23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

1735093614825.png
 
StandOnIt said:
Anti-trust issues.
1. Teams cannot race elsewhere
2. Teams cannot choose their own race car parts and suppliers
3. Tracks cannot hold other similar race events
4. NASCAR purchased competing race tracks (ISC) and race series (ARCA)
Click to expand...
See anything in there about who runs NASCAR? Yet you insist that's what the suit is about. If you can find NASCAR ownership implied in there, I can find charters.

I post because the charter ownership interests me. NASCAR ownership doesn't interest me because it isn't going to change.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
See anything in there about who runs NASCAR? Yet you insist that's what the suit is about. If you can find NASCAR ownership implied in there, I can find charters.

I post because the charter ownership interests me. NASCAR ownership doesn't interest me because it isn't going to change.
Click to expand...
I know it is a stretch for ya. I have pointed it out numerous times, it requires looking farther in front of one's nose.
IF the teams win their suit on the points they are suing for an unfair monopoly.
#1 The teams would be enabled to take the car and race it anywhere they choose.
#2. They can buy any part they choose from anybody that can make the part that they need.
#3. They can hold similar race events WITH the car.

A person should be able to see the possibility of direct competition with the Nascar racing series. I have no problem with that part. But forcing them to turn over their car and be able to modify it to their liking and forcing others to be able to use their tracks that are Nascar's alone, not tax payer funded I see all kind of problems if the teams win this suit and all of the things they have listed as to what constitutes a monopoly in their eyes.

IF all of that or most of that is allowed, what is to stop a large investor(s), stock holders from coming in, offering much higher purses for races on Nascar owned tracks, using a modified Nascar design, and pulling drivers away from the Nascar series? I believe a few years back one of the networks was interested in buying Nascar.
 
StandOnIt said:
as compared to greedy stick and ball billionaires who know little if nothing about the sport of auto racing that couldn't make a go of a stick and ball team that was something that they knew about lol. Good point.
Click to expand...
No. Not comparable to stick and ball. Keep paddling.
 
The most likely outcome remains a settlement. What the Frances are primarily losing with the recent rulings is substantial leverage in potential settlement talks.

The talk of NASCAR being "gutted" and "taken down" strikes me as overwrought hysteria. The team owners (all of them) may come out of this with permanent charter ownership - an actual asset not borrowed at NASCAR's whim. They maybe just maybe will gain other nominal concessions (revenue, veto power over certain decisions, etc.). These are deserved. Some measure of greater balance of power within the sport would be a positive. The existence of racing fans who have such disdain for racing teams (at the expense of the suits sitting in the suites) is the real head scratcher.

NASCAR isn't going anywhere and will remain very lucrative for the Frances as long as they opt to remain the owners. If they chose to sell as they explored doing several years ago, NASCAR would remain highly successful for the foreseeable future. There isn't anything magical that this set of heirs possess. Their decision making is quite rightly open to question. If anything is to blame for their current predicament, it is that they may have pushed the strongarm tactics a bit too far. They and the series will be fine regardless.

Merry Christmas.
 
gnomesayin said:
There isn't anything magical that this set of heirs possess. Their decision making is quite rightly open to question.
Click to expand...
I don't remember much empathy for the family when Brian was in charge. The disdain was almost universal.

Inheritance is a questionable succession model.
 
StandOnIt said:
IF the teams win their suit on the points they are suing for an unfair monopoly.
Click to expand...
Right. What they are seeking isn't a destruction of the monopoly because destroying it makes it impossible to generate millions in revenue from it. What they are seeking is a fairer monopoly. Threatening us as fans that something bad would happen if NASCAR had to negotiate with other series more openly and transparently about dates is hilarious: I'm an Indycar fan more than NASCAR and have been that was since I was a tyke. Do you think I like the current situation where NASCAR just tells Roger to pound sand if he wants dates more than a situation where they have to act fairly? It would absolutely amuse me to see the NASCAR finances dragged out in discovery so we can see just how much promotional muscle they put behind stuff that isn't theirs.

I also realize we won't, because the intention of the lawsuit is not to destroy NASCAR. The intention of the lawsuit is to eliminate clauses in the charters that the teams don't like. The highest clauses in order being the fact that charters are impermanent and can be stripped from teams and returned to NASCAR who can now use the charters themselves to enter teams and generate revenue. Once those clauses are gone, so is the lawsuit. gnomesayin, aunty dive and I are all on that same page, and we keep being right. It's almost like we possess some sort of knowledge that you are inherently rejecting in favor of what I assume is repeating Dave Moody or Chocolate Myers predictions of doom from NASCAR Pravda.

If FRM and 23XI had just wanted to dismantle NASCAR, they wouldn't have waited for the conclusion of the charter discussion. All your points would have been true before then and are true after.
 
Oh, I see now, you guys were there for the two years of negotiations, write the longest posts and claim to predict the future with certainty so your ideas must be correct. Got it.
 
StandOnIt said:
Oh, I see now, you guys were there for the two years of negotiations, write the longest posts and claim to predict the future with certainty so your ideas must be correct. Got it.
Click to expand...
There might be something to all that, yeah.
 
StandOnIt said:
I have pointed it out numerous times, it requires looking farther in front of one's nose.
Click to expand...
Like looking beyond the black and white of the lawsuit text. The teams aren't interested in winning the suit. They're using the suit as leverage for charter ownership.

But for giggles,
StandOnIt said:
IF the teams win their suit on the points they are suing for an unfair monopoly.
#1 The teams would be enabled to take the car and race it anywhere they choose.
...
#3. They can hold similar race events WITH the car.
Click to expand...
Why would they be interested in doing either of those things? There's no other series to race these cars in. There wouldn't be anyone else to race against. The other teams aren't going to abandon the most profitable racing series in North America, especially those that have paid millions for charters in the last few years. Owners in Xfinity, ARCA, CARS, etc. aren't going to step up; if they could afford to field one of these cars, they'd be filling out those open Cup positions that go empty every week.

Even if the lawsuit forced NASCAR to open its tracks to other series, it still wouldn't have to open for tiny fields that wouldn't be profitable. Getting into SMI tracks might require a second lawsuit. Sure, there's Bowman-Gray and similar short tracks but very few of those have the resources necessary to support TV coverage. Dirt tracks are out; NASCAR couldn't solve keeping the radiators clean at Bristol. Based on the reactions here, a substantial percentage of stock car fans don't want to see a series that runs most of its races on road courses. Besides, there other series that already put on more competitive shows on RCs. And the closest thing to a consensus here at RF is that this car stinks on short tracks and RCs.

There's no profit in starting a new series. No one will watch a series with only a handful of cars on tracks they're ill-suited for. No major media provider will pay the kind of money NASCAR just closed a deal for. Manufacturers and sponsors won't sign up with a series with no major TV or streaming coverage. No new manufacturer is going to invest in ICE psuedo-sedans that don't resemble anything they build. The top established stock car and open wheel series on the continent can't get new manufacturers to buy in; how would a newbie? Instead, new OEMs are lining up to get into IMSA, where the on-track product resembles what they actually sell.

Look at SRX; oh, wait, it's gone. Heck, back in the early 2000s when stock car racing was at the height of it's popularity, SMI looked at starting its own 12-car series. It never got beyond a handful of test sessions. If NASCAR and the NextGen car as they exist today weren't already in place, they would never get off the ground as a start-up.

What would 23XI and FRM gain by starting another series with this car? Nothing. That's why this suit isn't about the written claims and the judge will never have to pass judgement. It's about control of the charters.

StandOnIt said:
#2. They can buy any part they choose from anybody that can make the part that they need.
Click to expand...
Okay, ya got me there. When the teams get charter control in the out-of-court settlement, we'll see if they'll think this is worth haggling over or take what they've gained and call it quits.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
What would 23XI and FRM gain by starting another series with this car? Nothing. That's why this suit isn't about the written claims and the judge will never have to pass judgement. It's about control of the charters.
Click to expand...
In order to take NASCAR to court for antitrust violations, you have to suffer some sort of damages (or be a federal law enforcement agency). None of the people telling me that I want NASCAR to be parted out is capable of telling me what FRM and 23XI are claiming for damages for the court to correct that matches the notion they want NASCAR dismantled for a good reason. It doesn't exist.
 
StandOnIt said:
Oh man, if I thought I knew what you thought you knew.
Click to expand...
Buddy: what if, big If here, we do know? Better yet: if we are right and become more demonstratively right, what does that make your posts read like?
 
virtualbalboa said:
Buddy: what if, big If here, we do know? Better yet: if we are right and become more demonstratively right, what does that make your posts read like?
Click to expand...
As the mods continue to butt in, let me rephrase what I said. You have mistaken me for someone that cares. Lets see if that gets past the mods tender ears lol. I think you will find as this continues to twist and turn that none of us will have this exactly right, but of course there will be those who will claim that they are. That is the way it goes.
 
I wonder if NASCAR will ever find a way to get Junior and Kelley a couple of low or no-cost charters? 😇
 
Got one judge that said one thing and another judge that says another and it is going to get kicked to a higher court with guess what another different judge. Oh the drama.
 
StandOnIt said:
Just like this place.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with 'NASCAR Offtrack'. I notice no individuals claim credit for the content. I don't yet have enough experience to say if or how much of the content is AI-generated. I don't recall it saying anything we don't already know.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I'm not familiar with 'NASCAR Offtrack'. I notice no individuals claim credit for the content. I don't yet have enough experience to say if or how much of the content is AI-generated. I don't recall it saying anything we don't already know.
Click to expand...
I didn't watch. Pretty sure it's a waste of time. I'm just waiting till Dec 2025 for the straight dope. (what ya wanna bet gets settled before that out-of-court?)
 
gnomesayin said:
The talk of NASCAR being "gutted" and "taken down" strikes me as overwrought hysteria. The team owners (all of them) may come out of this with permanent charter ownership - an actual asset not borrowed at NASCAR's whim. They maybe just maybe will gain other nominal concessions (revenue, veto power over certain decisions, etc.). These are deserved.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So, following your logic, this sets up team owners able to gain significant power, even to enhance and enlarge that power based upon their own wealth and positioning within the sport. Continuing that “new deserved reality”, we would then see the evolution of SUPERTEAMS that dominate competition due to wealth investment. Before you say “that wouldn’t happen”….think again. What you are describing opens up a dangerous path for the sport. Mega rich owners buying their way to wins, superior performance. Lastly, the cheerleading is fine, cheer on your side all you or anyone wants. But do not deceive yourselves; this suit does have the potential to gut NASCAR and the structure of the sport as we know it. Do not discount that danger of radical change…it opens a big door down a new rabbit hole.
 
Conover said:
So, following your logic, this sets up team owners able to gain significant power, even to enhance and enlarge that power based upon their own wealth and positioning within the sport. Continuing that “new deserved reality”, we would then see the evolution of SUPERTEAMS that dominate competition due to wealth investment. Before you say “that wouldn’t happen”….think again. What you are describing opens up a dangerous path for the sport. Mega rich owners buying their way to wins, superior performance. Lastly, the cheerleading is fine, cheer on your side all you or anyone wants. But do not deceive yourselves; this suit does have the potential to gut NASCAR and the structure of the sport as we know it. Do not discount that danger of radical change…it opens a big door down a new rabbit hole.
Click to expand...
What is radical about the team owning a charter?
 
Conover said:
So, following your logic, this sets up team owners able to gain significant power, even to enhance and enlarge that power based upon their own wealth and positioning within the sport. Continuing that “new deserved reality”, we would then see the evolution of SUPERTEAMS that dominate competition due to wealth investment. Before you say “that wouldn’t happen”….think again. What you are describing opens up a dangerous path for the sport. Mega rich owners buying their way to wins, superior performance. Lastly, the cheerleading is fine, cheer on your side all you or anyone wants. But do not deceive yourselves; this suit does have the potential to gut NASCAR and the structure of the sport as we know it. Do not discount that danger of radical change…it opens a big door down a new rabbit hole.
Click to expand...
Some don't want to consider that I realize, but if this evil "monopoly" is disbanded or seriously weakened, anything is possible. I have a really hard time believing that this is just about owning charters. Terms like "intellectual property" are being thrown around and that can pertain to just about anything.
 
Conover said:
Continuing that “new deserved reality”, we would then see the evolution of SUPERTEAMS that dominate competition due to wealth investment.
Click to expand...
It's 2024, not 1994. How is this a legitimate concern? It happened already! Years ago! I was a minor when Roush had two R&D cars on track every single week and I'm in my 40s now.
 
KTMLew01 said:
What is radical about the team owning a charter?
Click to expand...
Just make up some word salad and it'll probably be at least adjacent to what the guy who doesn't care but also thinks this is an existential threat to his identity believes. Let me try: the lawsuit isn't about the charters like this threat title and all the discourse suggests, but is actually because Elon Musk wants to fire the Earnhardt Death Car into the sun in the hopes they can obliterate his soul (trapped in the roll cage) and raise the dead.
 
virtualbalboa said:
Just make up some word salad and it'll probably be at least adjacent to what the guy who doesn't care but also thinks this is an existential threat to his identity believes. Let me try: the lawsuit isn't about the charters like this threat title and all the discourse suggests, but is actually because Elon Musk wants to fire the Earnhardt Death Car into the sun in the hopes they can obliterate his soul (trapped in the roll cage) and raise the dead.
Click to expand...
Still too soon, man.
 
StandOnIt said:
I have a really hard time believing that this is just about owning charters.
Click to expand...
Okay, why? I'm back to asking why 23FRM would want to actually win this case. I understand what winning would ALLOW them to do, but why would they want to do those things? If they're not going to do them, what's left for this all to be about except charters?

Thanks.
 
U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Bell was assigned on to the case this month after the prior judge overseeing the case, Frank Whitney, was re-assigned without explanation.
 
StandOnIt said:
Got one judge that said one thing and another judge that says another and it is going to get kicked to a higher court with guess what another different judge. Oh the drama.
Click to expand...
It’s Judge Kenneth D. Bell’s case. Temporary detours to this or that courts of appeal are just that.

No drama … standard operating procedure. NASCAR and its supporters will be reliant on the strength of their positions. Hopefully they won’t shoot themselves in the foot again with any more illegal release clauses or changes to their various appeals, the latest of which has them ignoring what the judge decided, dropping their request for bonding by the teams and requesting to proceed by paying the 6 chartered cars as “open” entries.

Why piss the judge off? Who dreams this stuff up?
 
StandOnIt said:
U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Bell was assigned on to the case this month after the prior judge overseeing the case, Frank Whitney, was re-assigned without explanation.
Click to expand...
One of the members of NASCAR’s legal team previously articled for Whitney. Recusal by the judge is the route usually taken under those circumstances. Whitney didn’t do that and was subsequently removed from the case.
 
aunty dive said:
One of the members of NASCAR’s legal team previously articled for Whitney. Recusal by the judge is the route usually taken under those circumstances. Whitney didn’t do that and was subsequently removed from the case.
Click to expand...
Good guess, could be this also. Judge Whitney had some history with Michael Jordan, the co-owner of 23XI. Whitney was a prosecutor in the Slim Boulder cast in 1992, and Jordan was called as a defense witness in the case. Jordan’s testimony was less than nine minutes.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Okay, why? I'm back to asking why 23FRM would want to actually win this case. I understand what winning would ALLOW them to do, but why would they want to do those things? If they're not going to do them, what's left for this all to be about except charters?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Here is an answer that is simple enough to grasp. See: wanting to race the car anywhere, on Nascar tracks using anybodies parts(intellectual property), on and on.

The broader implications of this lawsuit extend far beyond the courtroom doors. A decision favoring the racing teams could prompt substantial shifts in how NASCAR administers its revenue and operational agreements, potentially recalibrating competitive balance and financial equity among teams in the Series. Moreover, should 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports win, other teams may find encouragement to challenge the status quo, potentially paving the way for systemic changes in the sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom