23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Gerbiling.....

A little recreational hate is good for motorsports. The passion to put a whipping on the opposition, etc. I would even say it is a natural part of the passion.

But I dont think anybody wishes for the absolute worst (death and pain) for Hamlin, Jordan, the France family, or the other interested parties.

But please, please don't have any spiritual epiphanies or
whatever that would deprive us of what matters most, at least not until we achieve 100 freaking pages. Feel and embrace the hate, the gut-wrenching kind. At least as long as it is skillfully edged enough not to violate the RF posting rules, cause that kind of thing word hurt the page count

#One Hun-Nerd Pages.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I'm still wondering if that clause was in the first charter contract or added for the second one.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was done to be sure their contracted teams couldn’t do irreparable harm by aligning as partners then using lawsuits to do exactly what the MJHamcrap sandwich is doing right now. Teams get access to a lot of important info, intellectual property and are intrinsically tied into the NASCAR product. Protections are required to manage such symbiotic relationships. Remember…
  • June 2025: An appeals court ruled that requiring a company to give a release for past conduct as a condition for doing business does not necessarily violate antitrust law, siding with NASCAR's right to enforce the waiver for teams seeking the benefits of a charter.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
1) 23xi is a Toyota team because Denny was already driving for them at Gibbs. If Gibbs had still been a GM team, 23xi would be also. Chevy and Ford and corporate cultures were probably never considered when Hamlin and Jordan put the team together; they were going with whoever already had Hamlin under contract. After several years of interaction, Toyota must have known what type of person they were getting with Denny; that doesn't seem to have bothered them.

2) If you don't think similarly worded texts and emails aren't buried in the records of most teams, manufacturers, suppliers, tracks, and everyone else involved in motorsports, congratulations on keeping the reality spots off your rose-colored glasses.
Click to expand...
1. MY Toyota people dealt with Busch for years. Yeah, knowing what you got is one thing, having it out there for everybody to see is another. WE aren't happy. 23XI doesn't wag the Toyota dog.
2. See 1.
 
StandOnIt said:
If you are talking about the no sue clause, it has been there for years. Kenny Wallace said it was there in the 80's
Click to expand...
I asked about the no antitrust lawsuit clause that appeared in the first charter agreements. Neither the agreements nor the charters themselves existed 45 years ago.
 
aunty dive said:
I asked about the no antitrust lawsuit clause that appeared in the first charter agreements. Neither the agreements nor the charters themselves existed 45 years ago.
Click to expand...
Considering it would take a court order to see if that information existed or not, I think that goes into the where's Waldo section of the argument.
 
aunty dive said:
I’m aware of the content.
Click to expand...
What's your point? You ask a "what happened" question about a clause in the charter agreement and then post a plaintiff argument? BTW the Charter agreement isn't public knowledge but it is confidential.
aunty dive said:
I’ve often wondered what prompted NASCAR to include a no antitrust lawsuit clause in its charter agreement document.
Click to expand...
 
You might try responding to the question.

A conversation might ensue which is what I was looking for.
 
StandOnIt said:
The first thing is to find out if it is a true statement. We aren't there yet.
Click to expand...

There is a no-antitrust lawsuit clause in the 2025 charter agreement. That is a known fact. A judge commented on it months ago.
 
aunty dive said:
There is a no-antitrust lawsuit clause in the 2025 charter agreement. That is a known fact. A judge commented on it months ago.
Click to expand...
First I heard of it. I have heard of a no sue clause. I keep up with things pretty well. I could be mistaken but I think you have that confused with the no sue clause and the judge said you can sue when you are an unchartered team. Signing the Charter agreement had the no sue clause in it, probably still does.
 
The charter agreement forbids signatories to those documents from bringing antitrust charges against NASCAR.

Please add this fact to the list of things you keep up with pretty well.

Why, as previously asked more than once, do you suppose NASCAR included that clause in the agreement?
 
aunty dive said:
The charter agreement forbids signatories to those documents from bringing antitrust charges against NASCAR.

Please add this fact to the list of things you keep up with pretty well.

Why, as previously asked more than once, do you suppose NASCAR included that clause in the agreement?
Click to expand...
Without a copy of the document, there is no proof of that being a fact. There is a no sue clause that the suing teams have mentioned. The teams didn't agree to the contract terms so they are suing.
 
Judge Bell has a copy.

“U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Bell criticized the "release-to-race" requirement in the 2025 NASCAR charter agreement, which prevents teams from suing NASCAR for antitrust violations. Bell noted that the clause puts teams in a "catch-22" situation, making it a potentially illegal act under antitrust law, as teams cannot sue without a charter, yet they must sign the release to get one. He has indicated that NASCAR's requirement "does not pass muster" and is likely to violate antitrust law.”
 
If you remember Nascar has said from the start that this is a contract disagreement. The teams are saying it is a violation of the Sherman act.
 
aunty dive said:
Judge Bell has a copy.

“U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Bell criticized the "release-to-race" requirement in the 2025 NASCAR charter agreement, which prevents teams from suing NASCAR for antitrust violations. Bell noted that the clause puts teams in a "catch-22" situation, making it a potentially illegal act under antitrust law, as teams cannot sue without a charter, yet they must sign the release to get one. He has indicated that NASCAR's requirement "does not pass muster" and is likely to violate antitrust law.”
Click to expand...
Kenneth Bell was overruled
 
StandOnIt said:
If you remember Nascar has said from the start that this is a contract disagreement. The teams are saying it is a violation of the Sherman act.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what either side chooses to call it.

Interestingly, NASCAR’s legal team are antitrust specialists.
 
I thought NASCAR declared this matter a contract dispute. Isn’t the court going with that? 😇
 
StandOnIt said:
They aren't the ones doing the suing. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...
Does a counter-suit register?

“U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on Monday denied a motion to dismiss NASCAR’s antitrust counterclaim against Front Row Motorsports, 23XI Racing and 23XI co-owner Curtis Polk, a group NASCAR says has engineered an “illegal cartel.”

www.sportico.com

NASCAR‘s Countersuit Against 23XI, Front Row Motorsports Advances

A federal judge has denied a motion to dismiss NASCAR's counterclaim against 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports and Curtis Polk.
www.sportico.com www.sportico.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom