23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

RaceCritter said:
*wanders in.
Looks around.
No soup yet.

Leaves again.*
Click to expand...
1760237118223.png
1760237139070.png
 
I do appreciate the mods letting us have a little fun with the 100 pages or die thing. It's almost over. That's IF somebody creates a new thread after they don't go to court. Are we going for 200 after the meditation?
 
KTMLew01 said:
I do appreciate the mods letting us have a little fun with the 100 pages or die thing. It's almost over. That's IF somebody creates a new thread after they don't go to court. Are we going for 200 after the meditation?
Click to expand...
After the 100th page, all posters except the top 12 will be eliminated. The remaining 12 will have their post counts reset for the next 100 pages.
 
I posted a what if about the Saudi takeover of Golf example many pages ago. I mentioned a private equity group could be in play. An understatement was that some of the posters were a bit skeptical? Well, Nascar didn't think so either.



1760587065159.jpeg
 
It would be nice if the teams just came out and said what they are trying to accomplish. The narrative seems to change
 
wi_racefan said:
It would be nice if the teams just came out and said what they are trying to accomplish. The narrative seems to change
Click to expand...

It isn't much of a mystery to those who have been watching carefully. Permanent charter ownership is by far the biggest piece.

Perhaps it would be nice if NASCAR came out and articulated in public why it is so important to them that charters be temporary and that teams should have to negotiate for their very existence with every new broadcast rights cycle. But that isn't how business works of course.
 
gnomesayin said:
It isn't much of a mystery to those who have been watching carefully. Permanent charter ownership is by far the biggest piece.

Perhaps it would be nice if NASCAR came out and articulated in public why it is so important to them that charters be temporary and that teams should have to negotiate for their very existence with every new broadcast rights cycle. But that isn't how business works of course.
Click to expand...
If it was just permanent charters then why does Denny continue to say "we want our fair share"?

The reason they have to renegotiate everything tv deal is that's because that's where the vast majority of the money is coming from. Nascar and the tracks have a lot of fixed costs, if they money is good they share more. If the money isn't good they can't share more because at the end of the pay it still costs what it costs to operate tracks.

On the other hand teams spend a lot of money on things that aren't fixed costs. Wind tunnel time, fancy shops, engineering, simulation, CFD.....at the end of the day you can take that all away and still show up and race.
 
gnomesayin said:
Perhaps it would be nice if NASCAR came out and articulated in public why it is so important to them that charters be temporary and that teams should have to negotiate for their very existence with every new broadcast rights cycle. But that isn't how business works of course.
Click to expand...
Part of it is ridiculously simple. Nascar doesn't know how much their TV deal is going to be until their negotiations are finished. It's smart business to be able to figure out what percentage the teams can have after that. Who in their right mind wants this 23XI crap every time there is a new contract? As motor racing has been dying a slow death and as fickle as the entertainment TV business is, who has a clue as to what at the end of these 7 years what the market will be.

Another part is that there are corporate hedge funds predators running loose the can easily take over a smaller sport (PGA) and make it their own. Giving them the car, forcing Nascar to allow them to use Nascar tracks, or having the raiders buying out the Smiths are all things to consider in these days and time for survival of the family business.
Hey it's great if you think Nascar is the big bad meany, but I would be carefull what you ask for. Nascar Daytona might be called the Qatar 500.
 
Average annual NASCAR rights fees:

2025-2031: $1.1 billion per year
2015-2024: $820 million per year
2007-2014: $560 million per year
2001-2006: $496 million per year

I spot a trend, and I doubt a collapse is coming in the foreseeable future. Even amongst declining viewership, sports properties with national pull at the level of NASCAR are few and far between, and have ever increasing value relative to everything else.

Yes, it is nice for the France family to maintain their current leverage over the team owners. It is smart business while it lasts. If they get outsmarted and lose some of that leverage, whether that is bad for anyone but them is open to interpretation.
 
Using these figures shows positively that the TV payout fluctuates, I don't see a predictable trend.

2025-2031: $1.1 billion per year 34.5% increase over previous contract
2015-2024: $820 million per year 46% increase
2007-2014: $560 million per year Roughly 13% increase over 2001-2006
2001-2006: $496 million per year
 
wi_racefan said:
The reason they have to renegotiate everything tv deal is that's because that's where the vast majority of the money is coming from. Nascar and the tracks have a lot of fixed costs, if they money is good they share more. If the money isn't good they can't share more because at the end of the pay it still costs what it costs to operate tracks.
Click to expand...
StandOnIt said:
Nascar doesn't know how much their TV deal is going to be until their negotiations are finished. It's smart business to be able to figure out what percentage the teams can have after that.
Click to expand...
I don't see what the exact percentage of cut has to do with having permanent access to what ever the cut turns out to be. Why can't the charters be given to the teams, with the accompanying rights and privileges, without having to specify the exact payout numbers? "Here's the right to a starting spot and this much money, subject to NASCAR's discrection." As we saw its mandatory signing deadline, NASCAR is going to hand out the amount of money it wants to, regardless.

But I've lost track of why NASCAR created the charters in the first place. I'm told the goal wasn't primarily to give the teams an ROI asset. If not for that reason, then nothing the charters have brought to the teams required creating the charters in the first place. Payout amounts and guaranteed starts were accomplished by a variety of other means for several decades.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Great question. Give the teams the charters permanently and it won't happen again.
Click to expand...
And they may also lose the sport. If you relinquish the charters on a permanent basis there's a real fear that large investors (foreign or domestic) buy the majority of the charters and make a forced take over. Like someone else mentioned look at the PGA.

When nascar owns the charters they can dictate who they're allowed to be transferred to. If you give up ownership it becomes a legal of battle of whether you can tell someone who they can sell their property to.
 
wi_racefan said:
Like someone else mentioned look at the PGA.
Click to expand...
No one bought the PGA. The Saudis started a rival league and are willing to lose money to buy good will. With the money they have, they can start a racing league from scratch if they wanted.

There's nothing now that prevents large investors from purchasing teams. Nothing prevents NASCAR from having a clause requiring its approval over charter sales, similar to how other sports sanctioning bodies have approval over team transfers.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
No one bought the PGA. The Saudis started a rival league and are willing to lose money to buy good will. With the money they have, they can start a racing league from scratch if they wanted.

There's nothing now that prevents large investors from purchasing teams. Nothing prevents NASCAR from having a clause requiring its approval over charter sales, similar to how other sports sanctioning bodies have approval over team transfers.
Click to expand...
No one bought the PGA.

They didn't have to. The PGA didn't own any of the courses. They only had to offer more money.

With 23XI trying to break up Nascar, allow their car to be used other places besides Nascar events, potentially losing control of their racing tracks, what to any bird on a wire, doesn't this look like something similar if 23XI wins it's case? Sure would make it easier to take over or seriously weaken a racing series to me.
 
I am not even the biggest fan of golf but I feel like the LIV/PGA thing is being totally misrepresented here. The Saudis set up a separate golf league with an entirely different structure (literally team golf) and then paid the golfers enormous sums of money to move over to golf for LIV. They didn't buy courses or events. They bought nothing. And ultimately by paying oodles of money for the golfers, the Saudis were able to force PGA and the European Tour to agree to what was in effect a form of a merger.

If a foreign entity wanted to do the same, they could do the same exact thing. Just hire away all the NASCAR stars/teams. It won't be that tough if you present them with pools of guaranteed money because the revenue teams generate has dipped so much over the last 20 years. Unlike golf, they could also buy half of the sport's venues by making a single acquisition (SMI).
 
Charlie Spencer said:
It does if I thought the items stated in the case were 23XI and FRM's goals, and not a tool to gain only charter ownership. We're back to our core disagreement.
Click to expand...
You should pull up the Sherman act and take a good look at it. People continuously taking guesses about it's this or it's that. They are suing and saying Nascar is in violation of the Sherman act. If found guilty of such the family business will get drawn and quartered by a judge.
 
StandOnIt said:
You should pull up the Sherman act and take a good look at it. People continuously taking guesses about it's this or it's that. They are suing and saying Nascar is in violation of the Sherman act. If found guilty of such the family business will get drawn and quartered by a judge.
Click to expand...
We're at our other point of contention, in that I have always thought this will be settled out of court before the trial starts.
 


A summary judgement is a decision on the merits issued by the judge overseeing a case without a trial. This judge, Kenneth D. Bell, has also indicated he is quite unlikely to render a summary judgment verdict for either party as to not taint the jury pool in advance of a scheduled trial in December.
 
I'm pretty sure that neither side wants to settle this is just a game for when they go to trial. "We spent several days trying to reach an agreement, but the other side isn't willing to reach a settlement"
 
wi_racefan said:
I'm pretty sure that neither side wants to settle this is just a game for when they go to trial. "We spent several days trying to reach an agreement, but the other side isn't willing to reach a settlement"
Click to expand...
NASCAR said all they had to say when they presented the teams with a contract that had to be signed "today or else". Two years of NASCAR pretty much saying, it's our way or the highway. I understand most of this boards prolific posters 100% agree with that take. Some of us say that pretty much describes their intent to maintain their monopoly over the top tier of STOCK CAR RACING. I also understand they created that series.

Does anyone believe there is another US based series that IS a competitor? Do you really believe some rich Wall Street entrepreneur is eyeballing what NASCAR has become with the idea...WE CAN DO THAT TOO & BETTER! IT'S A LICENSE TO PRINT MONEY!
 
KTMLew01 said:
Does anyone believe there is another US based series that IS a competitor? Do you really believe some rich Wall Street entrepreneur is eyeballing what NASCAR has become with the idea...WE CAN DO THAT TOO & BETTER! IT'S A LICENSE TO PRINT MONEY!
Click to expand...
If they can get it cheap enough as in distressed. 1 billion a year gross isn't anything to ignore.
 
Two issues at stake here. 23XI trying to prove Nascar is a monopoly that violates antitrust laws and Nascar's countersuit saying 23XI colluded along with other teams conspired to engage in anticompetitive collective conduct regarding contract negotiations, which NASCAR claims violates antitrust laws. They are calling it an illegal cartel.

Judge Bell has allowed Nascar's countersuit to proceed. Trial date Dec 1
 
StandOnIt said:
Two issues at stake here. 23XI trying to prove Nascar is a monopoly that violates antitrust laws and Nascar's countersuit saying 23XI colluded along with other teams conspired to engage in anticompetitive collective conduct regarding contract negotiations, which NASCAR claims violates antitrust laws. They are calling it an illegal cartel.

Judge Bell has allowed Nascar's countersuit to proceed. Trial date Dec 1
Click to expand...
The greatest day in history is Dec 2nd. Be 68 years of superior intellect!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom