23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Why, if the teams win the suit, it's called a monopoly, they have the charters, can sell them partly to other investors, be able to take the car, force Nascar to open up race dates on their Nascar tracks so they can compete head to head with Nascar. If you are all for that happening? So be it. I think it is B.S. myself. Warts and all Nascar came from nothing, absolutely completely self owned, don't owe nobody nothing and these robber barons need to f' right off and go down the road.
 
StandOnIt said:
Once again, besides that, the Charters gave the teams something of value if they left the sport....But Nascar has to approve who they are selling them to.
Click to expand...
Yep, but NASCAR could have sale approval without having the charters expire concurrent with the TV contracts, or expiring at all.. Other sports are able to provide owners with asset documents while retaining control over the sales, without having the assets expire periodically.
 
StandOnIt said:
Some of why the teams are suing? They want to take the car that Nascar developed and compete elsewhere with it. They want the courts to force Nascar to allow the teams to race on tracks that Nascar owns. This is all behind their monopoly claims.
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I want to admit that I do not understand all of the legal and judicial points. I only post with the mindset of how I think it should be handled.

I don"t think the cars running in a different series, other than Nascar would ever go far or is a serious threat. Nascar has no equal or anyone close in that regard. That issue seems like a non starter to me and I can't see that as end game for the unsigned teams.

If a bad actor or unwanted team is no longer allowed to compete: imo they should at least be able to sale off their hardware, and possibly some assets like transfering contracts versus getting nothing when at all when they walk away.

That would still allow Nascar to run the sport without utterly destoying any one that dares to disagree. Why even claim a team owns the charter when it can be taken away from them.
 
StandOnIt said:
If you are all for that happening? So be it.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for others but I think if 23xi and FRM win*, only the charter ownership will change. As to running the cars elsewhere, running other series on NASCAR tracks, etc, you might as well ask me if I'm for oxygen suddenly converting to uranium; it's not going to happen. Those aren't really what the suit is about.

*But I don't think there will be a trial to win. One way or another, this will be settled out of court.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Well, for one thing, we wouldn't be looking at a lawsuit that has charter ownership at its core. Seeing charters taken away with no compensation can't look good to potential new manufacturers, or to owners NASCAR would really like to come on board (JRM).

NASCAR doesn't need to hold the charters to determine how the money is split. When the terms of the TV contract changed, NASCAR told the teams how much they'd get. In the end, there was no negotiation of that. Indeed, it tells the non-chartered teams how much they'll get. For decades it changed the rules regarding who was guaranteed to start and how money much they'd get, and it didn't need charter control to do it. If there's no negotiation leverage for the teams, if NASCAR can make and change rules as it wishes, if giving the charters directly to the teams doesn't affect how NASCAR runs the sport, why bother with complication of charter contracts?
Click to expand...
Charlie, I get the confusion, really do. But NASCAR’s charter system was never, repeat NEVER set up to become the property of the teams. They were never the equivalent of a franchise. Both at the beginning, and ever since, they were a contract vehicle, made to do precisely as described just a few posts previously by @StandOnIt. Did the teams ever compensate NASCAR for these charters? Nope. If there was to be an attachment of property rights to these, NASCAR should be the one entity to get paid. NASCAR allowed charter teams to sell the rights to aquire the charter contracts, based on their approval of the new team and a signed contract. Was that a good idea? Probably not, but they demonstrated a desire to help teams who leave the sport use the contract acquisition dollars to help offset the depreciation on their existing cars, equipment and facilities.

Despite that, Jordan, Hamcrap and Jenkins decided they would not sign the new contract, and by lawsuit force NASCAR to completely alter their legal enterprise. How? By gutting a significant percentage of NASCAR’s long standing business value and handing it over to the teams…with NO compensation. That’s not proving a “monopoly”….that’s raiding the mothership like a gang of pirates.

Also in answer to Miss Lew…I certainly have a bias in this…based upon the law and what is right relative to business practices. In my opinion this lawsuit is mostly a greedy raid on the racing organization I love, by owners who are following one megalomaniac owner with tons of money, who is used to getting his way via expensive lawyers and favored judicial venues. I truly hope the owners recognize their best path forward is to settle, by asking NASCAR to please allow them to sign the current charter agreement…after compensating them for the millions in legal fees and additional punitive damages from the episode. Absent that, I hope they lose their case, and their teams are sold off. Let them go start their own competing racing series with Jordan’s money and media connections. NASCAR is NOT a monopoly, they won’t mind.
 
wi_racefan said:
Nascar never placed a value on them, that has always been the charter holder and the potential buyer
Click to expand...
Understood but if the charter will sale for x million dollars, a team that is removed from the seris will still suffer that loss.

In addition to this if Nascar has no interest in the value, reclassing them into something permanent should no big deal (unless they want to use that value as a tool to control them).
 
Conover said:
But NASCAR’s charter system was never, repeat NEVER set up to become the property of the teams. They were never the equivalent of a franchise. Both at the beginning, and ever since, they were a contract vehicle, made to do precisely as described just a few posts previously by @StandOnIt.
Click to expand...
Again, I understand that. I'm asking WHY it was set up that way, what benefits this brought to NASCAR that it wouldn't have if it had given the charters outright.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Again, I understand that. I'm asking WHY it was set up that way, what benefits this brought to NASCAR that it wouldn't have if it had given the charters outright.
Click to expand...
Round and round we go. You dismissed what I said about Nascar being forced to let the teams use Nascar tracks and Nascar's car to hold races. It's very possible this could happen if Nascar loses the suit. FYI. Intellectual property includes the car, parts, pieces etc..

That is the biggest question. The teams appear to want their preferred terms of the charter deal — they would like to see permanent charters, more of a say in the governance of the sport and more control of their intellectual property than what is in the 2025 charter agreement. But there could be other/different changes that address the antitrust issues. Could NASCAR be required to sell the tracks, and if so, who would buy them, and how would that address the teams' issues?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Again, I understand that. I'm asking WHY it was set up that way, what benefits this brought to NASCAR that it wouldn't have if it had given the charters outright.
Click to expand...
If given the charters outright, as property, three major issues.

1. NASCAR would lose any control over the quality of teams who come into their racing organization. For example, they don’t want junk owners buying charters just so they can get crappy sponsors just to run dud entries that ride around to get paid. That diminishes the quality of the product. Even more importantly….
2. They need to maintain contractural controls over the many requirements and details related to the sport and the business. The CHARTER dictates via contract the duties and responsibilities of the racing teams and NASCAR.
3. Why would NASCAR just GIVE teams ownership of the limited and precious charters? They become the virtual equivalent of franchisees, without the structure. AND NASCAR wouldn’t receive any legit compensation for such a valuable surrender of equity.
 
Conover said:
If given the charters outright, as property, three major issues.

1. NASCAR would lose any control over the quality of teams who come into their racing organization. For example, they don’t want junk owners buying charters just so they can get crappy sponsors just to run dud entries that ride around to get paid. That diminishes the quality of the product. Even more importantly….
2. They need to maintain contractural controls over the many requirements and details related to the sport and the business. The CHARTER dictates via contract the duties and responsibilities of the racing teams and NASCAR.
3. Why would NASCAR just GIVE teams ownership of the limited and precious charters? They become the virtual equivalent of franchisees, without the structure. AND NASCAR wouldn’t receive any legit compensation for such a valuable surrender of equity.
Click to expand...
NASCAR can veto the transfer of a charter if they choose to do so.
 
Conover said:
If given the charters outright, as property, three major issues.

1. NASCAR would lose any control over the quality of teams who come into their racing organization. For example, they don’t want junk owners buying charters just so they can get crappy sponsors just to run dud entries that ride around to get paid. That diminishes the quality of the product. Even more importantly….
2. They need to maintain contractural controls over the many requirements and details related to the sport and the business. The CHARTER dictates via contract the duties and responsibilities of the racing teams and NASCAR.
3. Why would NASCAR just GIVE teams ownership of the limited and precious charters? They become the virtual equivalent of franchisees, without the structure. AND NASCAR wouldn’t receive any legit compensation for such a valuable surrender of equity.
Click to expand...
You most certainly are a lawyer. Lots of words that never get to the point.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Again, I understand that. I'm asking WHY it was set up that way, what benefits this brought to NASCAR that it wouldn't have if it had given the charters outright.
Click to expand...
Leverage over the teams to sign. Losing 30 to 40 million of worth per charter is a lot of money to lose if the teams don't sign. If the charters were permanent Nascar would lose most of their leverage over the teams.
 
Conover said:
1. NASCAR would lose any control over the quality of teams who come into their racing organization. For example, they don’t want junk owners buying charters just so they can get crappy sponsors just to run dud entries that ride around to get paid. That diminishes the quality of the product.
Click to expand...
The first version of the contract covered that with the minimum performance standards. Running at the bottom consistently would (theoretically) result in having your charter revoked. NASCAR can retain approval of charter transfer if the charters are in the teams' hands. The charters don't need to expire periodically to enforce that.
Conover said:
2. They need to maintain contractural controls over the many requirements and details related to the sport and the business. The CHARTER dictates via contract the duties and responsibilities of the racing teams and NASCAR.
Click to expand...
That can be done with rules independent of the charter agreement.
Conover said:
3. Why would NASCAR just GIVE teams ownership of the limited and precious charters? They become the virtual equivalent of franchisees, without the structure. AND NASCAR wouldn’t receive any legit compensation for such a valuable surrender of equity.
Click to expand...
NASCAR doesn't receive any compensation now. It distributed the charters at no charge.

None of those issues seem to be a problem with franchises in other sports.
 
aunty dive said:
I’d like to know whether or not NASCAR takes a cut when charters change hands.

Discovery documents will answer that question.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how that's relevant, unless the cut changes based on who's buying and selling. If it's the same percentage or same fixed amount for each transaction, I don't know what the problem would be.
 
rd45usa said:
Leverage over the teams to sign. Losing 30 to 40 million of worth per charter is a lot of money to lose if the teams don't sign. If the charters were permanent Nascar would lose most of their leverage over the teams.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I suspected that is at least part of it. But if a primary reason for NASCAR to keep the charters is to force the teams to sign contracts periodically, what's the value in that? "We have a contract so you'll keep signing contracts"? NASCAR doesn't charge the teams to renew, and the teams apparently have no negotiation leverage. What leverage would NASCAR lose? Maybe it's afraid of a non-existent boogieman?
 
StandOnIt said:
For the umteenth time. Teams could sell or sub let charters to whomever they choose, take the car and race it anywhere they want including starting their own series would be a couple offhand. There would be no reason to have a charter if that was so. It's basically a contract for contractors. Here is what we pay, how we pay, percentages of this and that, how we want our brand represented etc. You sign on to do X number of races for the 7 years of contract length. It's a closed membership, the charter is yours to sell if you want out to an approved by Nascar buyer. If you don't sign the charter reverts back to Nascar and they can give/sell to interested parties.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you this.

Say you buy a movie off Amazon Prime Video. Then let's say after sometime, Amazon just takes the movie from you... would you be okay with that? Because that's basically what this charter system is. Yeah you know that you're getting it for x number of years. But who's to say when this contract ends, NASCAR doesn't just get rid of it? Then you're out of the money that you spent on it. You think thats okay?
 
Conover said:
If given the charters outright, as property, three major issues.

1. NASCAR would lose any control over the quality of teams who come into their racing organization. For example, they don’t want junk owners buying charters just so they can get crappy sponsors just to run dud entries that ride around to get paid. That diminishes the quality of the product. Even more importantly….
2. They need to maintain contractural controls over the many requirements and details related to the sport and the business. The CHARTER dictates via contract the duties and responsibilities of the racing teams and NASCAR.
3. Why would NASCAR just GIVE teams ownership of the limited and precious charters? They become the virtual equivalent of franchisees, without the structure. AND NASCAR wouldn’t receive any legit compensation for such a valuable surrender of equity.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying the people in charge are too dumb to say.

1. You own the charters, and we will never abandon the charter system.

2. We still have to approve of who you sell the charter to.

That's so simple to do is it not?
 
Blaze said:
Let me ask you this.

Say you buy a movie off Amazon Prime Video. Then let's say after sometime, Amazon just takes the movie from you... would you be okay with that? Because that's basically what this charter system is. Yeah you know that you're getting it for x number of years. But who's to say when this contract ends, NASCAR doesn't just get rid of it? Then you're out of the money that you spent on it. You think thats okay?
Click to expand...
Say in 23XI's case you bought 2 charters for 20 million apiece because you wanted to race in Nascar. You did nothing and now they are worth 40 million apiece. Are you OK with that? If you didn't like the deal, you had two years of negotiations going on to sell them for 40 million apiece. Instead, you doubled down and bought another charter. There is nothing here that compares to what you are saying above.
 
StandOnIt said:
Say in 23XI's case you bought 2 charters for 20 million apiece because you wanted to race in Nascar. You did nothing and now they are worth 40 million apiece. Are you OK with that? If you didn't like the deal, you had two years of negotiations going on to sell them for 40 million apiece. Instead, you doubled down and bought another charter. There is nothing here that compares to what you are saying above.
Click to expand...
So no answer to my question, but instead you ask me a question? Lmao.

Teams should own the charters and not be able to have them taken at the end of a contract. End of ****** story. You just hate Denny, that's all this comes down to. If Hendrick or RCR was doing this, you be on the other side of the argument.
 
rd45usa said:
Leverage over the teams to sign. Losing 30 to 40 million of worth per charter is a lot of money to lose if the teams don't sign. If the charters were permanent Nascar would lose most of their leverage over the teams.
Click to expand...
So you think the media will pay the teams individually instead of Nascar along with the tracks Nascar owns? Huh? Nascar is the one getting the money. The teams get paid by Nascar.
 
Blaze said:
Say you buy a movie off Amazon Prime Video. Then let's say after sometime, Amazon just takes the movie from you... would you be okay with that? Because that's basically what this charter system is.
Click to expand...
The charters weren't purchased from NASCAR. Those still holding the charters NASCAR distributed paid nothing for them.

Those who purchased charters from the original holders were purchasing an agreement with NASCAR, one with a defined expiration date.
 
StandOnIt said:
So you think the media will pay the teams individually instead of Nascar along with the tracks Nascar owns? Huh? Nascar is the one getting the money. The teams get paid by Nascar.
Click to expand...
That doesn't have to be tied to the charters and the guaranteed place on the starting grid. NASCAR defines how much the unchartered teams get from the race purse, TV rights, bonus money, sponsor contingencies, etc. There's no reason it can't do the same with the chartered teams independent of the charter agreements.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
That doesn't have to be tied to the charters and the guaranteed place on the starting grid. NASCAR defines how much the unchartered teams get from the race purse, TV rights, bonus money, sponsor contingencies, etc. There's no reason it can't do the same with the chartered teams independent of the charter agreements.
Click to expand...
The money Nascar pays the teams is tied to the charters. This isn't the remake Nascar thread.
 
StandOnIt said:
The money Nascar pays the teams is tied to the charters. This isn't the remake Nascar thread.
Click to expand...
Just because it currently is tied to it doesn't mean it has to be. The charter system is less than ten years old. Moses didn't bring it down off the mountain engraved on two stone tablets. Separating the payout system from the guaranteed starts is a paperwork exercise with no effect on competition.

Opposition to change is a strange position from a guy who daily rails against the playoff system that's been in place over 20 years.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Just because it currently is tied to it doesn't mean it has to be. The charter system is less than ten years old. Moses didn't bring it down off the mountain engraved on two stone tablets. Separating the payout system from the guaranteed starts is a paperwork exercise with no effect on competition.

Opposition to change is a strange position from a guy who daily rails against the playoff system that's been in place over 20 years.
Click to expand...
If I saw any advantage to what you are saying to Nascar instead of giving a bunch of independent contractors more rights than I think they are entitled to it would be different. Let them start their own racing league or series or whatever they want to call it. Go talk to Larson and Sweet, they started a successful one.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
The charters weren't purchased from NASCAR. Those still holding the charters NASCAR distributed paid nothing for them.

Those who purchased charters from the original holders were purchasing an agreement with NASCAR, one with a defined expiration date.
Click to expand...
You're still paying for something you don't own, so I think its a good comparison. Because it's the same way with movies on Prime Video(and probably any other place yoau buy digital movies or shows) where you're paying money to have it as long as their is an agreement.

In this case say you buy a Spider-Man movie off Prime Video. Sony owns Spider-Man. Sony takes away Prime's rights to said movie, you no longer own that movie, you lose it from your library. So you spent money(thankfully something nowhere near the price of a charter) on something that you can lose at the end of the agreement.

That's what the charter system is. If at the end of this current agreement they signed, NASCAR says "yeah we're getting rid of this." The teams who did spend money on any of them, are out of the money they spent on one, or two, or three. Thats not right.
 
Blaze said:
That's what the charter system is. If at the end of this current agreement they signed, NASCAR says "yeah we're getting rid of this." The teams who did spend money on any of them, are out of the money they spent on one, or two, or three. Thats not right.
Click to expand...
So far none of that is happening. Nascar hasn't got rid of the charter system. It's still to be determined what happens to the two outlier team's charters until the court decides the case. At the present time they aren't chartered teams, they are appealing the courts to have them restored...Tomorrow is the day for that.
 
StandOnIt said:
So far none of that is happening. Nascar hasn't got rid of the charter system. It's still to be determined what happens to the two outlier team's charters until the court decides the case. At the present time they aren't chartered teams, they are appealing the courts to have them restored...Tomorrow is the day for that.
Click to expand...
Yeah so far. It would be to late to do anything about it after it happens. It's why you should want change before it ever does. I've already laid out how to do it.

Let teams permitly own the charters. But still have to approve the sale of it. Its that simple.
 
I wish both sides would get off their high horse and agree to settle.

I dont think either side is totally pure. Nascar owns the business, and I would agree that they should get a bigger cut than any of the teams.

But that doesn't make 23XI an evil force.
As cliche as it may be, you can also win this battle and still lose this war.

If Nascar wants the benevolent dictatorship image, they should stop it with playing hard ball. All the yip yap about taking care of the partners while disregarding one as big as the actual racing teams.

Calling them a contractor is an insult to the sweat and blood they have invested. Call it whatever you want, but Nascar still has to have good quality teams.

Yes, they can kick out any team and still survive, and there is probably nothing to stop them from pursuing the pleasure. But it is a pursuit that could unify the other teams or collective. There is also the blowback of driving away future interested parties.

I know that isn't a current problem with several groups or individuals pursuing a charter. But that doesn't mean it is any more sustainable in the long term than the old full grandstands with 150,000 fans.
 
StandOnIt said:
If I saw any advantage to what you are saying to Nascar instead of giving a bunch of independent contractors more rights than I think they are entitled to it would be different.
Click to expand...
I'd feel the same way if I saw any advantage to NASCAR retaining the charters. The only right NASCAR needs to give the charter holders is the right to a starting position.

:cheers:
 
Blaze said:
In this case say you buy a Spider-Man movie off Prime Video. Sony owns Spider-Man. Sony takes away Prime's rights to said movie, you no longer own that movie, you lose it from your library.
Click to expand...
I haven't read Prime's terms and conditions but I'll bet a big chunk that you don't 'buy' movies. You pay for the access to view them, revocable at any time with no notice. As a former network admin, I've read many others. Almost all of them guarantee you nothing in exchange for your money.

If you don't have the physical media, you haven't 'bought' anything
 
StandOnIt said:
So you think the media will pay the teams individually instead of Nascar along with the tracks Nascar owns? Huh? Nascar is the one getting the money. The teams get paid by Nascar.
Click to expand...
Your right about Nascar gets the money from TV networks. Nascar then holds the money over the teams head and says if you want a bigger piece of the pie, you have to sign the charter. At anytime we see fit to change anything in the charters, we can do it, and you can't sue us for making changes. And if we see fit to cancel the charters before the TV Network contract is up, we can do that and you can't sue us for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom