23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

groan..to coin a phrase from Charlie. Is this legal??

As the session wound down, defense attorney Lawrence Buterman noted the novelty of cross-examining an icon like Jordan, closing with the comment: “Thank you for making my 9-year-old think I’m cool today.”

“You’re not wearing any Jordans today,” Jordan replied, adding a “whew” before leaving the witness stand.
 
kkfan91 said:
Dude literally sucking up to MJ saying "I played JV"

Also put that damn sign down, if you actually cared about the sport as a fan you'd know rooting against them will kill it.
Click to expand...

I thought the sign was great. Both parties should see it. I also want more heckling and booing. I'm serious. Going to trial was avoidable if cooler heads prevailed on both sides. That didn't happen. The fans will suffer. The taxpayers will pay for the trial. All so some rich guys in suits can get in a pissing match.

Boo 'em. Boo them all.
 
wi_racefan said:
The only issue that I have is telling the lawyers to speed it up after a week of the plaintiff presenting their case doesnt seem exactly fair.

They spent too long making a case against you, so you get less time to defend yourself......
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they will get the bum's rush treatment. Got to move on, hurry up, not important to the case, but if you want to talk tennis shoes and basketball?
 
According to Gluck, Nascar can't say that all of them raced a whole season last year to a jury pool that so far doesn't know that they did race last year.
Nor can they say that 23XI were given their charters back by Bell, but lost them in a higher court.
 
StandOnIt said:
According to Gluck, Nascar can't say that all of them raced a whole season last year to a jury pool that so far doesn't know that they did race last year.
Nor can they say that 23XI were given their charters back by Bell, but lost them in a higher court.
Click to expand...
I was listening to the podcast this morning and this makes no sense to me. I think it would be key to the defense to say even though you didnt sign you were still allowed to race in our series?
 
wi_racefan said:
I was listening to the podcast this morning and this makes no sense to me. I think it would be key to the defense to say even though you didnt sign you were still allowed to race in our series?
Click to expand...
Something like the judge is going to break it to the jury that these guys and all of the rest of them were able to race last year? Pretty sure you can bet "cake and eat it too" Bell won't mention he was overruled in a higher court or let anybody else say it.
 
StandOnIt said:
Something like the judge is going to break it to the jury that these guys and all of the rest of them were able to race last year? Pretty sure you can bet "cake and eat it too" Bell won't mention he was overruled in a higher court or let anybody else say it.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking is it had more to do with Bell than anything
 
This was from Bob's article, but discussed elsewhere. I would have strongly objected to saying it should have been 6. Gives the jury the impression that nascar manipulated or screwed them out of the championship. Everyone played by the same rules

1000014423.jpg
 
wi_racefan said:
I think it would be key to the defense to say even though you didnt sign you were still allowed to race in our series?
Click to expand...
The rules explicitly allow non-chartered teams to attempt to qualify, so NASCAR didn't allow them anything beyond what the other open teams got.

I do think that the races 23FRM ran under the court order to be treated as chartered teams would be relevant.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I do think that the races 23FRM ran under the court order to be treated as chartered teams would be relevant.
Click to expand...
Or maybe those races wouldn't be relevant, since NASCAR was under orders to treat the teams as chartered. NASCAR didn't do it on it's own initiative. Why get credit for something you had to be forced to do?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Or maybe those races wouldn't be relevant, since NASCAR was under orders to treat the teams as chartered. NASCAR didn't do it on it's own initiative. Why get credit for something you had to be forced to do?
Click to expand...
Didn't they change the rule to allow more open cars after they lost the charters? Essentially making sure the make the show?
 
So if nascar is giving FRM approximately 12 mil a year and they're spending 14 mil a year on cars where else are you going to find a business that gives you 85% of operational costs up front?
 
Not sure everything Pockrass is claiming relative to what NASCAR can or can’t bring up is accurate. We will see. In a civil case, details and relevance is required for a jury to understand the full implications of actions, rules, etc. If the plantiff’s use conflated and misleading testimony to “spin” the effects of NASCAR decisions, the defendants must be allowed to address the distortions. If the judge doesn’t allow it, that is an EASY claim to base an appeal on if the jury rules unanimously against NASCAR.
 
"Greed" keeps coming up. It's quite a preoccupation for some. Strangely, the greedy ones are everyone lower on NASCAR'S food chain than the very top. The only ones who aren't greedy are the heirs who own it and their top executives.

When Kyle Larson was asked if he foresees similar legal challenges happening to his High Limit sprint car series and their somewhat similar franchise system, he states that he doesn't, because he and his co-owners "have been way more transparent than NASCAR" and "have the best interest of sprint car racing in mind, not our pockets".

Another greedy one.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom