23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

AlTerego said:
Did anyone see any smoking guns?
Click to expand...
This one smokes for me.
1756418084999.png
 
StandOnIt said:
Reading the above post, these people do not like each other. The two lawyers from the sides don't like each other. This isn't court room theatrics, they REALLY don't like each other.
Michael Jordan says he is in it for the good of the sport...really? Looks like they are trying to do what I said they were doing and trying to start an alternate series, hence the monopoly nonsense.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure what is sacred about Nascars intellectual property. I think one would have to be as crazy as the leagues that try competing against the NFL, to go that route.

But there are plenty of race car builders that could put together full-bodied race cars without needing any of nsscars' intellectual properties or copyrights, etc.

They could also find a countless number of short tracks, plenty of road courses, and some intermediate sized tracks that are not sanctioned by Nascar for a startup.

They wouldn't have the same amenities, seating capacity etc but if they could get enough drivers and teams to get a TV deal, they could probably put a season together before burning out.

My point is that I do not see how there is anything about Nascars' intellectual property that prevents a rival sanctioning body.

Nascar is just too big and powerful to fight. The drivers and other personnel would be terrified over getting shunned or permanently banned to sign on to an outfit that would probably burn out and fail in just a couple of years.

Nascar is untouchable and impervious, and the Micheal Jordon money isn't a threat. This is just a contractual TV money fight imo.
 
NASCAR got along profitably for decades without owning tracks or ARCA, without holding automotive IP, and without a charter system. Indeed, it had none of those when its popularity was at its peak.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Settle. Give the teams their charters and then tracks, intellectual property, ARCA, everything else will be dropped. Watch.
Click to expand...
That's my theory too. At least be a good start. Maybe teams would like the new TV revenue payments spread over course of that agreement instead of being so front loaded? Same dollar amount just paid over 5 years? All evenish amounts?
 
Hayseeds who want Nascar broken up and having private equity firms buying up the sport I have mentioned this before. Who would care more about the health of the sport would you think?
 
StandOnIt said:
Pay them what they spent on charters and send them down the road. "we reserve the right to refuse service" to maintain an orderly environment.
Click to expand...
NASCAR cannot violate The Sherman Act in order to “maintain an orderly environment.”
 
Greg said:
I am not so sure what is sacred about Nascars intellectual property. I think one would have to be as crazy as the leagues that try competing against the NFL, to go that route.

But there are plenty of race car builders that could put together full-bodied race cars without needing any of nsscars' intellectual properties or copyrights, etc.

They could also find a countless number of short tracks, plenty of road courses, and some intermediate sized tracks that are not sanctioned by Nascar for a startup.

They wouldn't have the same amenities, seating capacity etc but if they could get enough drivers and teams to get a TV deal, they could probably put a season together before burning out.

My point is that I do not see how there is anything about Nascars' intellectual property that prevents a rival sanctioning body.

Nascar is just too big and powerful to fight. The drivers and other personnel would be terrified over getting shunned or permanently banned to sign on to an outfit that would probably burn out and fail in just a couple of years.

Nascar is untouchable and impervious, and the Micheal Jordon money isn't a threat. This is just a contractual TV money fight imo.
Click to expand...
It is CLEAR Jordan is, once again, full of more money than sense. And CLEARLY they were positioning to either get EVERYTHING they wanted from NASCAR via pushing the teams to reject the charter agreement unless it gave away tons of equity, or they would BREAK AWAY and form their own series via an alliance with Speedway Motorsports.

Didn’t work. NASCAR’s contract offer was accepted by all but two teams. Speedway knew the risk factor of vectoring away from NASCAR was enormous, and wisely didn’t jump off the cliff with “The Gambler and The Hamster”.

Jordan’s comments were disgusting but nothing new. “I’ve lost more than that at the casino”…is the attitude from a filthy rich disrupter. He’s “doing this for the teams” is a massive crock of crap. He sure loves JGR!
 
Conover said:
via an alliance with Speedway Motorsports.
Click to expand...
I missed the mention of SMI. Would you reply with the number of the post that includes them? I've searched for their name and initials on this page but there's no mention of potential arrangements with 23xi or FRM before your post.

Thanks!
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I missed the mention of SMI. Would you reply with the number of the post that includes them? Thanks.
Click to expand...
I think it was from post 3508 on page 88. The really lengthy summary. There are also some X posts out there with various quotes.

Also @aunty dive, please tell us what exactly NASCAR has proven to have done which violates the Sherman Act? Mere business negotiation and corporate alliances do NOT establish a monopoly. It is a very HIGH standard to prove in court.

Lastly this judge will forever harp for them to settle. It’s because he is pushing for MJ and company but doesn’t want to rule, thereby getting WHACK A MOLED again by the judicial panel who recognize his judgements are bad law.
 
StandOnIt said:
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.
Click to expand...

AT&T built much of the initial telephone infrastructure in this country but they were still found to be an illegal monopoly.
 
Conover said:
I think it was from post 3508 on page 88. The really lengthy summary. There are also some X posts out there with various quotes.

Also @aunty dive, please tell us what exactly NASCAR has proven to have done which violates the Sherman Act? Mere business negotiation and corporate alliances do NOT establish a monopoly. It is a very HIGH standard to prove in court.

Lastly this judge will forever harp for them to settle. It’s because he is pushing for MJ and company but doesn’t want to rule, thereby getting WHACK A MOLED again by the judicial panel who recognize his judgements are bad law.
Click to expand...
Bell did remind them that it would be a Charlotte jury instead of a NY one. If that was meant as a help or a warning? I think it was a warning to the teams.
 
StandOnIt said:
Bell did remind them that it would be a Charlotte jury instead of a NY one. If that was meant as a help or a warning? I think it was a warning to the teams.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's going to be a jury trial? I don't know why I thought it would be the judge's decision.
 
Conover said:
It is CLEAR Jordan is, once again, full of more money than sense. And CLEARLY they were positioning to either get EVERYTHING they wanted from NASCAR via pushing the teams to reject the charter agreement unless it gave away tons of equity, or they would BREAK AWAY and form their own series via an alliance with Speedway Motorsports.

Didn’t work. NASCAR’s contract offer was accepted by all but two teams. Speedway knew the risk factor of vectoring away from NASCAR was enormous, and wisely didn’t jump off the cliff with “The Gambler and The Hamster”.

Jordan’s comments were disgusting but nothing new. “I’ve lost more than that at the casino”…is the attitude from a filthy rich disrupter. He’s “doing this for the teams” is a massive crock of crap. He sure loves JGR!
Click to expand...
Denny and MJ two notorious gambling addicts, no wonder they are business partners.
 
Refresher …


“U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell questioned a "no sue" clause in NASCAR's charter agreement, which barred teams from bringing antitrust lawsuits, stating it could violate antitrust law by forcing teams into a "catch-22". Although an appeals court later disagreed and stated that requiring a business to waive past claims for past conduct isn't necessarily anti-competitive, Bell issued a preliminary injunction allowing the teams to sign the charter agreement without the release clause while the antitrust lawsuit proceeds. The injunction aimed to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm to the teams, who argued being unchartered could lead to business failure.


The "No Sue" Clause
  • The clause in question, part of the 2025 charter agreement, required teams to waive their rights to sue NASCAR for antitrust claims as a condition of signing.

  • NASCAR argued this was a standard contractual provision, but the teams, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, claimed it was anti-competitive and forced them to choose between their right to sue or being able to compete in NASCAR.
Judge Bell's Stance
  • Judge Bell agreed with the teams, finding the clause placed them in a "catch-22" and was likely to violate antitrust law.

  • He issued a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo, allowing the teams to sign the charter agreement without the problematic release clause.

  • He also denied NASCAR's motion to dismiss the case, allowing the antitrust claims to move forward.
Appeals Court and Subsequent Ruling
  • NASCAR appealed the preliminary injunction.

  • An appeals court disagreed with the initial ruling, finding that waiving the right to sue for past conduct was not inherently anti-competitive.

  • However, the original injunction was to keep the status quo in place during the lawsuit, and NASCAR still had to allow the teams to operate as if they were chartered.
The Current Situation
  • The legal battle continues, with the teams seeking a permanent injunction to restore their chartered status.

  • Judge Bell's initial ruling focused on preventing harm to the teams, who argued that losing their chartered status would be a "death blow" and could put them out of business.”
 
aunty dive said:
Refresher …


“U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell questioned a "no sue" clause in NASCAR's charter agreement, which barred teams from bringing antitrust lawsuits, stating it could violate antitrust law by forcing teams into a "catch-22". Although an appeals court later disagreed and stated that requiring a business to waive past claims for past conduct isn't necessarily anti-competitive, Bell issued a preliminary injunction allowing the teams to sign the charter agreement without the release clause while the antitrust lawsuit proceeds. The injunction aimed to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm to the teams, who argued being unchartered could lead to business failure.


The "No Sue" Clause
  • The clause in question, part of the 2025 charter agreement, required teams to waive their rights to sue NASCAR for antitrust claims as a condition of signing.

  • NASCAR argued this was a standard contractual provision, but the teams, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, claimed it was anti-competitive and forced them to choose between their right to sue or being able to compete in NASCAR.
Judge Bell's Stance
  • Judge Bell agreed with the teams, finding the clause placed them in a "catch-22" and was likely to violate antitrust law.

  • He issued a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo, allowing the teams to sign the charter agreement without the problematic release clause.

  • He also denied NASCAR's motion to dismiss the case, allowing the antitrust claims to move forward.
Appeals Court and Subsequent Ruling
  • NASCAR appealed the preliminary injunction.

  • An appeals court disagreed with the initial ruling, finding that waiving the right to sue for past conduct was not inherently anti-competitive.

  • However, the original injunction was to keep the status quo in place during the lawsuit, and NASCAR still had to allow the teams to operate as if they were chartered.
The Current Situation
  • The legal battle continues, with the teams seeking a permanent injunction to restore their chartered status.

  • Judge Bell's initial ruling focused on preventing harm to the teams, who argued that losing their chartered status would be a "death blow" and could put them out of business.”
Click to expand...
Huh? I believe all this was overturned when it was kicked up to a higher court? Remember cake and eat it too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom