23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

gnomesayin said:
In your opinionating, you're misrepresenting key facts yet again. The only ruling by Bell that has been overturned is the preliminary injunction. You keep wrongly implying it was multiple rulings. Additionally, the ruling was not 7-0 because the entire appeals court declined to review the matter further. It was 3-0. This is simple correction, but why do you keep misstating basic facts?

If NASCAR has confidence that Bell's wider rulings on the merits of the case will be overturned on appeal, maybe they're only posturing in their recent public statements that they are urgently working to settle the case. We'll see.
Click to expand...
The ruling was called an abuse of discretion. Some of us think nothing has changed in that area. I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV, but it seems way over the line to me and a set up for a case that Ray Charles could see was going to go to trial. Not allowing Nascar's counterclaim to be heard appears to be handcuffing the defense. ;)

The judges ruled that the initial granting of the preliminary injunction by the lower district court was an abuse of discretion.
 
StandOnIt said:
The ruling was called an abuse of discretion.
Click to expand...

This is true, and more factual than anything in the post I responded to. The Appeals Court decisively found that Bell overstepped his bounds in granting the injunction, finding that no adequate case law precedent was cited.

That single ruling was important at that stage of the case, but it provides no basis for the ridiculous smears of Bell's competence or propriety that are being routinely posted here. It also does not speak to the merits of the case itself.

Notice that not a single poster sympathetic to the team owners reacted to the Appeals Court's decision by calling them France family lovers who are in NASCAR's back pocket. It remains disappointing that so many only respect the legal process when it agrees with their priors.
 
gnomesayin said:
In your opinionating, you're misrepresenting key facts yet again. The only ruling by Bell that has been overturned is the preliminary injunction. You keep wrongly implying it was multiple rulings. Additionally, the ruling was not 7-0 because the entire appeals court declined to review the matter further. It was 3-0. This is simple correction, but why do you keep misstating basic facts?

If NASCAR has confidence that Bell's wider rulings on the merits of the case will be overturned on appeal, maybe they're only posturing in their recent public statements that they are urgently working to settle the case. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I unintentionally misstated how their SECOND ruling came down. But make no mistake; when the full court declines to review it is in essence a separate decision, stating the 3 judge panel is correct.
 
Conover said:
Indeed, I unintentionally misstated how their SECOND ruling came down. But make no mistake; when the full court declines to review it is in essence a separate decision, stating the 3 judge panel is correct.
Click to expand...

In essence it can be said to be a de facto determination that the larger full court finds it unlikely that they would reverse the smaller panel's ruling. In other words, that it is unlikely they would decide 4-3 in the opposite direction. It does not imply unanimous agreement.
 
Yikes, those careless boys over at NASCAR have estopped themselves, which led directly to the judge ruling in favor of 23XI & FRM that the relevant market is "premier stock car racing."

Matt Weaver's article at Motorsport.com on Judge Bell's decisions issued Tuesday is the best review I've seen on these decisions. Hey, SOI... estoppel is sorta like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Expensive cake in this case. I would agree with those saying Judge Bell's estoppel ruling ramps up the pressure on NASCAR to settle the case before trial.

 
gnomesayin said:
That single ruling was important at that stage of the case, but it provides no basis for the ridiculous smears of Bell's competence or propriety that are being routinely posted here. It also does not speak to the merits of the case itself.
Click to expand...
Oh it does for me. When a higher court uses the words ?having your cake and eating it too", it shows how out of line that ruling was and is. I'm seeing that same type of thing with Bell's latest ruling. So you can go ahead and have your own opinion that is why we are here, making a mistake with the number of 7 compared to three (because it didn't take 7 to rule it was so blatant).
 
LewTheShoe said:
Yikes, those careless boys over at NASCAR have estopped themselves, which led directly to the judge ruling in favor of 23XI & FRM that the relevant market is "premier stock car racing."

Matt Weaver's article at Motorsport.com on Judge Bell's decisions issued Tuesday is the best review I've seen on these decisions. Hey, SOI... estoppel is sorta like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Expensive cake in this case. I would agree with those saying Judge Bell's estoppel ruling ramps up the pressure on NASCAR to settle the case before trial.

Click to expand...
I didn't read it but I would laugh if they lose the charters. Let the teams shoot themselves in the foot.
 
The teams not involved in the suit will all love 23XI if that happens and they lose their charters. People like Penske, Hendrick, Gibbs, Childress, and Haas who didn't pay for theirs originally
 
Conover said:
His application of law in earlier rulings proved invalid when the higher 4th circuit court ruled against him unanimously, not once but twice. Takes some pretty bad twisting of the law to have your decisions obliterated by a higher 7 judge panel.
Click to expand...
That makes him wrong but it doesn't prove him biased.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
That makes him wrong but it doesn't prove him biased.
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn’t…I feel he is leading and making select rulings (through his statements and comments) with bias. I can’t prove it. And of course my comments about him being a Jordan fanboy (as to bias motive) are just fun hyperbole. Bell is a Wake Forest grad, so not a Tar Heel proper. But that fact doesn’t preclude him from having a basement shrine to the greatest basketball player of all time….
 
Conover said:
But that fact doesn’t preclude him from having a basement shrine to the greatest basketball player of all time….
Click to expand...
Objection, Your Honor. Speculation on the part of the witness.

Ya know, not all of us in NC give a rip about Jordan or college sports. Hard to believe but there are a few of us.
 
Conover said:
Of course it doesn’t…I feel he is leading and making select rulings (through his statements and comments) with bias. I can’t prove it. And of course my comments about him being a Jordan fanboy (as to bias motive) are just fun hyperbole. Bell is a Wake Forest grad, so not a Tar Heel proper. But that fact doesn’t preclude him from having a basement shrine to the greatest basketball player of all time….
Click to expand...
"What if I propose imagining Bell has a shrine to MJ? Will that justify my positions?"
 
Conover said:
Of course it doesn’t…I feel he is leading and making select rulings (through his statements and comments) with bias. I can’t prove it. And of course my comments about him being a Jordan fanboy (as to bias motive) are just fun hyperbole. Bell is a Wake Forest grad, so not a Tar Heel proper. But that fact doesn’t preclude him from having a basement shrine to the greatest basketball player of all time….
Click to expand...
They need to get a camera shot at what kind of shoes he is wearing under that robe of his.. We need to get out in front of the courthouse carrying signs saying Check his shoes!...The check mark tells the tale!, :p
 
Depose Mr. H and The Captain? That's some fine pressure on NASCAR to settle and quick. Those two carry a TON of weight.
 
Hawaii808 said:
Depose Mr. H and The Captain? That's some fine pressure on NASCAR to settle and quick. Those two carry a TON of weight.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it could blow up in their faces. Mr. Hendrick and Mr. Penske have competed in many different racing series over the years and continue to do so...Oh that's right, Bell won't let them say that lol.
 
StandOnIt said:
On the other hand, it could blow up in their faces. Mr. Hendrick and Mr. Penske have competed in many different racing series over the years and continue to do so...Oh that's right, Bell won't let them say that lol.
Click to expand...
I've missed something again. What other series has Hendrick been in outside of NASCAR, besides a one-off for Le Mans?

Thanks.
 
Hawaii808 said:
Depose Mr. H and The Captain? That's some fine pressure on NASCAR to settle and quick. Those two carry a TON of weight.
Click to expand...
Just not sure on which side the weight falls. Roger is trying to model the nascar system for indy, so im not sure how much he'll be seeing things on the team side.
 
StandOnIt said:
On the other hand, it could blow up in their faces. Mr. Hendrick and Mr. Penske have competed in many different racing series over the years and continue to do so...Oh that's right, Bell won't let them say that lol.
Click to expand...
I get the impression these two gentlemen would like to keep private things private. It's called discovery for a reason...stuff gets found out.
 
They knew the section 1 allegation was weak, so they’ve focused on section 2, claiming several actions taken by NASCAR over the years, such as buying racetracks and purchasing ARCA (which anyone in the business knows was going to collapse without the buyout). These constitute a “monopsony” per the plantiffs, because NASCAR is the sole arbiter of what teams will earn for competing in their series.

IMO, trying to turn this into a monopsony is quite the linguistic somersault. Google AI says it is a market situation where there is only one buyer. Explaining further: “Examples of monopsony include a single major employer in a "company town," a government agency that is the sole buyer of a specific good, and large retailers or companies that are the primary employers in a particular region. Other examples are agricultural firms that are the main buyers of certain crops, such as a single sugar company buying most of a country's sugar beet output, and the tech industry where companies agree not to "poach" each other's employees.”

I’ll leave it to the court system and, hopefully, an educated jury, to follow all the tripe the Jordanaires intend to lay out…but explain to me how a racing series, evolved over 70+ years, and responding to the requests and needs of the racing teams, turned into a “monospony” such as what is described?
 
Conover said:
They knew the section 1 allegation was weak, so they’ve focused on section 2, claiming several actions taken by NASCAR over the years, such as buying racetracks and purchasing ARCA (which anyone in the business knows was going to collapse without the buyout). These constitute a “monopsony” per the plantiffs, because NASCAR is the sole arbiter of what teams will earn for competing in their series.

IMO, trying to turn this into a monopsony is quite the linguistic somersault. Google AI says it is a market situation where there is only one buyer. Explaining further: “Examples of monopsony include a single major employer in a "company town," a government agency that is the sole buyer of a specific good, and large retailers or companies that are the primary employers in a particular region. Other examples are agricultural firms that are the main buyers of certain crops, such as a single sugar company buying most of a country's sugar beet output, and the tech industry where companies agree not to "poach" each other's employees.”

I’ll leave it to the court system and, hopefully, an educated jury, to follow all the tripe the Jordanaires intend to lay out…but explain to me how a racing series, evolved over 70+ years, and responding to the requests and needs of the racing teams, turned into a “monospony” such as what is described?
Click to expand...
I liked when they wrote it to look like the France Family committed a crime to buy out all of their stockholders in their company so they own it outright, debt free and
un-beholden to anybody. I hope Nascar brings in their old friend the former owner of ARCA who still manages the series last I heard, to testify in court how Jim France held a gun to his head and made him sell out.
 
Conover said:
I’ll leave it to the court system and, hopefully, an educated jury, to follow all the tripe the Jordanaires intend to lay out…but explain to me how a racing series, evolved over 70+ years, and responding to the requests and needs of the racing teams, turned into a “monospony” such as what is described?
Click to expand...
By eliminating and consuming the competition until there was no longer any.
 
Conover said:
to follow all the tripe the Jordanaires intend to lay out
Click to expand...
Watch it there, boy. Don't go dragging Elvis' back-up vocalists into this. Bad mouth anyone in racing you want, including the King, but watch it when you get even close to THE KING! 🎸

Thankyouverymuch! Viva Las Vegas!
 
Conover said:
... explain to me how a racing series, evolved over 70+ years, and responding to the requests and needs of the racing teams, turned into a “monospony” such as what is described?
Click to expand...
'How it got there?' is a different question from 'Is it one?'. I'm guessing the second one is what the case will revolve around.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
'How it got there?' is a different question from 'Is it one?'. I'm guessing the second one is what the case will revolve around.
Click to expand...
It's funny seeing it presented as thought it is a "last ditch" thing too, because it's in the legal documents from the jump. Lol the first use of the word on this forum takes place in this thread in a quote by StandOnIt from 11 months ago.
 
StandOnIt said:
If Nascar is a "momospony" How many other racing series are the same. 23 tennis shoe can make a second career out of that.
Click to expand...
I know no one noticed or cared, but once Cadillac finally gained entry to F1, suddenly the US Department of Justice and Congress stopped asking Liberty Media questions about anticompetitive behavior.
 
KTMLew01 said:
It is in fact that simple.
Click to expand...
It is, which is why it's been the crux of this since day 1. Trial date is the first Monday after Thanksgiving, so I'm guessing we see notice of the settlement on Wednesday the 26th of November, 2025. There's probably a tweet from someone like Jordan Bianchi around 10AM EST indicating a deal was reached; 23XI and FRM will have their press release before lunch, and NASCAR will drop their's indicating their excitement to work together on the best season ever for 2026 at 4:30PM that day.
 
virtualbalboa said:
It is, which is why it's been the crux of this since day 1. Trial date is the first Monday after Thanksgiving, so I'm guessing we see notice of the settlement on Wednesday the 26th of November, 2025. There's probably a tweet from someone like Jordan Bianchi around 10AM EST indicating a deal was reached; 23XI and FRM will have their press release before lunch, and NASCAR will drop their's indicating their excitement to work together on the best season ever for 2026 at 4:30PM that day.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is most likely finishing up as a settlement very close to the start of trial. Seems they were very close until Jordan wanted NASCAR to pay for all his legal bills. That is the equivalent of a thief breaking into your home, busting down the door, tearing up walls looking for your money, then insisting the homeowner pay for all the destruction.
 
virtualbalboa said:
The nature of the takeovers doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
I think it completely matters. Nascar did come in throwing money around trying to push everyone out. They saved these entities from closing the doors and filing bankruptcy.

Does anyone think nascar actually wants to own and manage series below the trucks? If that's the case why are they not trying to throw money at the CARS tour for a buyout?
 
Conover said:
I agree, it is most likely finishing up as a settlement very close to the start of trial. Seems they were very close until Jordan wanted NASCAR to pay for all his legal bills. That is the equivalent of a thief breaking into your home, busting down the door, tearing up walls looking for your money, then insisting the homeowner pay for all the destruction.
Click to expand...
Then you might want to prepare yourself for some disappointment given the way you discuss this.
 
wi_racefan said:
I think it completely matters. Nascar did come in throwing money around trying to push everyone out. They saved these entities from closing the doors and filing bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter at all if those entities were on the verge of collapse because NASCAR's business model inherently required them to be on the verge of collapse.

wi_racefan said:
Does anyone think nascar actually wants to own and manage series below the trucks? If that's the case why are they not trying to throw money at the CARS tour for a buyout?
Click to expand...
I mean, NASCAR has made overtures repeatedly to do exactly that. And they aren't throwing money at the CARS Tour for a buy out because of the first thing I responded to.
 
wi_racefan said:
I think it completely matters. Nascar did come in throwing money around trying to push everyone out. They saved these entities from closing the doors and filing bankruptcy.

Does anyone think nascar actually wants to own and manage series below the trucks? If that's the case why are they not trying to throw money at the CARS tour for a buyout?
Click to expand...
It's the no good deed goes unpunished, or give then an inch and they take a mile.
Speaking of the CARS series, ya know who owns it? Earnhardt Jr, Kevin Harvick, Jeff Burton, and Justin Marks.
 
Conover said:
They knew the section 1 allegation was weak, so they’ve focused on section 2, claiming several actions taken by NASCAR over the years, such as buying racetracks and purchasing ARCA (which anyone in the business knows was going to collapse without the buyout). These constitute a “monopsony” per the plantiffs, because NASCAR is the sole arbiter of what teams will earn for competing in their series.

IMO, trying to turn this into a monopsony is quite the linguistic somersault. Google AI says it is a market situation where there is only one buyer. Explaining further: “Examples of monopsony include a single major employer in a "company town," a government agency that is the sole buyer of a specific good, and large retailers or companies that are the primary employers in a particular region. Other examples are agricultural firms that are the main buyers of certain crops, such as a single sugar company buying most of a country's sugar beet output, and the tech industry where companies agree not to "poach" each other's employees.”

I’ll leave it to the court system and, hopefully, an educated jury, to follow all the tripe the Jordanaires intend to lay out…but explain to me how a racing series, evolved over 70+ years, and responding to the requests and needs of the racing teams, turned into a “monospony” such as what is described?
Click to expand...
If they own most of the tracks, they can thereby keep anyone out of said track that they want. If a Stock Car Racing series wanted try and compete with NASCAR, they would have a hard time, since many of the tracks that are at a level or capacity to hold events of that level are owned by NASCAR. That alone helps create said problem.

It has been mentioned before, by me, but take professional wrestling for example, if WWE owned most of the major arenas in the United States, a company like AEW would have never gotten off the ground, and WWE would be the only company in town where professional wrestlers could make big bucks.

Its the same here, NASCAR owning a majority of the tracks, means they can crush out any true competition. They aren't going to care about Indy or F1, that's a different type of racing, they arent going to care about CARS like @wi_racefan wants to ask about, because they aren't even anywhere close to being able to compete. It would be like WWE trying to buy a small independent wrestling company, that most fans never heard of, it wouldn't make sense and they don't care enough to squash out a racing series that isn't even on most people's radar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom