotions onto the scenario, perhaps due to your own emotional investment in it, without considering that everyone involved is far more calculating and experienced at defending their interests at a high and technical level.

I don’t see much of this extreme black and white, heroes and villains thinking among those who express support for racing team owners. The few who are blatant NASCAR haters wishing for NASCAR’s downfall reveal themselves quickly and are rightly ignored. I wish we could get some more nuanced thinking on the pro-France family side, because I’d like to read it. There is a lot of room for serious discussion beyond reacting with mock horror to every action one side takes.
He has every right to express himself just like the rest of us have. I for one am enjoying the hell out of this discussion blow by blow.
 


Those documents indisputably confirm what NASCAR alleged in its counterclaim: 23XI, Front Row, and Curtis Polk knowingly entered into illegal agreements with other teams on issues such as fixing the compensation that they received from NASCAR and allocating how that compensation would be divided among the co-conspirator teams.” It was carried out, as NASCAR alleges from the paper trail, by using Jonathan Marshall of the Race Team Alliance (RTA) as a conduit.

NASCAR wants to amend its counterclaim to include the documents. The counterclaim was filed on March 5 and alleges conspiracy and Sherman Act violations.

Polk, a co-owner of 23XI Racing, was included in the counterclaim. In its new motion, NASCAR continued to outline its involvement by saying the documents confirm that he “was the ringleader of the concerted effort to set compensation received by the teams, boycott NASCAR events, interfere with NASCAR’s negotiations with media partners, and reach unlawful agreements.”
 
As I see it. The RTA is a company. Jonathan Marshall is an officer of RTA. Polk was given negotiating authority by the RTA. What Nascar is trying to prove about the Sherman Act is price fixing. They conspired together, threatening to not participate in certain events, and they interfered with Nascar and their media partners negotiations.

Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) prohibits "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations."
In practice, it targets agreements or coordinated actions between businesses that harm competition, such as:
  • Price-fixing (e.g., competitors agreeing to set prices).
  • Market allocation (e.g., dividing territories to avoid competition).
  • Bid-rigging (e.g., colluding on contract bids).
 

“ It is not inherently illegal for the Race Team Alliance (RTA) to work together to address issues with NASCAR business practices. However, their actions must be within legal boundaries, particularly concerning antitrust laws. Specifically, the RTA's actions could potentially be viewed as a form of collective bargaining or negotiating in good faith, which are generally legal and protected activities within the context of labor relations.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Collective Bargaining:
The RTA, as an organization representing teams, could be seen as engaging in collective bargaining with NASCAR, a form of negotiation between workers (teams) and their employer (NASCAR) to determine terms of employment.
Antitrust Law:
While collective bargaining is generally legal, the RTA's actions must be careful not to violate antitrust laws, which prohibit agreements that restrain trade or unfairly monopolize a market. For instance, if the RTA were to agree to artificially raise prices for certain services, or to restrict competition among teams, that could be considered a violation of antitrust law.
Legal Challenges:
The lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR highlights that antitrust laws can be a basis for challenges to the sanctioning body's practices. These teams argue that NASCAR's business practices violate antitrust law by creating a monopoly and hindering competition.
Good Faith Negotiation:
The RTA's actions would need to demonstrate good faith in their negotiations with NASCAR. This means that the teams would need to engage in meaningful discussions, be open to counterproposals, and not attempt to undermine the negotiations or deceive the other party.
In summary, the RTA is within its rights to work together to address issues with NASCAR's business practices, but it must do so in a way that complies with antitrust laws and demonstrates good faith in its negotiations.”
 
Back
Top Bottom