23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

virtualbalboa said:
There's nothing that actually correlates those demands with the amount of money they receive from NASCAR. If NASCAR decreases the cut given to tracks and instead redirects that to teams, that has nothing to do with exclusivity.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about redirecting it to the teams?
 
virtualbalboa said:
This is solid gold. I hope you all are appreciating it.
Click to expand...
1762811519922.png

Live and learn. ;) I would suggest that you curtail your personal attacks and snidely remarks. It isn't a good look and it's a long off season.
Unlike the NFL or NBA, NASCAR doesn’t have a statutory exemption from antitrust law.
  • MLB does (since 1922).
  • The NFL, NBA, and NHL operate under partial exemptions (especially for TV deals, through the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961).
 
StandOnIt said:
View attachment 88672
Live and learn. ;) I would suggest that you curtail your personal attacks and snidely remarks. It isn't a good look and it's a long off season.
Unlike the NFL or NBA, NASCAR doesn’t have a statutory exemption from antitrust law.
  • MLB does (since 1922).
  • The NFL, NBA, and NHL operate under partial exemptions (especially for TV deals, through the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961).
Click to expand...
MLB does indeed have one. It is the only league that has such an exception.

Let me give you a hint: The 45th and 47th President of the US famously was involved in an antitrust lawsuit which he was party to the winning side of. Amusingly he wound up getting screwed by jury instructions.
 
virtualbalboa said:
I mean, where else would the money go? What is the necessity for NASCAR to do what you're prescribing and reduce the track fees because they no longer can demand exclusivity?
Click to expand...
Break the supposed monopoly they have over the tracks. If you're not allowed to demand exclusivity then why would you pay them near as much?
 
virtualbalboa said:
MLB does indeed have one. It is the only league that has such an exception.
Click to expand...
Again, "pure gold" you said, none of it was true. Other stick and Ball teams have limited anti trust exemptions.
Is it your turn now? again lets take it down a notch. We are supposed to be laughing right?
 
wi_racefan said:
Break the supposed monopoly they have over the tracks. If you're not allowed to demand exclusivity then why would you pay them near as much?
Click to expand...
I look at it this way also. We want safety standards, Who knows if Nascar gets part of the gate. But Nascar pays the tracks a percentage of the TV money. For that we want exclusive use for stock car racing. Deal or no deal. Concerts, car shows, on an on no problems there. Charlotte has a dirt track and a drag racing facility.
Again, this is my point. Bell said they can't use auto racing, only premiere stock car racing
 
StandOnIt said:
Again, "pure gold" you said, none of it was true.
Click to expand...

That's correct based on what I quoted. Baseball's antitrust exemption is to other baseball leagues. It has nothing to do with other professional sports.
StandOnIt said:
Other stick and Ball teams have limited anti trust exemptions.
Click to expand...
I tried to help you on that. Not hard. But I tried.
 
wi_racefan said:
If you're not allowed to demand exclusivity then why would you pay them near as much?
Click to expand...
Because you still have to put on races for your TV deal? Because the markets those tracks are in have long standing fanbases who are interested in NASCAR and are near media markets that are appealing to your partners?

There is absolutely nothing requiring them to reduce the money they give the tracks in this case. Seriously. That would be a choice NASCAR would be making, nothing they are required to do.
 
virtualbalboa said:
Because you still have to put on races for your TV deal? Because the markets those tracks are in have long standing fanbases who are interested in NASCAR and are near media markets that are appealing to your partners?

There is absolutely nothing requiring them to reduce the money they give the tracks in this case. Seriously. That would be a choice NASCAR would be making, nothing they are required to do.
Click to expand...
So we just want a welfare system now? Just give me money without any stipulations!

That's as foolish as what some of the teams are demanding. Give us more money! Will you agree to cost containment? No....we're going to spend every dime you give us, all the money we can get from sponsors and possibly even some of our own personal money.
 
virtualbalboa said:
Because you still have to put on races for your TV deal? Because the markets those tracks are in have long standing fanbases who are interested in NASCAR and are near media markets that are appealing to your partners?

There is absolutely nothing requiring them to reduce the money they give the tracks in this case. Seriously. That would be a choice NASCAR would be making, nothing they are required to do.
Click to expand...
Sad how some people don't understand a simple concept.
 
wi_racefan said:
If you're not allowed to demand exclusivity then why would you pay them near as much?
Click to expand...
What's the advantage of having exclusive access to a track? I can see advantages to getting priority of scheduling, but why pay extra to lock out others from a facility that goes unused most of the year? Copyrighted signs and markings are easily covered, so other products wouldn't be associated with your brand.
 
wi_racefan said:
So we just want a welfare system now? Just give me money without any stipulations!
Click to expand...
They're performing the role of putting the race on that NASCAR is required to have in order to have their TV deal. There's no welfare there. That's a business deal.

wi_racefan said:
That's as foolish as what some of the teams are demanding. Give us more money! Will you agree to cost containment? No....we're going to spend every dime you give us, all the money we can get from sponsors and possibly even some of our own personal money.
Click to expand...
NASCAR isn't asking the teams for cost containment. They're asking for the teams to build anything goes cars for the All Star Race.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
What's the advantage of having exclusive access to a track? I can see advantages to getting priority of scheduling, but why pay extra to lock out others from a facility that goes unused most of the year? Copyrighted signs and markings are easily covered, so other products wouldn't be associated with your brand.
Click to expand...
Why would you pay for the yearly operational costs and improvements if anyone is allowed to use it?

Nascar uses the track 1 week a year, therefore according to allowing the track to be open for whatever the remainder of the year they should only have to pay 1/50th the yearly costs and it's on the track to find the income for the rest of the year.

Does nobody else see without exclusivity the deal makes no sense for nascar?
 
virtualbalboa said:
They're performing the role of putting the race on that NASCAR is required to have in order to have their TV deal. There's no welfare there. That's a business deal.


NASCAR isn't asking the teams for cost containment. They're asking for the teams to build anything goes cars for the All Star Race.
Click to expand...
Well not really. All the talk was about allowing them to bring whatever they want given nascar approved parts. They're not going to be cutting up chassis and modifying them or putting a wing on the roof....
 
wi_racefan said:
Why would you pay for the yearly operational costs and improvements if anyone is allowed to use it?
Click to expand...
Are you asking about SMI or NASCAR? NASCAR not maintaining their physical plant because other people can rent it (given that other people HAVE been renting their facilities) would be a choice and an incredibly foolhardy one at that. Why would SMI choose to stop maintaining their facilities?

Let's think about this for a moment. If SMI doesn't have NASCAR races at their tracks, they will go out of business. If NASCAR decided to just not run on SMI tracks anymore because SMI refused to take NASCAR's reduced offer and instead NASCAR promoted their own events in those markets, what do you think would happen? Do you think the Brutons would just say, "Yeah, we got wiped out, that happens sometimes" and just liquidate?

wi_racefan said:
Nascar uses the track 1 week a year, therefore according to allowing the track to be open for whatever the remainder of the year they should only have to pay 1/50th the yearly costs and it's on the track to find the income for the rest of the year.
Click to expand...
How things actually work is that NASCAR needs 36 points races each year and works with the promoters/track owners of facilities which are conducive to holding those points races. They then pay the promoter/track owners based on the valuation of the event they're holding. If NASCAR could pay nothing, they would. In fact, NASCAR charges other series like Indycar if they want to use NASCAR's facilities.

wi_racefan said:
Does nobody else see without exclusivity the deal makes no sense for nascar?
Click to expand...
I'm sure at least two other people will.

wi_racefan said:
Well not really. All the talk was about allowing them to bring whatever they want given nascar approved parts. They're not going to be cutting up chassis and modifying them or putting a wing on the roof....
Click to expand...
The talk was about asking the teams to spend a bunch more money for NASCAR's show and the teams balked. In fact, is there anything in the entire legal proceedings to date or anything stated from NASCAR about instituting cost caps? I don't recall seeing that anywhere ever. What I do recall is NASCAR threatening to kill all charters if they didn't get their way.
 
Nascar has the perfect setup with the purchase of ISC. I would guess ISC is a still a separate entity from Nascar, since it went private too. ISC can lease the tracks back to Nascar for x amount of dollars, and now Nascar can write that off as expenses. That would be money going from one pocket to the other pocket of Nascar, never showing up as profit on Nascar financials, but it does on ISC financials.
 
Before we get any further, I assume we're discussing SMI and other third-party track owners, not the tracks NASCAR itself owns.
wi_racefan said:
Why would you pay for the yearly operational costs and improvements if anyone is allowed to use it?
Click to expand...
NASCAR doesn't pay for track operating costs. It pays them a cut of the TV money. Indeed, last I heard, tracks had to pay NASCAR when they applied for the privilege of hosting a race.

But let's assume that through some accounting magic, NASCAR pays the operating costs of tracks it doesn't own. The fewer customers a track has, the more it has to charge the ones it's got. If NASCAR is paying the whole year's costs, it's because it's prevented the tracks from being able to charge anyone else. It would appear to be in NASCAR's interest to let someone else pick up part of that load.
wi_racefan said:
Nascar uses the track 1 week a year, therefore according to allowing the track to be open for whatever the remainder of the year they should only have to pay 1/50th the yearly costs and it's on the track to find the income for the rest of the year.
Click to expand...
No rental facility charges all customers equally. Sure, there's a base minimum rate but there's also a cut of the gate, souvenirs, etc. A track isn't going to get as much income from a non-NASCAR race but it if gets enough to turn a profit, that's more money than if it sat empty for the weekend.
 
StandOnIt said:
From the 23XI archives lol.
Click to expand...
Did anyone think Denny was the financial or managerial brains behind the operation? There are plenty of successful craftsmen who want to start a business but need to find savvy partners to do the work that supports their talent. Being a great chef doesn't mean someone knows how to manage the business side of a restaurant.

Then that talented person needs to know / learn when to shut up and listen to that partner with the business expertise. This is where Denny appears to have problems.
 
The reality is there isn't any and won't be any competing "stock car" series. That part is B.S., not at Nascar, Indy car, or F-1 level is that going to happen. Nobody is going to be clamoring to build a mile and a half track, no city is going to get the tax payers to pay for it like sports leagues can. Nascar brings tons of money to tracks that aren't owned by Nascar. Is it enough to operate for a year on what they bring? Anybody see any tracks that are hurting? I sure don't.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Did anyone think Denny was the financial or managerial brains behind the operation? There are plenty of successful craftsmen who want to start a business but need to find savvy partners to do the work that supports their talent. Being a great chef doesn't mean someone knows how to manage the business side of a restaurant.

Then that talented person needs to know / learn when to shut up and listen to that partner with the business expertise. This is where Denny appears to have problems.
Click to expand...
On the other side, who in their right mind would have Denny for a business partner lol.
 
StandOnIt said:
Nascar brings tons of money to tracks that aren't owned by Nascar. Is it enough to operate for a year on what they bring? Anybody see any tracks that are hurting? I sure don't.
Click to expand...
I agree they aren't hurting, but could they make more money if they could host other series? I expect the teams' lawyers to argue that point; if I can think of it, they already have.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I agree they aren't hurting, but could they make more money if they could host other series? I expect the teams' lawyers to argue that point; if I can think of it, they already have.
Click to expand...
ISC does have other series race on their tracks, so does Nascar. Problem is there aren't many series that have the fan base to make it economically viable. That isn't Nascar's fault. Competing series have had 80 years to do something and the numbers just aren't there nor will they be. Indycar had a split and it almost killed open wheel racing. They haven't recovered from their heyday. Don't think they ever will either.
 
StandOnIt said:
ISC does have other series race on their tracks, so does Nascar. Problem is there aren't many series that have the fan base to make it economically viable. That isn't Nascar's fault. Competing series have had 80 years to do something and the numbers just aren't there nor will they be. Indycar had a split and it almost killed open wheel racing. They haven't recovered from their heyday. Don't think they ever will either.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, but then why does NASCAR need to require other tracks to grant it exclusive access for stock car racing? Why create the potential for a monopoly accusation?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I agree 100%, but then why does NASCAR need to require other tracks to grant it exclusive access for stock car racing? Why create the potential for a monopoly accusation?
Click to expand...
You will get no disagreement from me there. The point is why is a Cup team so concerned? What in the hell is their motive? Do they realize that they can't make Nascar continue to have the charter system if they win? How are they going to make more money? Selling Nascar tennis shoes?
Let's face it. Stock car racing isn't a growing industry.
 
One of the numerous waffling 23XI did and they made a big deal out of it was they wanted to be able to take the next gen and race it anywhere they wanted. They might have figured out they were dead in the water on that argument since Nascar developed the car. They changed to part 2 of the Sherman act, and seem to be pushing the nobody but Nascar can race on a track Nascar races at with a Phantom, not in existence stock car.
 
Per Google AI
NASCAR does not have a formal "non-compete rule" specifically for tracks leased from Speedway Motorsports Inc. (SMI), but tracks that host NASCAR Cup Series events, including those leased from SMI, are subject to contractual agreements that restrict them from hosting other "comparable" stock car series. This restriction is part of broader non-compete clauses that NASCAR has reportedly required from tracks hosting Cup Series races, regardless of ownership or leasing arrangement. These clauses are central to allegations of anti-competitive practices, as they limit independent tracks from hosting rival stock car racing series, effectively giving NASCAR significant control over the racing landscape. While SMI operates several tracks under lease or ownership, the contractual obligations imposed by NASCAR on these facilities prevent them from hosting other major stock car series, even if the tracks are not owned by NASCAR or SMI. This arrangement has been criticized as a strategy to maintain a monopoly, especially since teams have no viable alternative series to join if they leave NASCAR
 
StandOnIt said:
The point is why is a Cup team so concerned? What in the hell is their motive? Do they realize that they can't make Nascar continue to have the charter system if they win?
Click to expand...
I'm still convinced the goal isn't to win the lawsuit, that the suit is a tool only to get control of the charters and nothing more.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I agree 100%, but then why does NASCAR need to require other tracks to grant it exclusive access for stock car racing? Why create the potential for a monopoly accusation?
Click to expand...
Because they have enough foresight to know that over the course of a 7 year deal another series forming and being competition is a possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom