23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

When reading the emails from the teams and from Nascar, Nascar had posted doomsday actions before entering the bunker. Most of it were actions to take to limit serious damage to the series and or make themselves a hard target for a takeover. Having the teams under contract and restricting their ability to race in ANY racing series but theirs was their way of nipping that in the bud.
Once again, it is in the realm of possibility that 23XI along with other investors simply could hold races, pay very well, and use Nascar's drivers and equipment to do so if Nascar didn't have non competitive contracts for teams and equipment.
 
StandOnIt said:
When reading the emails from the teams and from Nascar, Nascar had posted doomsday actions before entering the bunker. Most of it were actions to take to limit serious damage to the series and or make themselves a hard target for a takeover. Having the teams under contract and restricting their ability to race in ANY racing series but theirs was their way of nipping that in the bud.
Once again, it is in the realm of possibility that 23XI along with other investors simply could hold races, pay very well, and use Nascar's drivers and equipment to do so if Nascar didn't have non competitive contracts for teams and equipment.
Click to expand...
Well lets see if @wi_racefan is okay with something he said, being used here. Because yeah, I mean seems thin. ;)
wi_racefan said:
So this is all based on the potential of a possible threat? Boy that sounds thin.
Click to expand...
 
If a racetrack wants to hold a Nascar race, agreements have to be made. It has to pass requirements for safety, the purse payments have to be finalized, and in some cases agreements not to hold stock car like competing events for a period of time. That doesn't stop them from having concerts, car shows, other racing series etc.
 
StandOnIt said:
If a racetrack wants to hold a Nascar race, agreements have to be made. It has to pass requirements for safety, the purse payments have to be finalized, and in some cases agreements not to hold stock car like competing events for a period of time. That doesn't stop them from having concerts, car shows, other racing series etc.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, thats what makes it a monopoly.
 
StandOnIt said:
That's your opinion. Nobody is holding a gun to anybodies head.
Click to expand...
Its literally not an opinion. They control the market by making it so tracks that have NASCAR races have to have approval to hold any other stock car series. Yes those tracks can say no, but then they would lose their races. NASCAR is using that leverage to be able to prevent another series from having use of proper race tracks. Sure they are other tracks, but the sizes of them are small, and the safety ar some arent up to a proper standard for a legitimate racing series.
 
Speedbowl14 said:
This is probably gonna get deleted but if I had a dollar for everything you spoke through you ass this forum would be funded for the next millennium. Now that is an opinion fwiw
Click to expand...
If you knew your ass from a hole in the ground you would already know judge Bell ruled that Nascar was a monopoly. I'll let you figure out the rest of it Einstein. Hint. Read part 2 of the Sherman act.
 
images-11.jpeg
 
Do anyone know if the France and Hamlin families are on Wal Mart Christmas Gift Registry. This year could be tough on the families and they could go without due to implications caused by the
monopolies, cabuls, cartels, and other big words.

Maybe, I should go see if there is a GoFundMe account for them.....
 
Greg said:
Do anyone know if the France and Hamlin families are on Wal Mart Christmas Gift Registry. This year could be tough on the families and they could go without due to implications caused by the
monopolies, cabuls, cartels, and other big words.

Maybe, I should go see if there is a GoFundMe account for them.....
Click to expand...
Don't worry about it. The lawyers for both sides are giving 'Thank You!!!' gifts to everyone involved.
 


Basically, NASCAR's counter suit that the local France Family Defense Force here are so enamored with does have a fatal flaw: it basically acknowledges NASCAR's position in the market of professional stock car racing. This guy went so far as to say that NASCAR fell into a trap by filing it. I'm sure this will be rationally responded to.
 
virtualbalboa said:


Basically, NASCAR's counter suit that the local France Family Defense Force here are so enamored with does have a fatal flaw: it basically acknowledges NASCAR's position in the market of professional stock car racing. This guy went so far as to say that NASCAR fell into a trap by filing it. I'm sure this will be rationally responded to.
Click to expand...


Very interesting commentary from a law professor. Indeed, appears NASCAR’s legal team inadvertently cited a market definition too similar to how the plaintiff’s defined it. Made it easy for judge Bell to take his positions on that portion.

The commentator did acknowledge Bell’s judgements increase pressure on NASCAR to settle. However, the primary rulings that will be determined by a jury are a bigger mountain for the plaintiff’s to climb. NASCAR must be proven to have purposely restricted commerce, entry and used monopolistic practices. This burden falls to the plaintiff’s and cannot be validated by simple claims of NASCAR purchasing tracks.

I still believe this is likely settled prior to trial.
 
Conover said:
Very interesting commentary from a law professor. Indeed, appears NASCAR’s legal team inadvertently cited a market definition too similar to how the plaintiff’s defined it. Made it easy for judge Bell to take his positions on that portion.

The commentator did acknowledge Bell’s judgements increase pressure on NASCAR to settle. However, the primary rulings that will be determined by a jury are a bigger mountain for the plaintiff’s to climb. NASCAR must be proven to have purposely restricted commerce, entry and used monopolistic practices. This burden falls to the plaintiff’s and cannot be validated by simple claims of NASCAR purchasing tracks.

I still believe this is likely settled prior to trial.
Click to expand...
I don't think it will be settled before the trial FWIW. I believe if the trial is held in Charlotte there are enough people who are knowledgeable about the racing business to overcome the bias. Bell has done his best to sway the case towards 23XI with his judgements, he has shown that from the first ruling. Bell has inserted himself into the negotiations, denied a motion to get a different negotiator, narrowed the case down when 23XI was all over the place on what they were suing for to one small area and he has steered this case into an area that if they say Nascar is a monopoly then all of the major racing series are monopolies.
 
StandOnIt said:
I don't think it will be settled before the trial FWIW. I believe if the trial is held in Charlotte there are enough people who are knowledgeable about the racing business to overcome the bias. Bell has done his best to sway the case towards 23XI with his judgements, he has shown that from the first ruling. Bell has inserted himself into the negotiations, denied a motion to get a different negotiator, narrowed the case down when 23XI was all over the place on what they were suing for to one small area and he has steered this case into an area that if they say Nascar is a monopoly then all of the major racing series are monopolies.
Click to expand...
Some of you guys need to stop getting so mad at this and just laugh like I do.
 
Blaze said:
That Charlotte court will be fair, until they make a ruling you don't like then it's going to be "they are so bias"
Click to expand...
There is a reason I never comment on your posts. All you want to do is argue. Like I said earlier, go find somebody else to argue with.
 
StandOnIt said:
There is a reason I never comment on your posts. All you want to do is argue. Like I said earlier, go find somebody else to argue with.
Click to expand...
I'm free to comment on anything I want. It's called having a discussion, this is a discussion board. If you can't handle it then that's not my problem.
 
Conover said:
Indeed, appears NASCAR’s legal team inadvertently cited a market definition too similar to how the plaintiff’s defined it. Made it easy for judge Bell to take his positions on that portion.
Click to expand...
The following comment is not directed at @Conover.

Now, can we please stop hearing about how the teams' lawyers don't know what they're doing because they have experience with stick and ball cases? Because if they are incompetent, are NASCAR's suits even less qualified?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
The following comment is not directed at @Conover.

Now, can we please stop hearing about how the teams' lawyers don't know what they're doing because they have experience with stick and ball cases? Or maybe they are incompetent but NASCAR's suits are even less qualified?
Click to expand...
And admit being incorrect earlier? Surely, you jest! I'm already getting myself ready for the spin when the settlement comes through.

Knowing our interactions here, you probably haven't heard about the folks out here that believe that they will be made not only whole but unimaginably rich somehow by Bed Bath and Beyond. Yes, Bed Bath and Beyond, the defunct retail company that went bankrupt and closed all their stores. There are still people who got hoodwinked on 4Chan and Twitter and elsewhere into believing that investing into a collapsing Bed Bath And Beyond would result in a series of events which would effectively upend the entire global economy and make them demigods who are unimaginably rich. Gamestop has the same cult thing happening. My point here is that those people have in some cases become financially ruined and destitute as a result of these highly speculative investments and objectively the company they invested in with Bed Bath and Beyond no longer even exists and it's debt effectively wiped away. Those are all facts. They don't care about the facts. They're in for the delusion all the way. I expect the same here. Even when NASCAR hands away charters forever, somehow it will be NASCAR who can and will win one day.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
The following comment is not directed at @Conover.

Now, can we please stop hearing about how the teams' lawyers don't know what they're doing because they have experience with stick and ball cases? Because if they are incompetent, are NASCAR's suits even less qualified?
Click to expand...
No, not when the judge denies every motion Nascar has made, has been overruled by a higher court, and continues to steer the case in the direction he wants it to go. Right now Nascar has been judged to be a monopoly by Bell. That is where I see we are at.
Where they are going if it goes to trial after Judge Bell recognized that Nascar functioned as a monopoly is did Nascar function as an illegal monopoly.
Bell is the one that defined the market. A narrowly defined market.
“The Court finds that the relevant market is properly defined as premier stock-car racing in the United States and that NASCAR holds 100 percent of that market share. The question of whether NASCAR’s conduct constitutes unlawful monopolization remains for trial.”
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Nope, not asking or expecting that. Just a little passive acknowledgement that their skill set might be applicable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, couldn't even really get that either I suppose given that the response literally starts with "no," lmao.

The knots this guy is tying himself into are incredible. Just let him cook.
 
virtualbalboa said:
Yeah, couldn't even really get that either I suppose given that the response literally starts with "no," lmao.

The knots this guy is tying himself into are incredible. Just let him cook.
Click to expand...
Just as my post wasn't directed at Conover, it wasn't aimed at SOI either. I may disagree with him on aspects of this topic, but I can't question his judgement overall; there have been too many other subjects where I've agreed with him.

Unlike your example of meme stocks, no one here has anything on the line.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Just as my post wasn't directed at Conover, it wasn't aimed at SOI either. I may disagree with him on aspects of this topic, but I can't question his judgement overall; there have been too many other subjects where I've agreed with him.

Unlike your example of meme stocks, no one here has anything on the line.
Click to expand...
At least I can stay on topic. ;) Bed and bath bloviating whatever.
 
StandOnIt said:
No, not when the judge denies every motion Nascar has made, has been overruled by a higher court, and continues to steer the case in the direction he wants it to go. Right now Nascar has been judged to be a monopoly by Bell. That is where I see we are at.
Where they are going if it goes to trial after Judge Bell recognized that Nascar functioned as a monopoly is did Nascar function as an illegal monopoly.
Bell is the one that defined the market. A narrowly defined market.
“The Court finds that the relevant market is properly defined as premier stock-car racing in the United States and that NASCAR holds 100 percent of that market share. The question of whether NASCAR’s conduct constitutes unlawful monopolization remains for trial.”
Click to expand...
"the relevant market is properly defined as premier stock-car racing in the United States and that NASCAR holds 100 percent of that market share"

What part of this sentence do you believe is incorrect or "biased"?
 
StandOnIt said:
If a racetrack wants to hold a Nascar race, agreements have to be made. It has to pass requirements for safety, the purse payments have to be finalized, and in some cases agreements not to hold stock car like competing events for a period of time. That doesn't stop them from having concerts, car shows, other racing series etc.
Click to expand...
Can you blame them? The money nascar is paying these tracks to put on races makes up the vast majority of their yearly income to cover improvements and operational costs. Why would you let someone else profit off that? Tracks quit caring about ticket money years ago, now all they care about it tv money.

Anyone that's paying a subcontractor that kind of money would want a level of exclusivity, thats just how business works.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Just as my post wasn't directed at Conover, it wasn't aimed at SOI either. I may disagree with him on aspects of this topic, but I can't question his judgement overall; there have been too many other subjects where I've agreed with him.

Unlike your example of meme stocks, no one here has anything on the line.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and I hope folks here understand that, regardless of my opinion/observations on this, I will recognize the actual case segments for what they are. The explanation by the law professor on how NASCAR’s terminology in their countersuit actually enabled some forms of market definition, helping the plaintiffs, is a good catch. Was it clumsy on the part of NASCAR’s attorneys, or influenced by the France family’s insistence on a particular strategy? Don’t know. By now they should know ANYTHING that can aid Bell will be pounced on by that biased judge and the Kessler team.

BUT, the biggest test remains PROVING that NASCAR has intentionally and maliciously used a monopsony/monopoly to restrict commerce. Not easy, and any Bell magic carpet rulings that overtly warp legal parameters will be folded into an appeal out of his kangaroo court.

Lastly, the Jordan Hamcrap cabal is pissing off other teams. There is chatter on how they want them to settle and not risk the charter system completely.
 
I'd imagine tracks are in the same boat. If you pull the exclusivity or required approvals for other stock car races the nascar money will be drastically cut. You might see some tracks fold.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Back on topic, both sides agree Penske and Hendrick shouldn't be let off the hook.

Click to expand...
Penske and Hendrick had agreed to testify previously and did but with strict guardrails.

Plaintiffs cannot claim prejudice from this limited testimony, the subject matter of which
was “voluntarily” disclosed more than a month ago under penalty of perjury and pursuant to the
declarants’ “own free will.” Hendrick Decl. at 2; Penske Decl. at 2; see also Hendrick Decl. at 2
(declaration made “without bias toward either party”). Movants reiterated in their joint motion for
a protective order that, consistent with their declarations, neither Mr. Hendrick nor Mr. Penske
intend to “take sides” in this case.
KTMLew01 said:
"the relevant market is properly defined as premier stock-car racing in the United States and that NASCAR holds 100 percent of that market share"

What part of this sentence do you believe is incorrect or "biased"?
Click to expand...
I think it is biased not to look at the whole of top tier racing series in general. Sports leagues are exempt from anti trust because they say they aren't competing against each other. In that case Nascar isn't competing against each other also. F-1 and Indycar and Nascar aren't competing against each other either in that vein. Bell threw that argument out. I think he should have allowed it.
In consequence, Nascar is a privately owned company, not part of a "league". I do believe Nascar's ass is in a sling, it they can prove Nascar stopped other racing series from competing. But also, if the track owners mostly SMI agreed to those terms, and has for years because it is a good deal for them, I don't see that as a problem and doesn't constitute an illegal monopoly. IMO. Bruton Smith bought in to Nascar many years ago, and without Nascar where would they be?
Oh well, if it goes to court it will be interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom