23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

The Nature Boy said:
Imagine being so anti-NASCAR that you’re rooting for a lawsuit that will 100% harm the sport.
Click to expand...
Are the two teams pursuing their agenda hurting the sport? Just because they did not sign doesn't mean they are hurting the sport. Maybe what they are seeking is something beneficial to all teams and they feel they have a legitimate reason to take the path of action they are. We do not know what is taking place and in the end these two owners may get their posterior handed to them on a pitchfork.
Apparently they feel quite strongly about their position and it is obvious NASCAR doesn't like being challenged.
 
Whizzer said:
Are the two teams pursuing their agenda hurting the sport? Just because they did not sign doesn't mean they are hurting the sport. Maybe what they are seeking is something beneficial to all teams and they feel they have a legitimate reason to take the path of action they are. We do not know what is taking place and in the end these two owners may get their posterior handed to them on a pitchfork.
Apparently they feel quite strongly about their position and it is obvious NASCAR doesn't like being challenged.
Click to expand...

The only real claim they have is an antitrust lawsuit and I actually think they have a damn good case because NASCAR does function like a monopoly. However, I don’t know if potentially breaking up NASCAR would result in things being better for the teams. We don’t know what remedies a judge would prescribe for curing the NASCAR monopoly.

The lawsuit itself would also be a PR issue and it would likely turn away sponsors because of the uncertainty it would create.

Them not signing and negotiating isn’t bad for the sport but involving the courts could be.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
It appears the other teams aren't interested in this benevolent action.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the rub since we have no knowledge of what they are seeking. Neither do we know why, or if, the other teams are in agreement with whatever it is they are trying to accomplish. Just because JGR, RCR, HMS, Spire and others signed doesn't necessarily mean they are opposed to the path 23XI and FRM are treading.
Whatever it is, it may hurt NASCAR or it could hurt the teams of 23XI and FRM. Whatever it is, apparently 23XI and FRM feel strongly enough they are taking these actions seriously enough they are willing to jeopardize their operations.
 
If I’m Nascar I’m going to assume that MJ & Mr Yum are not interested in having control of a charter(s) in the future since they didn’t sign the agreement when required. I think Nascar should put these charters back in inventory and reassign them to new owners/OEM in the future. Regardless of how this all shakes out you can never allow the tail to wag the dog. MJ & Mr Yum can run open cars at the cup level until they’re sick and tired of writing red ink…..then they can go away.
 
This was from the sealed TRD engine fiasco. But I think it would apply across the board for anything related to Nascar. The last line says it all to me.
GVg7FFGXoAAdTXu.jpg
 
AlTerego said:
If I’m Nascar I’m going to assume that MJ & Mr Yum are not interested in having control of a charter(s) in the future since they didn’t sign the agreement when required. I think Nascar should put these charters back in inventory and reassign them to new owners/OEM in the future. Regardless of how this all shakes out you can never allow the tail to wag the dog. MJ & Mr Yum can run open cars at the cup level until they’re sick and tired of writing red ink…..then they can go away.
Click to expand...
Benevolent dictatorships only work if the dictator is actually benevolent and looks out for the interests of their subjects. One could make the case that NASCAR isn't keeping up with their end of the bargain. At this point in the game, refusing to make the charters permanent is by itself enough of a reason to revolt.
 
Formerjackman said:
Benevolent dictatorships only work if the dictator is actually benevolent and looks out for the interests of their subjects. One could make the case that NASCAR isn't keeping up with their end of the bargain. At this point in the game, refusing to make the charters permanent is by itself enough of a reason to revolt.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Plenty of reasons to keep the charters under Nascar's control. They can refuse the right to OK who they don't think will work out in THEIR series. Charter sales have to be approved BTW.
 
StandOnIt said:
Not at all. Plenty of reasons to keep the charters under Nascar's control. They can refuse the right to OK who they don't think will work out in THEIR series. Charter sales have to be approved BTW.
Click to expand...
Two problems with that. First, several individuals have paid big money to attain them. It would be liking buying a new car and paying for it, only to have the manufacturer take it back from you. It destroys the long term value of the asset. Secondly, it turns the sport into the same kind of old boys club that the stick and ball sports and Formula One is where they can keep people out for their own selfish reasons, whether it be Mark Cuban wanting to buy the Cubs, a certain deceased political commentator wanting to buy a small stake in an NFL team, or trying to keep Michael Andretti out of F1.
 
Formerjackman said:
Benevolent dictatorships only work if the dictator is actually benevolent and looks out for the interests of their subjects. One could make the case that NASCAR isn't keeping up with their end of the bargain. At this point in the game, refusing to make the charters permanent is by itself enough of a reason to revolt.
Click to expand...
NASCAR has zero obligation to even maintain a charter system let alone make them permanent. What specific things has Nascar promised teams and then reneged on? How would you make a case that Nascar has not kept up with their bargain?
 
Formerjackman said:
Two problems with that. First, several individuals have paid big money to attain them. It would be liking buying a new car and paying for it, only to have the manufacturer take it back from you. It destroys the long term value of the asset. Secondly, it turns the sport into the same kind of old boys club that the stick and ball sports and Formula One is where they can keep people out for their own selfish reasons, whether it be Mark Cuban wanting to buy the Cubs, a certain deceased political commentator wanting to buy a small stake in an NFL team, or trying to keep Michael Andretti out of F1.
Click to expand...

Nascar has never misrepresented the charters to the teams. They’ve always maintained that they own them and the teams can use them until the duration of the broadcast deal. No one ever forced a team to purchase, sell or lease a charter.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
As far as 23XI and FRM go, that existing bargain runs out in 100 days. What part hasn't been kept?
Click to expand...

NASCAR complicates a lot of things but has always been clear concerning the role of charters. Hopefully Nascar will prevail in any legal action
 
aunty dive said:
It seems to me that Jenkins, Jordan, Polk and their legal team are being seriously underestimated by some here (and elsewhere).
Click to expand...
Here I go, again, repeating myself, and not taking anything away from teams already signed, 23XI and FRM must feel they have firm footing to continue.
StandOnIt said:
It seems to me the other way around.
Click to expand...
See above response. I have yet to see anything that proposes damaging NASCAR or the sport not have I seen anything that is beneficial to teams.
Formerjackman said:
Benevolent dictatorships only work if the dictator is actually benevolent and looks out for the interests of their subjects. One could make the case that NASCAR isn't keeping up with their end of the bargain. At this point in the game, refusing to make the charters permanent is by itself enough of a reason to revolt.
Click to expand...
This ^^^^^^^ seems logical. if the intent is to gain ownership of each charter. Thing is, we don't know what 23XI or FRM are after or why and NASCAR ain't sayin' nuttin'!.
DIDIT said:
Financials…sign, race, keep charter, earn millions more vs racing without a charter. What do they have to gain by not signing?
Click to expand...
Here are two powerful teams with a lot at stake. So far as any of us know, there has been nothing public and verified about what the two teams are seeking. Neither do we know if they will continue to race under the charter or may even accomplish what it is they hope too.
AlTerego said:
NASCAR complicates a lot of things but has always been clear concerning the role of charters. Hopefully Nascar will prevail in any legal action
Click to expand...
So are you willing to bet the farm that whatever 23XI and FRM are trying to accomplish will be best if they walk away and give up their fight. All without knowing if it is beneficial to everyone or the sport under the NASCAR umbrella.

Small battles can sometimes create better things and this might just be the case here. t turb=ned out. .
 
Dale Jr’s comments about this were the most clear I’ve heard. To paraphrase; charters have turned into a financial asset but they were never intended to become that. Charters were created to guarantee participating teams 36 races they would appear in. That allowed them to serve up guarantees to their sponsors, helping secure those contracts. They were never intended to become “property” of the teams.

NASCAR saw this developing and decided to dial back the “unintended consequences” by putting an expiration date on the charter system. This was tied to the new TV rights contract, which makes sense to me. I know the team owners would have preferred to own their charters, essentially like having a team franchise a la NFL. The newest teams that went out and bought these at high prices feel they “OWN” what they bought. Hence 23XI is leading the charge to change the system.
 
Conover said:
Dale Jr’s comments about this were the most clear I’ve heard. To paraphrase; charters have turned into a financial asset but they were never intended to become that. Charters were created to guarantee participating teams 36 races they would appear in. That allowed them to serve up guarantees to their sponsors, helping secure those contracts. They were never intended to become “property” of the teams.

NASCAR saw this developing and decided to dial back the “unintended consequences” by putting an expiration date on the charter system. This was tied to the new TV rights contract, which makes sense to me. I know the team owners would have preferred to own their charters, essentially like having a team franchise a la NFL. The newest teams that went out and bought these at high prices feel they “OWN” what they bought. Hence 23XI is leading the charge to change the system.
Click to expand...
To carry that further, they were given by Nascar to the teams. The charters had strings attached. They have a performance clause, they were and are the property of Nascar and they can be taken away by Nascar if necessary. Teams can also sell them but it has to be with Nascar's approval. The pay structure is much higher if a team owns a charter, so high that not owning one is almost impossible to compete in the Cup series. .
 
Charlie Spencer said:
As far as 23XI and FRM go, that existing bargain runs out in 100 days. What part hasn't been kept?
Click to expand...
I never said they violated the existing contract, I am talking about looking ahead and seeing what is good for the teams and good for the sport as a whole, not just what benefits NASCAR.
 
AlTerego said:
Nascar has never misrepresented the charters to the teams. They’ve always maintained that they own them and the teams can use them until the duration of the broadcast deal. No one ever forced a team to purchase, sell or lease a charter.
Click to expand...
And in my opinion, and in the opinion of some car owners, it's time to look at that differently now. The current business model is absolutely nonsensical in my opinion. There is no way I would participate under the current terms. I never wanted the charters, but we have them, and it's developed far beyond what I think NASCAR envisioned, so now they need to adjust to the new reality. The France family cracks me up quite often. In one breath the want to be a global sport, and in the next breath they are trying to run it like a mom and pop operation where they pull all the strings and control EVERYTHING.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Then someone has done an excellent job of selling the fan base on the notion that a capital asset is exactly why the charters were created.
Click to expand...
Was ALWAYS my understanding. Previous owners had lost huge money when selling/closing their teams in the past. Now, with a car/chassis that theoretically is still valuable from season to season, a team has actual value. Used to be really didn't. A used Cup car was obsolete 10 races into a season. Got sold off to ARCA for 1/8 of their "value".

This discussion circles around and around. Some here believe NASCAR is always right and will always be. It's their sandbox. Play or don't Their rules. I wonder, with the Next Gen Car, has it changed? Do the teams REALLY have value? Can a team sell off the cars or does NASCAR have a little clause in the contract that says no?

Lots of questions with no answers.
 
DIDIT said:
I am still waiting to hear or read one credible reason that these two teams did not sign.
Click to expand...
Uncertainty of charter values going forward … some teams, including 23X1 and FRM paid tens of millions for what they thought would remain as appreciating assets?

Sports gambling revenue split?

NASCAR’s speculative desire to charter / operate teams of its own? Flies directly in the face of antitrust law.

I think it’s a mistake to underestimate this group of people.
 
DIDIT said:
I am still waiting to hear or read one credible reason that these two teams did not sign.
Click to expand...
I would say that the beginning of the racing season that would be the latest. It would be public record if the two outliers sue.
 
To me this whole thing is the equivalent of demanding a raise because your employer made money last year. So if nascar shows a loss one year will Dennis write a check to help cover their losses?

People fail to realize what operating costs of a company are. Tracks cost a lot money to run to only see one or two times a year of income.

I see this all the time at work. People think that I get paid a ton because of how much an hour we charge hourly for me to be onsite. Turns out there's a whole lot of things that have to get paid out of that money, including my salary.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom