23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

KTMLew01 said:
Which is the point. Some sure believe it's in there. But let's not go too much further with this. Will just get deleted.
Click to expand...
I think Oklahoma is leading the nation in that area. A couple of examples, there are many more almost daily but these 2 are on topic. The OK. State superintendent of schools mind ya. Spec'd out bibles for the schools. The only bible that could fit the specs was the 52 buck bible that Trump was selling. (they cost 2 bucks wholesale.) He ordered them and ordered all the schools in the state to have them in the class rooms or they would be fired. Long story short, big mess but order was cancelled (I think). He wasn't done. He made a video of inviting all of the school kids and teachers etc to join him in praying for trump. So right there in his office, with the government flags flying behind him there he went.
Depending on who you ask, Oklahoma is between 44th and 47th out of 50 States in education.
 
Whizzer said:
And you are assuming I'm assuming and in both situations, you would be wrong.

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..
Click to expand...
I don't have proof. I never said I did.

People were talking about seeing it from the point of view of nascar and of the team's suing. I was just pointing out that there are many more teams who don't seem to have a problem.. or at least haven't given me a reason to think they agree with the people suing.

If I'm not given a reason to think they have an issue then I choose to assume they dont. Because why wouldn't I? It doesn't make sense to me to just assume others have the same problem with a complete lack of evidence.
 
aunty dive said:
It seems to me the smart play is lay low, stay out of it and reap whatever benefits come your way if the plaintiffs win in court.
Click to expand...
Should we count that as an opinion? We seem to be having problems with opinions lately. Sounds about right. Don't rock the boat could work also.
 
Allenbaba said:
Well, if there's one thing I learned in Vegas, the other teams are 100% with 23XI & FRM. And I don't mean just rooting for them. I mean, 100% active support. Depositions are going to be really fun! "Well gosh darn, I love NASCAR, I really love NASCAR, I have no interest in fighting them! But since I'm under oath and could go to jail if I lie, I guess I gotta talk about some secrets, gosh darn!"

And Jordan is all in. He has already committed to fund the team at the same level even if running without charters. Jenkins too I believe, but I don't know that as well as I do the Jordan piece. They will operate in 2025 with the same budget.

The sense is NASCAR will eventually settle before all their shadiness comes out (because it most certainly will), and figure out a way for teams to permanently own (buy) the charters. That's what this is all about.
Click to expand...
I trust this poster the most when it comes to insider knowledge and his posted comments about the other owners.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Are you referring to the court case or this discussion?
Click to expand...
I assume he's saying the other 13 teams are sitting back eating popcorn. As they likely should. Still think NASCAR will find a way to keep the two outlaw teams from racing at all.

your-thought-you-re-fired-meme.jpg


^^^opinion^^^
 
I just realized that if I hold the like button down it allows me options of different emojis. This is to inform you all that many times I have given a thumbs u👍🏼 in response because I didn’t think I had any options. It turns out that I do!

I’m sure there is a metaphor in there that pertains to this contract dispute but I’m going to let each of you find your own interpretation 😛
 
RaceCritter said:
I just realized that if I hold the like button down it allows me options of different emojis.
Click to expand...
If it makes you feel any better, I just learned I didn't have to clear one emoji response first before replacing it with another, but that I could instead directly replace the first one by clicking on the second.
 
KTMLew01 said:
Which is the point. Some sure believe it's in there. But let's not go too much further with this. Will just get deleted.
Click to expand...
Everything has a back story. If you REALLY want to understand the Constitution, you must read the Federalist Papers.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
I don't have proof. I never said I did.

People were talking about seeing it from the point of view of nascar and of the team's suing. I was just pointing out that there are many more teams who don't seem to have a problem.. or at least haven't given me a reason to think they agree with the people suing.

If I'm not given a reason to think they have an issue then I choose to assume they dont. Because why wouldn't I? It doesn't make sense to me to just assume others have the same problem with a complete lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for any teams beyond them, but the limited responses that Rick Hendrick and Richard Childress gave made it crystal clear to ME that they were NOT happy with NASCAR at all, and felt absolutely coerced into signing. Those are two guys who normally never miss a chance to extoll the virtues of NASCAR, and in this case, they didn't even TRY to spin this in favorable terms. Sometimes what ISN'T said tells you more than what IS.
 
I don’t think any owners liked the idea of not permanently owning charters. No doubt they would prefer to hold them as an asset for the many reasons I have detailed previously. And the younger teams that spent millions to aquire charter rights certainly want to own them. But NASCAR isn’t operating like the NFL, and doesn’t want to. These teams are not franchises, but that’s what Jordan and company want them to be. If NASCAR does revert to a settlement, and allow charters to be owned, I believe there will be compensation owed to them from the teams.
 
Conover said:
I don’t think any owners liked the idea of not permanently owning charters. No doubt they would prefer to hold them as an asset for the many reasons I have detailed previously. And the younger teams that spent millions to aquire charter rights certainly want to own them. But NASCAR isn’t operating like the NFL, and doesn’t want to. These teams are not franchises, but that’s what Jordan and company want them to be. If NASCAR does revert to a settlement, and allow charters to be owned, I believe there will be compensation owed to them from the teams.
Click to expand...
That is one of the things Kelly Earnhardt brought up about charters, not permanent and nobody knows true value of one. Plus they could go away after new contract is over (7 years).
 
Formerjackman said:
I can't speak for any teams beyond them, but the limited responses that Rick Hendrick and Richard Childress gave made it crystal clear to ME that they were NOT happy with NASCAR at all, and felt absolutely coerced into signing. Those are two guys who normally never miss a chance to extoll the virtues of NASCAR, and in this case, they didn't even TRY to spin this in favorable terms. Sometimes what ISN'T said tells you more than what IS.
Click to expand...
I think others who are throwing their spin about what Rick Hendrick said is a bit of a miss contextually. Sounds like to me he was tired of messing with it, it had been two years of meetings BTW.

Rick Hendrick said. He was "just tired". Despite these financial and governance hurdles, there remains a thread of optimism for a more balanced future. Hendrick added: "[The deal will be done] pretty soon ... because it's too important to everybody, NASCAR, the owners and the tracks". "It's just, we got to get it done."

Brad Keselowski said this. ""It's one of these agreements that is only good when everybody's just a little bit jaded. "I think there's things obviously we would like to have better, but I think to some degree, there's pieces that we really like, and there's pieces not so much. But it's hard to use the word 'fair.' I don't know if I know what that means."

Justin Marks had plenty to say.
Justin Marks has provided his take on the allegations, suggesting that the final offer was not coercion but rather a necessary boundary set by NASCAR in the negotiation.
"I think everybody can interpret it in their own way. For me, regardless of how you wanna build a narrative around it, ultimately, it's NASCAR's court. And they said that 'We are done negotiating here. This is the deal. It's not gonna change. This is the deal that's on the table.'
"And I looked at that and said, 'Well, I'm not going anywhere, so we're gonna sign it.' So, you can interpret that anyway that you want,"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
rd45usa said:
That is one of the things Kelly Earnhardt brought up about charters, not permanent and nobody knows true value of one. Plus they could go away after new contract is over (7 years).
Click to expand...
Or they would get renegotiated just like they were recently when a new TV deal has been made. The recent TV deal is for 7 years.
 
StandOnIt said:
I think others who are throwing their spin about what Rick Hendrick said is a bit of a miss contextually. Sounds like to me he was tired of messing with it, it had been two years of meetings BTW.

Rick Hendrick said. He was "just tired". Despite these financial and governance hurdles, there remains a thread of optimism for a more balanced future. Hendrick added: "[The deal will be done] pretty soon ... because it's too important to everybody, NASCAR, the owners and the tracks". "It's just, we got to get it done."

Brad Keselowski said this. ""It's one of these agreements that is only good when everybody's just a little bit jaded. "I think there's things obviously we would like to have better, but I think to some degree, there's pieces that we really like, and there's pieces not so much. But it's hard to use the word 'fair.' I don't know if I know what that means."

Justin Marks had plenty to say.
Justin Marks has provided his take on the allegations, suggesting that the final offer was not coercion but rather a necessary boundary set by NASCAR in the negotiation.
"I think everybody can interpret it in their own way. For me, regardless of how you wanna build a narrative around it, ultimately, it's NASCAR's court. And they said that 'We are done negotiating here. This is the deal. It's not gonna change. This is the deal that's on the table.'
"And I looked at that and said, 'Well, I'm not going anywhere, so we're gonna sign it.' So, you can interpret that anyway that you want,"
Click to expand...
I think you are massively underestimating Hendrick's comments. This guy is the king of positive spin. I've been following his moves for 41 years now. For Rick to say what he said is as close to "FU NASCAR" as he is ever going to come.
 
StandOnIt said:
I think others who are throwing their spin about what Rick Hendrick said is a bit of a miss contextually. Sounds like to me he was tired of messing with it, it had been two years of meetings BTW.

Rick Hendrick said. He was "just tired". Despite these financial and governance hurdles, there remains a thread of optimism for a more balanced future. Hendrick added: "[The deal will be done] pretty soon ... because it's too important to everybody, NASCAR, the owners and the tracks". "It's just, we got to get it done."

Brad Keselowski said this. ""It's one of these agreements that is only good when everybody's just a little bit jaded. "I think there's things obviously we would like to have better, but I think to some degree, there's pieces that we really like, and there's pieces not so much. But it's hard to use the word 'fair.' I don't know if I know what that means."

Justin Marks had plenty to say.
Justin Marks has provided his take on the allegations, suggesting that the final offer was not coercion but rather a necessary boundary set by NASCAR in the negotiation.
"I think everybody can interpret it in their own way. For me, regardless of how you wanna build a narrative around it, ultimately, it's NASCAR's court. And they said that 'We are done negotiating here. This is the deal. It's not gonna change. This is the deal that's on the table.'
"And I looked at that and said, 'Well, I'm not going anywhere, so we're gonna sign it.' So, you can interpret that anyway that you want,"
Click to expand...
Three team owners, all with different answers. None of which seem to be supporting the teams suing. How about that.
 
Formerjackman said:
I think you are massively underestimating Hendrick's comments. This guy is the king of positive spin. I've been following his moves for 41 years now. For Rick to say what he said is as close to "FU NASCAR" as he is ever going to come.
Click to expand...
Why is it so safe to assume negatively but not positively? Seems to be a trend here lately.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Three team owners, all with different answers. None of which seem to be supporting the teams suing. How about that.
Click to expand...
And Keselowski has added another car, Justin Marks has put a super team together to go after the Rolex 24. Hendrick is sponsoring Larson in many different ways, the High Limit series with Hendrick Cars.com on the pace truck. He sponsors Larson's various dirt Sprint and midget races. Primary sponsor for Rajah in the trucks next year. Those expansion signs aren't signs of dire straights from lack of funds or enthusiasm. I doubt we will see ol' Joe's name on and dirt stuff, but he did decide to at least let his drivers expand their racing and Bell is one of the best there is. It's a great time to be a racing fan. The CARS series was picked up by Flo, I hear it has expanded into some different markets.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Why is it so safe to assume negatively but not positively? Seems to be a trend here lately.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Click to expand...
Because if there was ANYTHING remotely positive about it, Rick would have been the guy out trying to sell it. He's one of the kings of making chicken salad out of chicken ****, he's a car salesman, it's what he DOES. Except in this case, he hasn't even tried, and the "I was just tired" is about as passive aggressive as I've seen the man get, at least in front of a microphone.
 
StandOnIt said:
And Keselowski has added another car, Justin Marks has put a super team together to go after the Rolex 24. Hendrick is sponsoring Larson in many different ways, the High Limit series with Hendrick Cars.com on the pace truck. He sponsors Larson's various dirt Sprint and midget races. Primary sponsor for Rajah in the trucks next year. Those expansion signs aren't signs of dire straights from lack of funds or enthusiasm. I doubt we will see ol' Joe's name on and dirt stuff, but he did decide to at least let his drivers expand their racing and Bell is one of the best there is. It's a great time to be a racing fan. The CARS series was picked up by Flo, I hear it has expanded into some different markets.
Click to expand...
For most of the owners, this was NEVER about securing enough extra money to survive, this is about getting the cut they feel they are entitled to, right or wrong. Rick could support his race team for the rest of his life if NASCAR didn't pitch in one cent. So could Penske and Jordan and several others. This is about what they feel is the right compensation for the investment they have made. Not leaving because they didn't get what they want doesn't mean they are on board with the deal they were strong armed into signing if they wanted to continue to participate. If the teams liked the deal, they wouldn't have needed a midnight drop deadline to sign it. I don't know about you, but I have never seen much value in doing business deals where one side has to be coerced into signing. I try like hell to do deals where EVERYONE thinks they got the better end of the deal.
 
Formerjackman said:
For most of the owners, this was NEVER about securing enough extra money to survive, this is about getting the cut they feel they are entitled to, right or wrong. Rick could support his race team for the rest of his life if NASCAR didn't pitch in one cent. So could Penske and Jordan and several others. This is about what they feel is the right compensation for the investment they have made. Not leaving because they didn't get what they want doesn't mean they are on board with the deal they were strong armed into signing if they wanted to continue to participate. If the teams liked the deal, they wouldn't have needed a midnight drop deadline to sign it. I don't know about you, but I have never seen much value in doing business deals where one side has to be coerced into signing. I try like hell to do deals where EVERYONE thinks they got the better end of the deal.
Click to expand...
They negotiated with the teams for 2 years. Like Hendrick said, they needed to get the deal done, plans had to be made. Apparently there were two organizations that were holding everything up. I posted direct quotes that some of the owners said. You can interpret that anyway you choose but there it is in black and white.
 
StandOnIt said:
I know it isn't as simple as taking your tennis shoes from one locker to another, but an owner Justin marks has an operation and he races in the Trans Am series and he wins. Nobody is stopping him from racing in that series.
Click to expand...
But, but, but the bully!.....
 
StandOnIt said:
I know it isn't as simple as taking your tennis shoes from one locker to another, but an owner Justin marks has an operation and he races in the Trans Am series and he wins. Nobody is stopping him from racing in that series.
Click to expand...
Is he running a Nextgen car in that series?
 
kkfan91 said:
Controls bigger tracks, but there are hundreds of tracks NASCAR doesn't control in this country. Many where stock cars compete. They are still making a lousy argument.
Click to expand...
Brazil, Mexico and Canada all have their version of a stock car series and that is just in this continent.How can that be an argument? :idunno:
 
Naitch said:
Aren’t those owned by NASCAR?
Click to expand...
Brazil isn't. My point being you build a car to each of those series specs and you can race it in those series. You aren't going to take any of those cars and race them in a Cup race. Neither are you going to be able to take the Next Gen and race it on any of their tracks. It doesn't work that way.
These guys want to take the Next gen, race Nascar's Next Gen car in a competitor's racing series on solely owned Nascar tracks and think it is unfair because NASCAR won't let them. At least that is the way I am understanding it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
StandOnIt said:
Why do you continue to ask stupid questions that you already know the answer for? What possibly does that accomplish?
Click to expand...
The issue of the intellectual property rights to the car is one of the fundamental elements of the anti-trust suit.

It was a rhetorical question … those are often used to help make a point. You’re easily triggered by opposing points of view in this thread. I’d advise against talking down to your fellow posters.
 
aunty dive said:
The issue of the intellectual property rights to the car is one of the fundamental elements of the anti-trust suit.

It was a rhetorical question … those are often used to help make a point. You’re easily triggered by opposing points of view in this thread. I’d advise against talking down to your fellow posters.
Click to expand...
Much better response. I don't think they were around when the car was developed. I have never read anything that has said they had any skin in the game. Their argument has always been that they want to be able to race the car somewhere else and that they don't like buying parts from designated suppliers. If you know of something else?
 
StandOnIt said:
Much better response.
Click to expand...

LOL

StandOnIt said:
I don't think they were around when the car was developed. I have never read anything that has said they had any skin in the game. Their argument has always been that they want to be able to race the car somewhere else and that they don't like buying parts from designated suppliers. If you know of something else?
Click to expand...
Every team owner in the garage has skin in a much larger game, including the unchartered.

The issues involving the property rights to the current cars - where, when and how it can be raced, and by whom, form some, but not all of the plaintiff’s arguments.

I’m of the opinion that this entire thing has been undertaken in order to establish the permanent ownership of the charters by the teams currently holding them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom