23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

StandOnIt said:
I was under the impression of what my ol' daddy used to say. Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves.
word to the wise, this deal probably isn't going to be over anytime soon. There are going to be many punch/counter punches. It's Nascar's turn to appeal.
Part of the appeal
View attachment 82176
Click to expand...
I don't think Nascar's arguments about the SHR charters will have enough horsepower to get the job done (i.e. win the appeal). From the beginning, 23XI and FRM were willing to sign the 2025 charter contracts if Nascar would strike the Section 10.3 release clause. Now the judge has said that release clause in and of itself violates the antitrust laws. Unless the appeal court declares that finding by Judge Bell to be wrong, it seems obvious that 23XI and FRM are entitled to sign the charter contracts without the release clause. All Nascar's whining about 7 to 14 years association with teams that won't sign is very flimsy, IMO.

The more rational view is that Judge Bell's injunction benefits 23XI and FRM, but really doesn't cost Nascar anything. That's why I'll be very surprised if Nascar wins their appeal of the preliminary injunction.
 
In the meantime, two high dollar race teams that contribute to the show every week are each busy preparing third cars and equipment and expanding their payrolls in order to staff those efforts.

The sanctioning body continues to treat these competitors with disdain. And they might as well send somebody over to SHR to slap Gene Haas across the face.
 
NASCAR will file an appeal of the preliminary injunction that was granted to 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports.

But in addition to the appeal, NASCAR has filed additional motions pertaining to the injunction. The first is asking for an emergency motion for partial stay of injunction pending the appeal. The second is for the teams to post an injunction bond.

In asking for the stay pending appeal, NASCAR claimed they “are likely to succeed on appeal” and “suffer irreparable harm without a stay of the Court’s decision,” while the teams “would not face substantial harm because the continued enforcement of a partial stay would address each of Plaintiffs’ irreparable harm allegations,” and lastly, “the public interest supports a partial stay, as this Court’s preliminary injunction forces NASCAR into unwanted contractual relationship with Plaintiffs.”

More here.
racer.com

NASCAR to file appeal of injunction ruling; asking for emergency partial stay and bond

NASCAR will file an appeal of the preliminary injunction that was granted to 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. But in addition to the appeal, NASCAR has filed additional motions pertaining to …
racer.com racer.com
 
The way I read that is that Nascar is saying that the courts are forcing them to do business with 23XI and I suppose Front Row also.
 
Money? Difference in payout between chartered vs non chartered teams revealed to public.

Additionally, by allowing the teams to race under the 2025 charter agreement would require NASCAR to disclose confidential information, which is “an action that is inherently irreparable.
The motion for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports to post an injunction bond is to ensure prize money (from racing as charter teams) would be reimbursed in the future if NASCAR wins the case. The amount of the bond was sealed.
 
StandOnIt said:
Not contractually, but at a lower level. Neither have signed the contract. They don't get all the advantages of signing when they haven't I believe Nascar is saying.
Click to expand...

I was thinking teams would sign a different document applicable to their reduced status.

Document or not, they’re still doing business with the sanctioning body.
 
aunty dive said:
I was thinking teams would sign a different document applicable to their reduced status.

Document or not, they’re still doing business with the sanctioning body.
Click to expand...
Well, you make of it what you will. :idunno:

as this Court’s preliminary injunction forces NASCAR into unwanted contractual relationship with Plaintiffs.”
 
StandOnIt said:
Well, you make of it what you will. :idunno:

as this Court’s preliminary injunction forces NASCAR into unwanted contractual relationship with Plaintiffs.”
Click to expand...
If I promote a race and pay you for your finishing position, we’ve done business. That’s all I’m saying.

The contractual relationship was forced on NASCAR because the unsigned contract is, according to this judge, illegal.
 
Formerjackman said:
Michael MAY have had assurances from his key partners that they would be willing to work with him on this that others may not have had. There is also the fact that Michael has less to lose than many others. He hasn't spent 30-50 years or more building his program, his driver lineup would be no earth shattering loss if they left, and Michael has the advantage that people are lined up at the door to be on Team Mike. He could find other sponsors or another manufacturer far more easily than most of his fellow owners. He could also just walk away, which would be a lot harder for the guys that have devoted their life to it. For all of these reasons and more, Michael is really the right guy to carry the torch on this.
Click to expand...
All of this....spot on....but one thing.....one significant thing....MJ doesn't lose in anything. He just doesn't. He is wired differently....He is Michael ****** Jordan. He didn't come here to leave a loser.
 
Revman said:
All of this....spot on....but one thing.....one significant thing....MJ doesn't lose in anything. He just doesn't. He is wired differently....He is Michael ****** Jordan. He didn't come here to leave a loser.
Click to expand...
"Being 'The Man', and STAYING 'The Man', are two different things!"

Rick Flair
 
Revman said:
All of this....spot on....but one thing.....one significant thing....MJ doesn't lose in anything. He just doesn't. He is wired differently....He is Michael ****** Jordan. He didn't come here to leave a loser.
Click to expand...
Well, his involvement with basketball teams since he left the Bulls has been less than stellar, to say the least.
 
aunty dive said:
If I promote a race and pay you for your finishing position, we’ve done business. That’s all I’m saying.

The contractual relationship was forced on NASCAR because the unsigned contract is, according to this judge, illegal.
Click to expand...
I too have a hard time imagining that someone is putting together a race team in the top flight of US domestic motorsports (which costs millions to do) and their participation in NASCAR and ability to receive purse money and such is based on handshakes. I'm not saying that it is impossible that trying to make the Daytona 500 requires less paperwork and is treated more casually than booking a landscaping company to mow your lawn, but I am saying you'd have to present a lot of evidence to me to make me believe that is realistically possible.
 
This has taken an interesting turn. There's one thing Im curious about..

About NASCAR being the only premier stock car racing league. Is there anything stopping anyone from starting another one?

If the answer is no, then what makes NASCAR a monopoly? Just the fact that it's the only one so far? Or is it the tracks?
 
SlicedBread22 said:
This has taken an interesting turn. There's one thing Im curious about..

About NASCAR being the only premier stock car racing league. Is there anything stopping anyone from starting another one?

If the answer is no, then what makes NASCAR a monopoly? Just the fact that it's the only one so far? Or is it the tracks?
Click to expand...
Antitrust action is about dealing with anticompetitive behavior by companies. You are not supposed to be able to run all your competitors out of business and make it difficult or impossible to present competition; that isn't how anything is supposed to work. Does it seem to you that NASCAR is encouraging competition to them or that their actions discourage competition to them? The judge here seems to have a pretty strong opinion on it.
 
virtualbalboa said:
Antitrust action is about dealing with anticompetitive behavior by companies. You are not supposed to be able to run all your competitors out of business and make it difficult or impossible to present competition; that isn't how anything is supposed to work. Does it seem to you that NASCAR is encouraging competition to them or that their actions discourage competition to them? The judge here seems to have a pretty strong opinion on it.
Click to expand...
My opinion has nothing to do with it.

I didn't ask what antitrust means.

My question was whether or not it would be possible for someone to start another, similar series.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
My opinion has nothing to do with it.

I didn't ask what antitrust means.

My question was whether or not it would be possible for someone to start another, similar series.
Click to expand...
Realistically? No. The barriers to entry are enormous. Courts don't and can't purely operate in a universe of hypotheticals, they operate in the real world looking at the actual effects of actual actions taken by actual entities. Time travelling quantum entities with cloaking devices might actually have shot Lee Harvey Oswald during his perp walk but realistically the evidence we have pretty strongly indicates it was Jack Ruby. Juries are not regularly acquitting people because the fabric of reality is torn asunder, nor are judges supposed to put together pie in the sky scenarios vs. actual, concrete reality.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
My opinion has nothing to do with it.

I didn't ask what antitrust means.

My question was whether or not it would be possible for someone to start another, similar series.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY someone could create a new competing series. What are the barriers? It’s certainly not NASCAR. The only primary hurdle would be a lack of “superspeedways”, unless the new series built a few. Frankly there are plenty of short tracks and quality venues all over the country. Is the Cars Tour chicken s#*+ or a legit version of stock car racing? According to their website it is a PREMIERE racing series, using late model class race cars at tracks all over the nation. I must say I am shocked…SHOCKED I SAY…that they can even breathe a single breath since NASCAR is a stock car racing monopoly.

Cars Racing Tour
 
Conover said:
It’s certainly not NASCAR. The only primary hurdle would be a lack of “superspeedways”, unless the new series built a few.
Click to expand...
Were you intending to explain why it is this injunction went through with this post?
 
aunty dive said:
I wonder what the Cars Tour pays out to the teams per event?
Click to expand...
I for one am enjoying watching NASCAR fans who tell me NASCAR has the bestest and only series worth watching also tell me that the CARS Tour is an equivalent series.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
My opinion has nothing to do with it.

I didn't ask what antitrust means.

My question was whether or not it would be possible for someone to start another, similar series.
Click to expand...

Your hypothetical question is irrelevant. A business possessing monopoly power over a recognized market is a legal concept. The definition has nothing to do with whether someone could conceivably start a competitor.
 
gnomesayin said:
Your hypothetical question is irrelevant. A business possessing monopoly power over a recognized market is a legal concept. The definition has nothing to do with whether someone could conceivably start a competitor.
Click to expand...
Bingo. The trial is based on reality and facts, not on whether or not NASCAR could conceivably still have a monopoly if Elon Musk decided to collaborate with Amazon to start a new racing series. If that is what is required to create an actual competitor, then NASCAR is already in a heap of trouble.
 
virtualbalboa said:
I for one am enjoying watching NASCAR fans who tell me NASCAR has the bestest and only series worth watching also tell me that the CARS Tour is an equivalent
Click to expand...

virtualbalboa said:
Bingo. The trial is based on reality and facts, not on whether or not NASCAR could conceivably still have a monopoly if Elon Musk decided to collaborate with Amazon to start a new racing series. If that is what is required to create an actual competitor, then NASCAR is already in a heap of trouble.
Click to expand...
For all of those trying to define the nature of monopoly power, you are respectfully wrong. There are multiple parameters to a condition of “monopoly”, and the ability to limit competitors (in this case other racing series that could compete) is one of them. The impact on the consumer is one of the most important gauges of “monopoly” power, and the amount of harm possible from that.

The plantiff’s are basing their arguments on claims of exclusionary conduct, which they say is harmful. NASCAR claims a business justification for the agreements they have created. Below is a summary from the FTC and a link to the website. Much is open to interpretation, hence the need for appeal by NASCAR:

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications.

Market Power​

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

Exclusionary Conduct​

Judging the conduct of an alleged monopolist requires an in-depth analysis of the market and the means used to achieve or maintain the monopoly. Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.

Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal. These topics are discussed in separate Fact Sheets for Single Firm Conduct.

Business Justification​

Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."
Click to expand...
FTC Link On Monopolization
 
Conover said:
For all of those trying to define the nature of monopoly power, you are respectfully wrong. There are multiple parameters to a condition of “monopoly”, and the ability to limit competitors (in this case other racing series that could compete) is one of them. The impact on the consumer is one of the most important gauges of “monopoly” power, and the amount of harm possible from that.
Click to expand...
Nobody is denying that, and in fact, we are all generally aware of that and citing this. I think where the rub is that you seem to conflate the notion that it is reasonable to require a competitor to need to build many extremely expensive facilities to be comparable and I do not expect the courts to believe the same thing. I, in fact, anticipate that they will believe exactly the opposite.
 
gnomesayin said:
Your hypothetical question is irrelevant. A business possessing monopoly power over a recognized market is a legal concept. The definition has nothing to do with whether someone could conceivably start a competitor.
Click to expand...
Oh right, I forgot that the definition means I can't ask questions.

Your opinion of my question is much more irrelevant than the question itself. If you don't want to answer it then keep to yourself please. It's already been answered so I have no interest in your response at this point.

I'm asking a simple question, don't worry, it won't change the result of the case. You guys can all calm down a bit.. no one is reading this in court 🤣
 
Conover said:
For all of those trying to define the nature of monopoly power, you are respectfully wrong. There are multiple parameters to a condition of “monopoly”, and the ability to limit competitors (in this case other racing series that could compete) is one of them. The impact on the consumer is one of the most important gauges of “monopoly” power, and the amount of harm possible from that.

The plantiff’s are basing their arguments on claims of exclusionary conduct, which they say is harmful. NASCAR claims a business justification for the agreements they have created. Below is a summary from the FTC and a link to the website. Much is open to interpretation, hence the need for appeal by NASCAR:


FTC Link On Monopolization
Click to expand...
And that all is open to a judge's interpretation. and the court of R-F.
 
Conover said:
For all of those trying to define the nature of monopoly power, you are respectfully wrong. There are multiple parameters to a condition of “monopoly”, and the ability to limit competitors (in this case other racing series that could compete) is one of them. The impact on the consumer is one of the most important gauges of “monopoly” power, and the amount of harm possible from that.

The plantiff’s are basing their arguments on claims of exclusionary conduct, which they say is harmful. NASCAR claims a business justification for the agreements they have created. Below is a summary from the FTC and a link to the website. Much is open to interpretation, hence the need for appeal by NASCAR:


FTC Link On Monopolization
Click to expand...
What about the clause in the contract that states you can’t sue NASCAR for antitrust violations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom