23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

StandOnIt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Any post I make to you or anyone else that breaks forum rules should certainly be reported.

Your bias(es) are on display here on a daily basis.

Report that, Stan.
 
StandOnIt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just so we're clear, the "innocent until proven guilty" principle only applies in criminal court. In civil court, the burden of proof is much lower.
 
Jimbo Slice said:
Just so we're clear, the "innocent until proven guilty" principle only applies in criminal court. In civil court, the burden of proof is much lower.
Click to expand...

In civil cases, the standard is much lower than in criminal law. In civil law, the standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. This generally means the jury believes it is more likely than not that the defendant did what the other side says they did.

None of these billionaires are going to jail.
 
Moves and Countermoves.
1000001910.jpg
 
Ah the good old days before charters with start and parkers between 19 and 36 laps down and Nascar was tired of it. lol.
Michael McDowell ended up being the first to concede, dropping out after making 149 laps.

 
rd45usa said:
When does Tony and Gene enter the chat.
View attachment 82049
Click to expand...
It's been widely reported that Nascar brass assured Joe Custer and Jerry Freeze that the charter sales would be approved once the transfer window opened, after the racing season ended. And there is ample precedent, after eight years of charter sales being approved during each off-season. But that was *before* 23XI and FRM filed their lawsuit, making them outliers that needed and deserved to be punished, according to Nascar's way of thinking. And SHR is really just collateral damage in Nascar's righteous war on the outliers.

Now Nascar is handing out that punishment and asking the federal judge to ratify it. It smells bad to me... but I also get the impression there are very strict guidelines to be met before temporary injunctions are issued... so I can't predict the judge's ruling.
 
LewTheShoe said:
It's been widely reported that Nascar brass assured Joe Custer and Jerry Freeze that the charter sales would be approved once the transfer window opened, after the racing season ended. And there is ample precedent, after eight years of charter sales being approved during each off-season. But that was *before* 23XI and FRM filed their lawsuit, making them outliers that needed and deserved to be punished, according to Nascar's way of thinking. And SHR is really just collateral damage in Nascar's righteous war on the outliers.

Now Nascar is handing out that punishment and asking the federal judge to ratify it. It smells bad to me... but I also get the impression there are very strict guidelines to be met before temporary injunctions are issued... so I can't predict the judge's ruling.
Click to expand...
I think an actual affidavit from Custer would hold weight, and Nascar has emails about their claims. Tit for tat.
 
SHR signed the new agreements for all 4 of their charters. NASCAR approved the transfer of 1 of them to Gene Haas’ new single car team and approved the sale / transfer of another to Trackhouse Racing.
 
aunty dive said:
SHR signed the new agreements for all 4 of their charters. NASCAR approved the transfer of 1 of them to Gene Haas’ new single car team and approved the sale / transfer of another to Trackhouse Racing.
Click to expand...
What we don't know is do the sales have to be approved and if so is that in the contract? Verbal OK will have more wight if it isn't in the contract.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
I also see the point of view of the teams that are not suing 👍
Click to expand...
Which teams are they that have specifically renounced this legal action?\

I might have easily missed or failed to notice those teams publicly objecting to the legal action.
If you would be kind enough to provide quotes from team principles and/or sources authorized to speak for or on behalf of those teams stating their disavowing the legal action implemented by 23XI and FRM it would be appreciated.
 
Whizzer said:
Which teams are they that have specifically renounced this legal action?\

I might have easily missed or failed to notice those teams publicly objecting to the legal action.
If you would be kind enough to provide quotes from team principles and/or sources authorized to speak for or on behalf of those teams stating their disavowing the legal action implemented by 23XI and FRM it would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
as long as you post quotes of teams who are objecting. I would think that teams that already signed should be enough proof?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Not suing isn't the same thing as renouncing. Passive vs. active.
Click to expand...
All I have heard, somebody might have heard more is that Hendrick said he was tired he signed, Childers grumbled but signed, and Trackhouse played the middle pretty well. I wouldn't expect that they being team owners are going to be overjoyed and stick out of their fraternity of owners by being overjoyed, but the bottom line they didn't side with the two teams who opted out. I think they had ample opportunity to band together and all refuse to sign. Nobody was holding a gun to their heads.
:idunno:
 
StandOnIt said:
All I have heard, somebody might have heard more is that Hendrick said he was tired he signed, Childers grumbled but signed, and Trackhouse played the middle pretty well. I wouldn't expect that they being team owners are going to be overjoyed and stick out of their fraternity of owners by being overjoyed, but the bottom line they didn't side with the two teams who opted out. I think they had ample opportunity to band together and all refuse to sign. Nobody was holding a gun to their heads.
:idunno:
Click to expand...
The question remains unanswered. The question isn't of who had opportunity to sign. It is a matter of who publicly approved or opposed the legal action.
 
Whizzer said:
Which teams are they that have specifically renounced this legal action?\

I might have easily missed or failed to notice those teams publicly objecting to the legal action.
If you would be kind enough to provide quotes from team principles and/or sources authorized to speak for or on behalf of those teams stating their disavowing the legal action implemented by 23XI and FRM it would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
I see what ur trying to do here... but just so ur aware.. u failed at it. Quite hilariously too.. imo.

When did I say that they publicly denounced it? Pretty sure when I read my comment again it doesn't mention any of the things ur trying to be such a smart*ss about.

Hey, if two of ur friends are going out for dinner and they invite you and all the rest of your friends.. but you and your other friends don't go.. would it be safe to assume you didnt want to go to the restaurant?

The teams not suing is very obviously evidence that they don't want to sue. I'm not sure how much more simple it could be really.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Yeah I'm still trying to figure out where I said that though. Someone puts words in my mouth and people like you are out here acting like I owe an explanation for those words. Absolutely laughable.
Click to expand...
You posted: "I also see the point of view of the teams that are not suing."

I asked which teams publicly denounced or approved of the legal action. What I was asking is, if you see their point of view, what is it? That, my friend, is a legitimate question.
Then you posted this:.
SlicedBread22 said:
The teams not suing is very obviously evidence that they don't want to sue. I'm not sure how much more simple it could be really.
Click to expand...

Owners being silent or not involved in the law suit doesn't mean they are in agreement or disagreement with the legal action. It could easily mean they prefer to let 23XI and FRM handle it. They have nothing to gain by voicing an opinion either way at this time and feel it is best to wait until the dust settles before making any public statement. Wouldn't you agree?
 
So the complete narcissist Denny Hambone now incorporates Holy Scripture to respond to a reporter, warping it’s true meaning to make it fit HIS agenda, which has nothing to do with the context of the verse.

“For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭8‬:‭17‬ ‭NIV‬‬
Click to expand...
 
Whizzer said:
Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
If I agreed we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You are assuming. I'm going off the more likely scenario that people who don't want to sue tend to not sue.

Maybe I'm wrong.. that's entirely possible of course.. but logically it makes the most sense.

You can "if, when, could, should, and will" all you want...the fact remains that I believe the people who have an issue are the ones that are suing.. and not the ones who are not suing.

You can disagree, I'm OK with people not seeing it from my point of view.. but you can't tell me I'm wrong. I don't accept that. This is my opinion.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Yeah I'm still trying to figure out where I said that though. Someone puts words in my mouth and people like you are out here acting like I owe an explanation for those words. Absolutely laughable.
Click to expand...
That's pretty common. Sometimes they mis-interpret what was posted, and some habitually shift the topic with a look over here or a what about? Know your poster. :idunno:
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Matthew 21:17 (Bobs response) is

"And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there".
Click to expand...
Ok before we go to far down this road Bob didn't actually say that. It's a meme I made after I saw the top half. It's a Simpsons reference

 
What I asked was evidence for feeling the way you do to arrive at the opinion you offered. There doesn't appear to be any evidence and your opinion is based on assumption. That, my friend, was the crux of the original question.
In the end no one knows how this will turn out or how other team owners feel and we will only know when NASCAR or the litigants show their hand and a decision is rendered. Meantime what I see posted within this lengthy thread is speculation, innuendo and, questionable prophesies.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
You are assuming. I'm going off the more likely scenario that people who don't want to sue tend to not sue.
Click to expand...
And you are assuming I'm assuming and in both situations, you would be wrong.
SlicedBread22 said:
You can disagree, I'm OK with people not seeing it from my point of view.. but you can't tell me I'm wrong. I don't accept that. This is my opinion.
Click to expand...
And I respect your opinion, I'm not criticizing it. I was seeking proof to support your train of thought in arriving at the conclusion expressed previously..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom