Maybe they can do like Nascar did. Get off their privileged asses, create a car, find and use tracks that others own to race on like Nascar did. Novel Idea I know in these days and times.
They arent many Tracks ready for a big stock car series they dont own. They would have to basically race on small tracks that aren't up to good enough safety standards for a stock car series that could be on the level of NASCAR.Maybe they can do like Nascar did. Get off their privileged asses, create a car, find and use tracks that others own to race on like Nascar did. Novel Idea I know in these days and times.
I'm guessing a lot of them, but no one has filed a lawsuit over it.If Nascar is a "momospony" How many other racing series are the same.
Pretty much shows the insanity. Trying to set a precedent that most of the Auto racing series are momosponies.... And we need trebble damages because we have been harmed.I'm guessing a lot of them, but no one has filed a lawsuit over it.
In order to file a lawsuit, you have to first have suffered damages as a result of the actor you are suing since that is the purpose of bringing a civil suit. The average person doesn't qualify. Those who might qualify to sue such a company generally have reason not to do so and/or they don't meet the criteria.I'm guessing a lot of them, but no one has filed a lawsuit over it.
No contract, but NASCAR could easily prevent it from just saying they would pull races from them.Am I missing something here and does SMI have a contract to only hold nascar stock car races?
That's what 12 major tracks that anyone can run at right?
So this is all based on the potential of a possible threat? Boy that sounds thin.No contract, but NASCAR could easily prevent it from just saying they would pull races from them.
11 tracks SMI owns. One of which isn't active(Kentucky) so basically 10 tracks. Charlotte is basically NASCAR's home, so i doubt they would work with a competitor. So we're down to 9. So if all tracks had 2 races we're looking at an 18 race maybe 20 if I'm wrong about Charlotte. But that's also assuming they would work with another stock car organization.
NASCAR being able to use any sort of power to do that, is what makes it a monopoly.
Well if NASCAR would never do it, what would be so bad about ruling they couldn't? I mean if it wouldn't change anything on how they would handle the situation then its no big deal, correct? Or do we have to let them do what they want, and just hope they won't do it?So this is all based on the potential of a possible threat? Boy that sounds thin.
I thank you for your valuable input.^ If 2 sausages were sitting in a frying pan discussing The Sherman act, it would sound something like this.
"Only a fool fights in a burning buiding."^ If 2 sausages were sitting in a frying pan discussing The Sherman act, it would sound something like this.
Cooked sausages, naturally.
Wasn't there an issue within the last couple of years regarding the CARS tour not running at Rockingham because of NASCAR markings around the track?So this is all based on the potential of a possible threat? Boy that sounds thin.
You may want to change brands of sausages.I wear my welding jacket to fry sausages.
If it is an issue then why do they run the same week as cup at North Wilkesboro?Wasn't there an issue within the last couple of years regarding the CARS tour not running at Rockingham because of NASCAR markings around the track?
Didn't my English teacher tell me to not use run-on sentences?
I was asking a question. I can't answer yours until someone answers mine.If it is an issue then why do they run the same week as cup at North Wilkesboro?
It was one of the vintage series IIRC and they wound up at the smaller track instead as a result of NASCAR throwing a fit.Wasn't there an issue within the last couple of years regarding the CARS tour not running at Rockingham because of NASCAR markings around the track?
Didn't my English teacher tell me to not use run-on sentences?
Speaking of the CARS series, ya know who owns it? Earnhardt Jr, Kevin Harvick, Jeff Burton, and Justin Marks.
Am I missing something here and does SMI have a contract to only hold nascar stock car races?
@Blaze is wrong, I believe. I am almost 100% certain that Nascar's sanction agreement includes a clause that the host track cannot also host a non-Nascar stock car race in the same year, unless Nascar grants special permission to do so.No contract...
That is from the previous contract. This below is from the current oneSecond, Nascar's exclusionary clause specifies stock cars but makes no mention of Indycar, F1, sports cars, motocross, or sprint cars... because these various forms of racing are not part of Nascar's market, which is premier-level stock car racing.
I am almost 100% certain that Nascar's sanction agreement includes a clause that the host track cannot also host a non-Nascar stock car race in the same year, unless Nascar grants special permission to do so. ... Second, Nascar's exclusionary clause specifies stock cars but makes no mention of Indycar, F1, sports cars, motocross, or sprint cars... because these various forms of racing are not part of Nascar's market, which is premier-level stock car racing.
I think the clause @LewTheShoe mentioned refers to host tracks, not teams.That is from the previous contract. This below is from the current one
“The provision was expanded upon in the 2025 charter agreement. … teams with 2025 Charter Agreements are now prohibited from participating in any ‘automobile or truck racing’ series not sanctioned by NASCAR.”
Thanks for the correction@Blaze is wrong, I believe. I am almost 100% certain that Nascar's sanction agreement includes a clause that the host track cannot also host a non-Nascar stock car race in the same year, unless Nascar grants special permission to do so.
This contractual prohibition is relevant to the lawsuit in several ways, IMO. First, it's an example of Nascar's enormous power over other members of the racing community being used to stifle competition. Do any other sanction agreements include such an extraordinary provision?
Second, Nascar's exclusionary clause specifies stock cars but makes no mention of Indycar, F1, sports cars, motocross, or sprint cars... because these various forms of racing are not part of Nascar's market, which is premier-level stock car racing.
Charlie, I posted from general knowledge having observed many discussions of the sancring agreements over the years. However, it is also discussed in 23XI & FRM's original fijing of the lawsuit in 2024, widely reported including...Respectfully, source and documentation, please.
The Tracks were being discussed, not the teams.
Doesn't RWR run a car in the CARS tour? I thought it won the owner's title?
It could be authorized. Like I said, they don't see CARS as a threat.Doesn't RWR run a car in the CARS tour? I thought it won the owner's title?
RWR also runs a two-car team in F1. Between that and Penske and Mark's participation in multiple series, authorization looks to be as easy to get a driver's waiver. Still, having to ask permission sounds anti-competitive to my untrained ear but I'm not a lawyer.Doesn't RWR run a car in the CARS tour? I thought it won the owner's title?
Justin Marks races in other series also. Jr. races in Xfinity, CARS etc. Haas F-1. Pretty sure the latest stronger rules were put in when Nascar got a whiff of what 23XI is attempting to do.Doesn't RWR run a car in the CARS tour? I thought it won the owner's title?
To be fair to that one, it doew say Stock CarsRWR also runs a two-car team in F1.
To be fair to that one, it doew say Stock Cars![]()
Please try to keep up with the discussion.To be fair to that one, it doew say Stock Cars![]()
My mistake
I definitely deserve that lol.Please try to keep up with the discussion.![]()
My apologies, it's Gene Haas that has the F1 team.Do they run the F1 team under another name? Only non NASCAR thing i see them in is NHRA and American Flat Track.
Ahhh okay.My apologies, it's Gene Haas that has the F1 team.
Haas F1 Team | Haas F1 Team
www.haasf1team.com
I like salsa on my crow.