23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

aunty dive said:
LOL


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.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, they are sub contractors that have a really good chance of making money on their investment if they decide to quit. That money that both organizations were going to pay wasn't going to Nascar, it was going to SHR.
 
This lawsuit is with NASCAR & related to the NextGen Cup cars. Nothing to do with any other series or cars. Some seem to think the two teams involved should just put their NextGen cars over on "that side" of the shop, cover with tarps and buy/build new cars for a different racing series.

That ain't the point of the lawsuit. These two teams want to race Cup. They don't believe NASCARs stipulations are legit. After two years of negotiating, NASCAR drew a line. The teams believe those lines are in violation of antitrust.

No relation to Aunty Dive. Whole different Anti...
 
KTMLew01 said:
This lawsuit is with NASCAR & related to the NextGen Cup cars. Nothing to do with any other series or cars. Some seem to think the two teams involved should just put their NextGen cars over on "that side" of the shop, cover with tarps and buy/build new cars for a different racing series.

That ain't the point of the lawsuit. These two teams want to race Cup. They don't believe NASCARs stipulations are legit. After two years of negotiating, NASCAR drew a line. The teams believe those lines are in violation of antitrust.

No relation to Aunty Dive. Whole different Anti...
Click to expand...
Eh, It sounds like they want to take the car and race in other series with it. I have no idea where, makes no difference which series really although they only race cup cars. There isn't any other racing series that races cars or trucks with these specs.
 
StandOnIt said:
Eh, It sounds like they want to take the car and race in other series with it. I have no idea where, makes no difference which series really although they only race cup cars. There isn't any other racing series that races cars or trucks with these specs.
Click to expand...
It’s an argument intended to demonstrate what they describe as monopolistic business practices.

It has nothing to do with racing anywhere else.
 
aunty dive said:
It’s an argument intended to demonstrate what they describe as monopolistic business practices.

It has nothing to do with racing anywhere else.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The legal question doesn't revolve around whether they do or don't want to run the Next Gen car in other series. It's that the contract explicitly blocks them from trying if they wanted to.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Exactly. The legal question doesn't revolve around whether they do or don't want to run the Next Gen car in other series. It's that the contract explicitly blocks them from trying if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
I don't see the difference. It isn't their car to start with. The car design is Nascar's property. So are their tracks. Go design your own car, build your own tracks and you can make the rules.
 
StandOnIt said:
I don't see the difference. It isn't their car to start with. The car design is Nascar's property. So are their tracks. Go design your own car, build your own tracks and you can make the rules.
Click to expand...
And the court will decide whether that constitutes a monopoly.
 
StandOnIt said:
I don't see the difference. It isn't their car to start with. The car design is Nascar's property. So are their tracks. Go design your own car, build your own tracks and you can make the rules.
Click to expand...
OK. Do the teams own the cars? If they own, should be able to race anywhere a series deems them legal since, they OWN THEM. Like maybe IMSA. If teams don't own, why do they pay for them? Is it a lease?

It's my understanding teams buy a car they can't race anywhere but at Nascar sanctioned tracks during Nascar sanctioned races on dates Nascar stipulates.. They can NOT modify the cars various parts which is only provided thru Nascar approved providers.

Model T anyone? You can have any color you want as long as it's Black.

Sure smells like monopolistic behavior to me. I HAVE stayed at a Holiday Inn Express a few times. So I know stuff.
 
IMG_6331.jpeg
Ever get trapped in a week longing news cycle where nothing new is happening but the reporters constantly explain, spin, and re-analyze every minute aspect of the situation…while speculating endlessly but not really having any new or definitive thing to say? That’s this thread. I really think it would benefit from some pictures. Either of Hailer Deegan or if Anderson Cooper in a hurricane.

Some day we will have new and meaningful information. But today is not that day
 
KTMLew01 said:
OK. Do the teams own the cars? If they own, should be able to race anywhere a series deems them legal since, they OWN THEM. Like maybe IMSA. If teams don't own, why do they pay for them? Is it a lease?

It's my understanding teams buy a car they can't race anywhere but at Nascar sanctioned tracks during Nascar sanctioned races on dates Nascar stipulates.. They can NOT modify the cars various parts which is only provided thru Nascar approved providers.

Model T anyone? You can have any color you want as long as it's Black.

Sure smells like monopolistic behavior to me. I HAVE stayed at a Holiday Inn Express a few times. So I know stuff.
Click to expand...
They built a car to Nascar's specs. The car is designed by Nascar, approved by Nascar. You want to race in the Nascar cup series, that is what you use. This isn't hard to understand. You race a bandilero car. That is a bandelero design.
For years, the frames and running gear with the exceptions of engines have been the same except outside sheet metal of the cars.

Nascar and ALL of the teams agreed instead of everybody engineering and developing specific parts it would be cheaper to have individual suppliers build Nascar specific parts to save money and tons of engineering expenses. This monopoly B.S. wasn't forced down anybodies throat, it was agreed to beforehand. Some of the teams designed some of the parts to go on the car and they are designated suppliers of those parts. It was a group effort.
 
StandOnIt said:
They built a car to Nascar's specs. The car is designed by Nascar, approved by Nascar. You want to race in the Nascar cup series, that is what you use. This isn't hard to understand. You race a bandolero car. That is a bandolero design.
For years, the frames and running gear with the exceptions of engines have been the same except outside sheet metal of the cars.

Nascar and ALL of the teams agreed instead of everybody engineering and developing specific parts it would be cheaper to have individual suppliers build Nascar specific parts to save money and tons of engineering expenses. This monopoly B.S. wasn't forced down anybodies throat, it was agreed to beforehand. Some of the teams designed some of the parts to go on the car and they are designated suppliers of those parts. It was a group effort.
Click to expand...
The teams assemble a kit-car with parts supplied by Nascar. You didn't answer a single question. Do the teams OWN the cars? Not the intellectual property, the physical cars they "purchased".
 
Teams own the physical race cars. The Intellectual Property rights belong to NASCAR.

Teams purchase on-spec components from NASCAR-licensed manufacturers / vendors and pay team employees and / or contractors or teams with which they have alliances to assemble up to a maximum of 7 units per charter.

We’ve been over this. Several times.
 
KTMLew01 said:
The teams assemble a kit-car with parts supplied by Nascar. You didn't answer a single question. Do the teams OWN the cars? Not the intellectual property, the physical cars they "purchased".
Click to expand...
They are saying they do and can race them anywhere they want. Is that plain enough for you? Nascar is saying it is their design and no you can't. We have been over this a number of times.
 
aunty dive said:
Teams own the physical race cars.

They purchase on-spec components from NASCAR-licensed manufacturers / vendors and pay team employees and / or contractors or teams with which they have alliances to assemble up to a maximum of 7 units per charter.

We’ve been over this. Several times.
Click to expand...
Ha ha Ya beat me.
 
aunty dive said:
Teams own the physical race cars. The Intellectual Property rights belong to NASCAR.

Teams purchase on-spec components from NASCAR-licensed manufacturers / vendors and pay team employees and / or contractors or teams with which they have alliances to assemble up to a maximum of 7 units per charter.

We’ve been over this. Several times.
Click to expand...
Correct. I'm lawyering SOI. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to. SOI seems to be the one confused. He keeps saying the cars belong to Nascar. Nope. The DESIGN belongs to Nascar. The whole thing feels like buying a house with an HOA. The teams have NEVER said anything about WANTING to race the Next Gen car anywhere but CUP. They HAVE said, NASCAR preemptively stated you bought it but can ONLY race "with us".

Oh well...I'm bored with this. Maybe come back after first of the year. Maybe not. As been told, won't be missed.
 
KTMLew01 said:
Correct. I'm lawyering SOI. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to. SOI seems to be the one confused. He keeps saying the cars belong to Nascar. Nope. The DESIGN belongs to Nascar. The whole thing feels like buying a house with an HOA. The teams have NEVER said anything about WANTING to race the Next Gen car anywhere but CUP. They HAVE said, NASCAR preemptively stated you bought it but can ONLY race "with us".

Oh well...I'm bored with this. Maybe come back after first of the year. Maybe not. As been told, won't be missed.
Click to expand...
If you are under the influence of something please quit putting words in my mouth. What part of "they built a car to Nascar's specs" do you not understand. If you can't make the inference from that statement, you either aren't paying good attention, or you are on something.
 
For instance, there is good money in 410's, Reddick grew up on dirt. Nascar isn't the only game in town when it comes to racing, far from a monopoly IMO.
 
StandOnIt said:
If you are under the influence of something please quit putting words in my mouth. What part of "they built a car to Nascar's specs" do you not understand. If you can't make the inference from that statement, you either aren't paying good attention, or you are on something.
Click to expand...
I'm just messing with you over difference in term built & assembled. Built is what they did with fabricators & jigs. Now they assemble a kit-car that comes with an instruction sheet.

Like Revell used to sell. Only bigger and heavier. Louder too I suppose.

Semantics.

I just love watching you scramble to defend your beloved NASCAR!
 
Formerjackman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh.. right.. so you're going along with the "absence of evidence" part then.. cool.. have fun with that 👍
 
StandOnIt said:
Nascar continues to push the contract dispute argument.
Click to expand...
Really at the end of the day that's all it is in their eyes. The teams are trying to say that the charters are more than just a contract.

I think someone else already mentioned it but I see the charters as more of a lease that has a set expiration date. At the time that the lease is up you can renegotiate the terms and move forward if both parties are happy. If you want out you can sublease your charter under the current guidelines of the existing lease and at the time of expiration the new people can negotiate a new lease.

The argument can be made about the nascar controlling the car and all the parts, but at the end of the day they did that at the request of the team owners. So now the teams are saying that something that nascar did at their own request is creating a monopoly?
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Oh.. right.. so you're going along with the "absence of evidence" part then.. cool.. have fun with that 👍
Click to expand...
Don't believe me if you don't want to, what do I care? I'm just telling you that Richard Childress went as far as he DARED to criticize the deal, and Rick Hendrick's words were basically resignation that they weren't going to get a better off, not that they liked the offer they got. Some of you guys seem to forget the whole thing about potential punishment for "Defaming NASCAR." If you can't read between the lines and figure out what was really going on here, then I can't help you. I am 100% convinced that time will prove me right on this. Whether the two "troublemakers" win this lawsuit or not, I PRAY that it gets to a point where team owners have to make sworn testimonies, and the cloak of secrecy gets blown up once and for all.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
I've never heard anyone in racing say they're in it for the money.
Click to expand...
I have and was there in person to witness it...some drivers are honest enough to say it out loud. I am sure the race shop employees are mostly there for the money to. Perhaps you meant team owners or I don't understand what you mean by "in racing".
 
DIDIT said:
I have and was there in person to witness it...some drivers are honest enough to say it out loud. I am sure the race shop employees are mostly there for the money to. Perhaps you meant team owners or I don't understand what you mean by "in racing".
Click to expand...
I mean what I said.. in all of racing. In any series. Drivers, team owners, crew chiefs, everyone. I have never heard someone say that.

I'm not saying it has never been said, just that I personally have not heard it.

I have heard many say that they're not in it for the money though.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
I mean what I said.. in all of racing. In any series. Drivers, team owners, crew chiefs, everyone. I have never heard someone say that.

I'm not saying it has never been said, just that I personally have not heard it.

I have heard many say that they're not in it for the money though.
Click to expand...
Oh my and this might be from one of your favorites...
Don't watch if you don't want to know the truth. :D
 
DIDIT said:
Oh my and this might be from one of your favorites...
Don't watch if you don't want to know the truth. :D
Click to expand...

Theres nothing in me that "doesn't want to know the truth". I'm not sure why people act like that. I prefer to base my opinions on facts and things I can see or hear. Me saying I've never heard it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is true or has been said.. until hearing something like that why would I base an opinion on it? Seems like nonsense to me.

I have no dog in this fight. I couldn't care less who wins. I just state my opinion or view based on what I know or see. I am more than willing to have my opinion changed when presented with evidence suggesting otherwise.
 
If you want to watch racing that consists of nothing but guys playing for their toys for the love of the game, go to a local NASA (the other one) or SCCA meet, assuming they allow people in as spectators, and observe. That's the only place that's definitely true. Everyone else races for money.
 
virtualbalboa said:
I rarely bother to post in this thread because we're squarely into the "courts are gonna decide this" phase but I will say that I enjoy watching every single legal motion be treated like its a devastating decapitation strike.
Click to expand...

I probably have posted since then but the last thing I remember was the debate about the cultural importance of having MJ involved in NASCAR.
 
wi_racefan said:
Really at the end of the day that's all it is in their eyes. The teams are trying to say that the charters are more than just a contract.

I think someone else already mentioned it but I see the charters as more of a lease that has a set expiration date. At the time that the lease is up you can renegotiate the terms and move forward if both parties are happy. If you want out you can sublease your charter under the current guidelines of the existing lease and at the time of expiration the new people can negotiate a new lease.

The argument can be made about the nascar controlling the car and all the parts, but at the end of the day they did that at the request of the team owners. So now the teams are saying that something that nascar did at their own request is creating a monopoly?
Click to expand...
I think you hit the nail on the head. Nascar owns the charters and they are given to lessees to use for the period of the broadcast agreement. Of course IDK who will prevail in the lawsuit but I don’t think it will make any difference in the racing on Sundays.

Both sides seem to have their heels dug in but I still expect a settlement will be reached. All this is JMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom