23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Charlie Spencer said:
That would still indicate NASCAR doesn't inspect the parts, at least not between the suppliers and the teams. Otherwise, it would have caught the incorrect ones and they wouldn't have reached Hendrick.
Click to expand...
What it indicated was that they were caught modifying a part that was already inspected. It was caught by the tack inspection. Crippling big fine, loss of points.
 
This is becoming more and more like a made for TV movie plot, where just when you think you have it figured out there is a twist that has you on the edge of your seat. Very surreal!
 
HMS was able to get parts from Spire’s supply that met specs.
 
DIDIT said:
This is becoming more and more like a made for TV movie plot, where just when you think you have it figured out there is a twist that has you on the edge of your seat. Very surreal!
Click to expand...

Will they fold up like a cheap suit or have they found the knock out punch, tune in next week's eppisode of "Rules? We don't need no stinking rules" or Front Row to the Back row. :p
 
One thing I never thought of until now is I wonder how 23XI is doing with hiring people for the 3rd team? The uncertainty around there can't help

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Damn, four whole days. We're not going to catch the Deegan thread if y'all aren't going to put your backs into it.

Sad.
Click to expand...
The racing season hasn't started yet and with her reduced number of races this next year, it's a sleight possibility Nascar's who dun it could catch up. My back is killing me from doing double duty. You are going to have to carry your weight Charlie.
 
IMG_3130.png
IMG_3131.png
 
I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds legit to me. We'll see what the rebuttal is. I think I've made my opinion clear in the past, so there's no reason to go back through that. Now we all sit back and get some popcorn....
 
I was reading through Jayski and guess I missed this portion yesterday:

Also notable in the filing is that NASCAR confirmed that it would not consider approving the transfer of two purchased charters from Stewart-Haas Racing by 23XI and Front Row ‘purchased these Charters fully aware that they contained a release provision, which needed to be accepted for any requested transfer to be considered.’

I wonder what this means for Gene?
 
wi_racefan said:
I was reading through Jayski and guess I missed this portion yesterday:

Also notable in the filing is that NASCAR confirmed that it would not consider approving the transfer of two purchased charters from Stewart-Haas Racing by 23XI and Front Row ‘purchased these Charters fully aware that they contained a release provision, which needed to be accepted for any requested transfer to be considered.’

I wonder what this means for Gene?
Click to expand...
That's self explanatory. If they don't win their case against Nascar, Gene has his charters to sell to others. WITH and only with Nascar's approval.
 
StandOnIt said:
That's self explanatory. If they don't win their case against Nascar, Gene has his charters to sell to others. WITH and only with Nascar's approval.
Click to expand...
Yep Gene and Tony will be hanging until this is resolved. Tony will be distracted racing Top Fuel next year, Gene will be bleeding $$$ with a one car team.
 
aunty dive said:
Haas planned for a 1 car Cup team well before the lawsuit was filed.
Click to expand...
That was Gene's plan, but it seems that Nascar has a different plan. Each chartered car is required to enter and compete in all 38 races, so the implication seems to be that Haas will be forced to operate all three teams next year, or forfeit the charters due to breech of contract.

I wonder if Nascar prohibiting the sale of these charters from a willing and able seller to willing and able buyers constitutes "irreparable harm" and thus might justify a temporary injunction in the judge's eyes??? Haas will certainly be harmed if he can't sell or lease two charters because Nascar withholds the required approval.

Personally, I am surprised to see Nascar assert a statute of limitations defense. It's like they are saying, "You can't accuse us of being a monopolistic bully because we have *always* been a monopolistic bully." One thing I know is that a motion to dismiss is almost always filed. It is more common than "The Big One" at Talladega. Such motions are rarely granted, but time will tell....
 
LewTheShoe said:
That was Gene's plan, but it seems that Nascar has a different plan. Each chartered car is required to enter and compete in all 38 races, so the implication seems to be that Haas will be forced to operate all three teams next year, or forfeit the charters due to breech of contract.
Click to expand...

Makes no sense to me. If you have 3 you have to run then all or none at all … when you have 2 pending sale?

That dog won’t hunt.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Personally, I am surprised to see Nascar assert a statute of limitations defense. It's like they are saying, "You can't accuse us of being a monopolistic bully because we have *always* been a monopolistic bully." One thing I know is that a motion to dismiss is almost always filed. It is more common than "The Big One" at Talladega. Such motions are rarely granted, but time will tell....
Click to expand...
Sounds like NASCAR’s lawyers have decided to defend a contract dispute rather than an antitrust suit. We’ll see what the court has to say about that.
 
Don't think that is Nascar's fault. They aren't the one's doing the suing that has put Haas in the lurch for now. Those charters were given for free by Nascar but with strings attatched. Stick and ballers get confused by that part.
 
StandOnIt said:
Those charters were given for free by Nascar....
Click to expand...
I keep hearing that the charters were given for free. It comes mainly from those who support the France family in this litigation, and feel the team owners should be happy with the business model they have always had.

The statement is often used to imply that the car owners arguments are somewhat tainted, sorta like... "The car owners were *given for free* a charter that's worth significant money on the market, and now those greedy bast@rds want even more."

I don't think this "given for free" narrative is the right way to look at this situation. A better analogy is that the team owners formed the RTA, which was sorta, kinda like a union, and engaged with Nascar in collective bargaining. And the charter system emerged from the collective bargaining as a way to improve the economic plight of the owners, without costing anything from Nascar... and both sides agreed. It's not unlike the municipal fire fighters bargaining for a retirement plan, in my opinion, except that it was revenue-neutral and expense-neutral to Nascar and to the tracks.

Also, the charters were awarded only to the teams who had raced every week, full time to put on the show, for a period of years. There were only 36 teams who met that standard of investment in the Nascar cup series. Not given, and not free.
 
LewTheShoe said:
I keep hearing that the charters were given for free. It comes mainly from those who support the France family in this litigation, and feel the team owners should be happy with the business model they have always had.

The statement is often used to imply that the car owners arguments are somewhat tainted, sorta like... "The car owners were *given for free* a charter that's worth significant money on the market, and now those greedy bast@rds want even more."

I don't think this "given for free" narrative is the right way to look at this situation. A better analogy is that the team owners formed the RTA, which was sorta, kinda like a union, and engaged with Nascar in collective bargaining. And the charter system emerged from the collective bargaining as a way to improve the economic plight of the owners, without costing anything from Nascar... and both sides agreed. It's not unlike the municipal fire fighters bargaining for a retirement plan, in my opinion, except that it was revenue-neutral and expense-neutral to Nascar and to the tracks.

Also, the charters were awarded only to the teams who had raced every week, full time to put on the show, for a period of years. There were only 36 teams who met that standard of investment in the Nascar cup series. Not given, and not free.
Click to expand...
StandOnIt said:
Don't think that is Nascar's fault. They aren't the one's doing the suing that has put Haas in the lurch for now. Those charters were given for free by Nascar but with strings attatched. Stick and ballers get confused by that part.
Click to expand...
You forgot the "but were given with strings attached " part when you mis-quoted what I said. lol. That means that teams agreed to those contract stipulations in simple terms.
 
The original 36 charters were EARNED by their recipients as per agreement. Chartered teams made the show at 36 of 36 consecutive Cup Series events over 3 full seasons.

The idea that NASCAR “coronated” those car owners as an act of altruism is embarrassing.
 
StandOnIt said:
You forgot the "but were given with strings attached " part when you mis-quoted what I said. lol. That means that teams agreed to those contract stipulations in simple terms.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. Both parties agreed to terms written into the charter agreements.

What did Gene Haas do wrong? Why is there any question as to the charter status of his newly named single car team?
 
aunty dive said:
The original 36 charters were EARNED by their recipients as per agreement. Chartered teams made the show at 36 of 36 consecutive Cup Series events over 3 full seasons.

The idea that NASCAR “coronated” those car owners as an act of altruism is embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Those are called contract stipulations. In other words For Free, teams must in good faith participate.
 
aunty dive said:
The original 36 charters were EARNED by their recipients as per agreement. Chartered teams made the show at 36 of 36 consecutive Cup Series events over 3 full seasons.

The idea that NASCAR “coronated” those car owners as an act of altruism is embarrassing.
Click to expand...
It's the altruistic benevolent dictatorship.
 
aunty dive said:
Yes, they did. Both parties agreed to terms written into the charter agreements.

What did Gene Haas do wrong? Why is there any question as to the charter status of his newly named single car team?
Click to expand...
So far he has sold to the wrong team that didn't sign the contract. In other words it wasn't an approved sale by Nascar. (it's in the contract)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
StandOnIt said:
So far he has sold to the wrong team that didn't sign the contract. In other words it wasn't an approved sale by Nascar. (it's in the contract)
Click to expand...
So far, SHR has sold a charter to Trackhouse for SVG’s number 88. Deal approved.

No other sales have been made for the obvious reason. The intention is for a charter transfer to be made from SHR to Gene’s new single car team. Apparently that’s now an issue. Why?

Each charter is an individual contract that is assigned to a particular car number.
 
Perfectly played by SHR/Haas and 23XI/FRM, Nascar walked right into that one. I think they proved their point. Tony is probably laughing his butt off!
 
aunty dive said:
The idea that NASCAR can hold up a charter transfer that meets contract terms and conditions because the guy holding it “sold (attempted to sell) charters to the wrong teams” defines monopolistic bullying.
Click to expand...
The only ones holding up the sale are 23XI and FRM. If they would've agreed to the terms of the charter agreement the sale would have gone through
 
I’m talking about the internal Haas transfer, not the sale to the 2 teams involved in the lawsuit.

You’ve completely missed the point.
 
aunty dive said:
So far, SHR has sold a charter to Trackhouse for SVG’s number 88. Deal approved.

No other sales have been made for the obvious reason. The intention is for a charter transfer to be made from SHR to Gene’s new single car team. Apparently that’s now an issue. Why?

Each charter is an individual contract that is assigned to a particular car number.
Click to expand...
I bet we see Cole Custer in the Haas Automation car at Daytona. I have no idea what you are talking about. What I do know is that 23XI and Front Row are charterless at the present time. Charter sale don't go thru without NAscar's approval, I know that also.
 
StandOnIt said:
So far he has sold to the wrong team that didn't sign the contract. In other words it wasn't an approved sale by Nascar. (it's in the contract)
Click to expand...
But Haas had no way of knowing the buyers weren't going to sign the contract when SHR made the deal.
 
StandOnIt said:
Don't think that is Nascar's fault. They aren't the one's doing the suing that has put Haas in the lurch for now. Those charters were given for free by Nascar but with strings attatched. Stick and ballers get confused by that part.
Click to expand...
Let's be perfectly honest about the "free" thing. NASCAR didn't give up diddly squat. All the charters did was guarantee WHO was going to get the money NASCAR was paying out already.
 
Th
StandOnIt said:
Haas might already have his money. He sure has been quiet.
Click to expand...
That would be like buying a car and not getting the title. Only a complete fool would pay before they have a valid charter in hand. Also remember that NASCAR basically has a gag order on the teams that signed the new deal. Haas may not want to antagonize NASCAR on this.
 
Formerjackman said:
Let's be perfectly honest about the "free" thing. NASCAR didn't give up diddly squat. All the charters did was guarantee WHO was going to get the money NASCAR was paying out already.
Click to expand...
You can be perfectly honest. Free means it didn't cost the teams a thing. But what it accomplished was create value where there was little.
 
Formerjackman said:
Th

That would be like buying a car and not getting the title. Only a complete fool would pay before they have a valid charter in hand.
Click to expand...
Well there ya go. Beings that you don't know squat about the deal or lack of one you can think anything you choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom