Great question but that's been a point of contention since the beginning of negotiations two years ago.
That's pretty impossible now that Nascar announced that there is only a 32 charter field now. Haas has signed the agreement or they wouldn't have charters also. Nascar has to approve the sale and use of the charters. 23XI and Front Row aren't going to be getting full share prize money unless they can get their charters back.
If the field size remains at 40, they'll be fine. There will eight open slots instead of four. Few races had full 40-car fields.
Or lease the charters for the season. Although now that I've typed that, I suspect leasing a charter requires signing the sacred contract.
That is a big "if" with the field size remaining at 40 when the charters are reduced to 32
Go fund me??
There are people still frosted over reducing the field from 43 to 40, and over the charters having the effect of often resulting in a 36-car field. 32 will really torque their Underoos. Heck, IndyCar routinely starts 27. The Rolex will be pushing 60 and IMSA is worried about having enough pit spaces.
Some people look for every little excuse to frost themselves in Nascar world. There should be some juicy deathbedding now that Nascar is going broke and only offering 32 charters.
You're killing me, man!
I tend to believe it's both.
Dude, I wouldn't want to get into a who is the craziest contest with ya.
Tell ya what sparky, you can go on down the road with that and see how far it gets ya. You seem to hear what you want to hear. Myself, I see all of the teams have signed on the dotted line except 2. Nobody held a gun to their head. Those that signed have seven years to find another path for their lives if they don't like it.
And they signed the agreement to get the money, not to turn it over to someone else. I don't see them dropping an anchor on 23FR but I don't see them tossing a life saver either.
But it makes the financial hardship argument impossible considering they say they'd compete for less than what was offered
LMAO! Well played my man. Well played!
Some keep forgetting, or just don't believe, the original idea of charters was so an owner had something of value if they decided to walk away. Old race cars aren't worth much. Tooling wears out. Parts become obsolete. I suppose maybe we need to define a race team? What exactly do you have if the owner comes in on a Monday, calls shop meeting, we done. Today. You have until 5PM to remove your stuff.
They said the same thing about horse racing.
I'm 65. Maybe it's because of the places I lived as a military brat but I don't remember horse racing as being widely popular in my lifetime. Is it now?
Oooooh, more crumbs.
Show me where NASCAR stated specifically that charters were designed to provide owners with a tangible asset of value when they were introduced? Haven’t seen it and I doubt you will find it. The intent of charters was to guarantee a team’s participation in every race, with set funding they could count on, AND thereby enable them to guarantee sponsors availability over a guaranteed number of races. Nothing more. As this was a valuable part of participating in the sport, teams wanting to enter sought to aquire the rights from existing teams, leading to a market for those rights. The ownership of the participation slot was always kept by NASCAR. If a new team wanted to “buy” a charter, they were actually paying for a subleasing agreement, not a tangible asset with deed or title. NASCAR was still the arbiter of approval for a transfer of charter rights.
How happy will those teams be if NASCAR loses this fight? It will have to revert to splitting the money 36 ways instead of 32.
All of that could have been done with other methods without requiring the introduction of charters. For example, guaranteeing those things to the teams that averaged in the top 36 in points over the previous three years.
