23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Whizzer said:
NASCAR is privately owned by the France Family. As such, they are not required by law to provide financial information to anyone.

ISC was a corporation selling stock on NASDAQ, which by law, requires provision of an annual financial statement to the shareholders.

The France Family purchased ISC and placed it under the France Family umbrella, a sole ownership, thus removing it as a corporation trading stock on NASDAQ.

The France Family is not a corporation therefore is under no obligation to expose their financials which, since the purchase of ISC, .no longer requires them to provide an annual financial report.

If you have evidence of a financial statement from the France Family that is a public document, please provide the source.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I know. What I posted in the article written in Forbes, I assumed everybody knew this apparently not. That article had data available about team sponsorship numbers income from sponsorship and disbursements and Nascar's gross earnings. If some choose not to believe the figures so be it. What the France's made is irrelevant and anybodies guess, and doesn't have a thing to do with this lawsuit. I would suggest reading the article that I re posted below. At least most of the figures appear to be able to be found easily as they are from public companies doing business with Nascar for those interested in that kind of thing.

www.forbes.com

New Report Gives A Peek Under Nascar’s Financial Hood

Nascar no longer publicly reports revenue, having gone private in 2019. But a recent report provides a look into the series' financial health, along with some other surprising data.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
First it was that NASCAR doesn't turn much profit to cede to the teams and that this is publicly reported information. Then it was that a blog post with speculative revenue figures but no information on profits was the public report. Then it was posting ISC earnings statements from when ISC operated separately from NASCAR and pretending that those are NASCAR earnings statements. Then it is a further misrepresentation of the structure of these businesses, and we're now to refer to NASCAR as "France family earnings", which are now irrelevant.

Hard to have a good faith debate with that level of disregard for basic factual information.
 
StandOnIt said:
The court has already ruled on the injunction. This is the appeal.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of both. I’m not referring to the injunction action(s) but rather to NASCAR’s effort to have the entire case thrown out.

From a link posted by yourself …

“ NASCAR has officially filed a motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit brought against the sanctioning body and CEO Jim France earlier this Fall by NASCAR Cup Series teams 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports.”

“ In the motion, which was filed on Monday, December 2, the sanctioning body outlines several reasons as to why they believe the lawsuit has no merit, pleading that the court immediately dismiss the case.”

www.si.com

NASCAR Files Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit from 23XI, FRM

The National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) and its CEO, Jim France, have both filed motions to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit that was brought a
www.si.com www.si.com

I like to read everything included in links I intend to post.
 
aunty dive said:
I’m aware of both. I’m not referring to the injunction action(s) but rather to NASCAR’s effort to have the entire case thrown out.

From a link posted by yourself …

“ NASCAR has officially filed a motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit brought against the sanctioning body and CEO Jim France earlier this Fall by NASCAR Cup Series teams 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports.”

“ In the motion, which was filed on Monday, December 2, the sanctioning body outlines several reasons as to why they believe the lawsuit has no merit, pleading that the court immediately dismiss the case.”

www.si.com

NASCAR Files Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit from 23XI, FRM

The National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) and its CEO, Jim France, have both filed motions to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit that was brought a
www.si.com www.si.com

I like to read everything included in links I intend to post.
Click to expand...

StandOnIt said:
The court has already ruled on the injunction. This is the appeal.
Click to expand...
What part of ruling against the injunction do you not understand? This BTW is after 23XI said they would happily race without a charter, but apparently changed their minds. That so far appears to be a contract dispute.
 
Both the initial (denied) and the subsequent re-application (decision pending) for an injunction are pre-trial motions. Common, everyday proceedings that PRECEDE the adjudication of the actual issue.

As per the information you posted, NASCAR has since filed to have the entire matter thrown out. At this point, it is neither an anti-trust case nor a contract dispute, irrespective of how it “appears” to laymen posting on the intergoogle.
 
StandOnIt said:
Thanks. I know. What I posted in the article written in Forbes, I assumed everybody knew this apparently not. That article had data available about team sponsorship numbers income from sponsorship and disbursements and Nascar's gross earnings. If some choose not to believe the figures so be it. What the France's made is irrelevant and anybodies guess, and doesn't have a thing to do with this lawsuit. I would suggest reading the article that I re posted below. At least most of the figures appear to be able to be found easily as they are from public companies doing business with Nascar for those interested in that kind of thing.

www.forbes.com

New Report Gives A Peek Under Nascar’s Financial Hood

Nascar no longer publicly reports revenue, having gone private in 2019. But a recent report provides a look into the series' financial health, along with some other surprising data.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
Okay. I read the article and remain steadfast in my opinion this is not a financial report of the France Family, i.e., NASCAR, and how much they make once the dust clears. Apparently your mileage is different so feel free to beat this horse 'till sundown but the end result will remain the same. We just don't know. None of us do.:idunno:
 
There is that contract word again.

From the NASCAR filing:

“Antitrust litigation is not an appropriate tool to rewrite contractual terms between NASCAR and a third party. Nor is a party’s desire for preferred contractual terms the proper use of a preliminary injunction. Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ desire to acquire Charters underscores the hypocrisy of this lawsuit, including Plaintiffs’ frivolous contention that Charters are anticompetitive. …

“No extraordinary circumstances exist here: Plaintiffs had their chances to sign Charters but refused to take them, and were well aware that they would need to accept the Charter terms to which SHR agreed. Plaintiffs cannot now simply exclaim ‘monopoly’ to rewrite agreements giving[themselves] unilateral benefit.”

Also, any injunctive relief has to be the result of irreparable damages that cannot be calculated. If the general amount of a damage can be calculated, that’s covered under judgement should 23XI and Front Row win their antitrust lawsuit.

sportsnaut.com

NASCAR says latest 23XI, Front Row request for temporary charters fall short of 'irreparable harm'

These are matters that must be solved before the monopoly lawsuit can begin
sportsnaut.com sportsnaut.com
 
rd45usa said:
Per Jayski on the latest filing.
Click to expand...
Additional details from NASCAR’S filing:

“Since that Order, nothing has changed. Plaintiffs recycle the arguments the Court already rejected. For instance, they suggest that drivers might leave absent a Charter. The first bullet in Plaintiffs’ Motion makes this abundantly clear: Reddick can leave. But a mere ‘possibility’ of harm is precisely what this Court properly rejected in its previous Order.

“Further, the fact that some—but not all—of Plaintiffs’ drivers could leave is entirely self-inflicted, stemming from driver contracts that Plaintiffs negotiated, Plaintiffs’ decision not to sign Charters despite being aware of those exit provisions, and Plaintiffs’ dramatic rhetoric at the hearing and to the press.”
 
Charlie Spencer said:
What NASCAR clears and what gets pased on to the Frances aren't necessarily the same number.
Click to expand...
True.

However, if the case goes forward, the discovery process will reveal salaries, bonuses and any other remuneration paid to the shareholder group and the individuals within it, including Mr. James France, who is also a defendant, as you know.
 
I mean so much harm has been inflicted to 23XI that they were forced to expand and add a 3rd car....
 
wi_racefan said:
But the injunction is claiming that without it they will suffer harm
Click to expand...
They are trying to say because they have been denied charters it is causing harm, but the hand under the table tried to buy a charter after they didn't sign the contract...They brought on Herbst even though they don't have a charter, but now they claim Nascar is the big meaney for not letting them have one and they have been harmed. At least Front Row who was supposed to have Gragson driving for them next year hasn't named him as a driver yet so they at least are acting like they have been harmed. So anyway, both teams in the early stages said running without charters is no big deal, but now they have changed their minds and have suffered irreparable harm.
 
BobbyFord said:
And they likely will. That has nothing to do with how much money MJ showed up with.
He can afford a third car but that doesn’t mean NASCAR isn’t conducting unfair business.
Click to expand...
So you say you have been dealt irreparable harm, could lose Reddick because of not having a charter, but you wrote the contract that let's him take a walk if he wants to and this was knowing they weren't going to sign the charter agreement. lol. Then you bring on another driver and team etc with Herbst and company and continue to claim irreparable harm. They lost the first go round, good luck with the appeal.
 
StandOnIt said:
So you say you have been dealt irreparable harm, could lose Reddick because of not having a charter, but you wrote the contract that let's him take a walk if he wants to and this was knowing they weren't going to sign the charter agreement. lol. Then you bring on another driver and team etc with Herbst and company and continue to claim irreparable harm. They lost the first go round, good luck with the appeal.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that because Michael Jordan is a billionaire, NASCAR can’t possibly be guilty of unfair business practices?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Respectfully, you seem unwilling to even consider that NASCAR's behavior may have violated the law.
Click to expand...
StandOnIt said:
As you continue to vacillate from one side to another continuing to stir the pot, I frankly could care less what you think.
Click to expand...
Some observers are able to weigh the points of view of both litigants … rather like the courts do.

Some observers are not able to do that because of their cognitive bias. If you were in the jury pool you’d be DQ’d.
 
aunty dive said:
Some observers are able to weigh the points of view of both litigants … rather like the courts do.

Some observers are not able to do that because of their cognitive bias.
Click to expand...
There is a reason this is 49 pages. Think about that during the off season.
 
aunty dive said:
Some observers are able to weigh the points of view of both litigants … rather like the courts do.

Some observers are not able to do that because of their cognitive bias. If you were in the jury pool you’d be DQ’d.
Click to expand...
According to the law of the land, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Of course around here it isn't rocket science to see that statement skewed the other way. Guilty until proven innocent lol. Can't say I remember any of your posts pointing out both sides of the issue. Is that like the pot calling the kettle black? I would suggest sticking to the discussion at hand, it's the off season, but if you and the others want to continue to get personal with it, that is where we can go, the mods will have to get involved once again and again and again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom