Burning down the house.
Depends on the judge. Bell has been trying to get them to work it out away from the court. Now it is getting complicated and with the time constraints, now time is of the essence.I really don't know much about our judicial system, is this common for a judge to be so outspoken in this regard?
This is a civil suit, not a criminal one. There's no jury to be influenced or contaminated, the judge himself will make all the decisions. His opinions are the only ones that have or will matter. Well, that matter until the eventual appeals reach the next judge(s).I really don't know much about our judicial system, is this common for a judge to be so outspoken in this regard?
Either way though civil or criminal some judges are outspoken, some aren't. Bell is in the hot seat with court dates that are already set.This is a civil suit, not a criminal one. There's no jury to be influenced or contaminated, the judge himself will make all the decisions. His opinions are the only ones that have or will matter. Well, that matter until the eventual appeals reach the next judge(s).
NASCAR still thinks they’re arguing a contract dispute.The amount of increase has nothing to do with whether or not NASCAR is a monopoly, Steve.
You don't think he has a point? And you're an American watching the billionaires gobble up everything in sight and rig the system? The 75% goes in their pockets.The amount of increase has nothing to do with whether or not NASCAR is a monopoly, Steve.
Righteous indignation also has nothing to do with the law. The judge's job isn't to decide 'right' or 'wrong', it's to decide what's conform within the laws passed by legislators and written in constitutions. Phelp's opinion (his word) and mine are irrelevant.You don't think he has a point? And you're an American watching the billionaires gobble up everything in sight and rig the system? The 75% goes in their pockets.
Sorry if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's a contract dispute in Nascar's eyes and that is the direction they are coming from. Calling an organization a monopoly is the claim.Righteous indignation also has nothing to do with the law. The judge's job isn't to decide 'right' or 'wrong', it's to decide what's conform within the laws passed by legislators and written in constitutions. Phelp's opinion (his word) and mine are irrelevant.
Yeah that involves a monopoly which is what has been claimed in this case.The judge declared it an anti-trust case.
Presumably he will adjudicate accordingly.
I really don't know much about our judicial system, is this common for a judge to be so outspoken in this regard?
Terrible ruling. It allowed them to not honor the contract, allowed them to complete buying the charters that other teams or outside investors could be interested in and made a joke out of the other teams who had signed up. I think they need to trot their happy asses back to the table. It sounds like the courts are on their last nerve.Finally some reasoning. "We're going to sue you because your system is unfair, but please let us operate under the unfair system until we can try to squeeze some more money out of you in court"
I presume you meant the original ruling, not the decision to overturn it.Terrible ruling.
Can we all agree that even without charters, there is a next-to-0% chance of 23XI and FRM cars missing a race?
Quite possibly. Will they? Doubtful; where is there to go that isn't a huge step down?Will this ruling allow the 6 drivers with the 2 teams to start looking around at other options?
It’s not over by a long shot.Quite possibly. Will they? Doubtful; where is there to go that isn't a huge step down?
I think the teams' list of harm they were or could suffer included every possible downfall, regardless of probability. Those drivers were never going to walk and they still aren't.
Those drivers have had their contracts breached. They are under no obligation to have to stay. Will they leave or stay? Who knows.Quite possibly. Will they? Doubtful; where is there to go that isn't a huge step down?
I think the teams' list of harm they were or could suffer included every possible downfall, regardless of probability. Those drivers were never going to walk and they still aren't.
Agreed but where the heck would they go? Leaving may nullify any personal services contracts the drivers have with manufacturers and sponsors. I guess Bubba has a line on flipping burgers.Those drivers have had their contracts breached. They are under no obligation to have to stay. Will they leave or stay? Who knows.
Do we know what any of the 6 affected driver’s contracts say about their teams’ charter status?Those drivers have had their contracts breached. They are under no obligation to have to stay. Will they leave or stay? Who knows.
As I recall, according to the exemption suit the drivers' contracts specify driving a chartered car. The teams claimed without being able to operate with charters, they could lose their drivers.Do we know what any of the 6 affected driver’s contracts say about their teams’ charter status?
Yeah, I said that in #3195.As I recall, according to the exemption suit the drivers' contracts specify driving a chartered car. The teams claimed without being able to operate with charters, they could lose their drivers.
'Could', not 'would'.