23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Has anyone mentioned the possibility of teams being able to use whatever parts they want causing lower funded teams to be much less competitive?

Didn't we (in part) go to this system to lower costs for the teams? Have we not started seeing a lot of back markers start to run higher in the field over the last few years?

I'm curious of people thoughts or knowledge on this aspect of the case.

Hearing that the teams might be able to get whatever parts they want makes me think we could see a team find a huge advantage. Or am I crazy and just over thinking this one?
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of teams being able to use whatever parts they want causing lower funded teams to be much less competitive?

Didn't we (in part) go to this system to lower costs for the teams? Have we not started seeing a lot of back markers start to run higher in the field over the last few years?

I'm curious of people thoughts or knowledge on this aspect of the case.

Hearing that the teams might be able to get whatever parts they want makes me think we could see a team find a huge advantage. Or am I crazy and just over thinking this one?
Click to expand...
No you echo legit concerns IMO, same things I’ve been trying to express along with SOI, but others don’t see it or don’t want to game out the consequences of where this suit could take the sport.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of teams being able to use whatever parts they want causing lower funded teams to be much less competitive?

Didn't we (in part) go to this system to lower costs for the teams? Have we not started seeing a lot of back markers start to run higher in the field over the last few years?

I'm curious of people thoughts or knowledge on this aspect of the case.

Hearing that the teams might be able to get whatever parts they want makes me think we could see a team find a huge advantage. Or am I crazy and just over thinking this one?
Click to expand...
It takes critical thinking to try to look at the whole picture and the possible ramifications that can arise. The articles brought up in the suit have the possibility of doing just that and not only do they go back to an economic price war, but it's possible that a number of teams could break off and form their own series full or part time using some of Nascar's tracks and Nascar's car. I happen to see Nascar's point. They built their tracks with their own funds, not public tax payer funds, and they should be able to choose who races in their series and race tracks. The Charter is just the tip of the iceberg. :idunno:
 
Conover said:
No you echo legit concerns IMO, same things I’ve been trying to express along with SOI, but others don’t see it or don’t want to game out the consequences of where this suit could take the sport.
Click to expand...
Sure, we see it. We see the potential consequences.

We don't think they're worth considering because we think 23XI and FRM have minimal interest in the issues brought up in the suit. We think the teams have no economic interest in starting their own series or competing with this car in other series. We think they have NO interest in actually winning the suit. We think the lawsuit is only a tool to gain control of the charters, most likely in an out-of-court settlement that won't address the lawsuit charges in any major way.

We base this on the comments from multiple teams over the last two years of negotiations. Those comment repeatedly brought up charters as the main sticking point in a new deal; the issues in the lawsuit were not emphasized as primary goals during that period. We also base this on the timing of the lawsuit. If it was actually about the antitrust issues, it could have been brought anytime. Instead it was filed only after NASCAR stopped negotiations that centered around charter ownership.
 
StandOnIt said:
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.
Click to expand...
NASCAR has already made substantial shifts in how it administers revenue and operational agreements which have led to significant "recalibration" of what you said. Are you suggesting what exists now is the best version of NASCAR possible? If not, this is not a concern that rises to the level of existential for NASCAR. The only reason it could be existential to NASCAR is if NASCAR has been robbing the teams blind and discovery bears that truth out. I'm not sure I could reconcile the nature of NASCAR being inherently good or even "the best version possible" with a version of it that was shortchanging the competitors for it's own gain.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Sure, we see it. We see the potential consequences.

We don't think they're worth considering because we think 23XI and FRM have minimal interest in the issues brought up in the suit. We think the teams have no economic interest in starting their own series or competing with this car in other series. We think they have NO interest in actually winning the suit. We think the lawsuit is only a tool to gain control of the charters, most likely in an out-of-court settlement that won't address the lawsuit charges in any major way.
Click to expand...
The part that amuses me the most in that we're 61 pages into a thread titled "23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement" with people openly contending the charters are not a relevant factor in a lawsuit specifically about the charters.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of teams being able to use whatever parts they want causing lower funded teams to be much less competitive?
Click to expand...
Not really, since it isn't a serious concern of these two owners that they have made any public statements related to changing. Also: isn't one of these owners in the suit obviously one who'd be most negatively affected in that scenario?
 
virtualbalboa said:
The part that amuses me the most in that we're 61 pages into a thread titled "23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement" with people openly contending the charters are not a relevant factor in a lawsuit specifically about the charters.
Click to expand...
Technically, the lawsuit isn't specifically about the charters. I haven't seen them mentioned in the lawsuit.

But sex isn't mentioned when asking a girl to dinner and a movie.
 
If anyone thinks these team owners aren't drooling at the idea of getting parts wherever they want you're absolutely insane. It may not be what this is all about but you could bet on the fact Joe Gibbs and Rick Hendrick are sitting back just rubbing their hands together with a big evil grin just waiting for the verdict.
 
virtualbalboa said:
Not really, since it isn't a serious concern of these two owners that they have made any public statements related to changing.
Click to expand...
Why would they publicly state that?

Charlie Spencer said:
But sex isn't mentioned when asking a girl to dinner and a movie.
Click to expand...

This^

And yeah, I think whether FRM ends up winning or not in this they lose. They may get a bit more money for their low finishing position but I'm pretty sure these guys also like to run well and develop good reputations rather than being an back marker interim team for established drivers losing their edge to run for a year or 2 before they retire.


I do hope I'm wrong... but to completely dismiss this part of it is just ignorant.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Technically, the lawsuit isn't specifically about the charters. I haven't seen them mentioned in the lawsuit.

But sex isn't mentioned when asking a girl to dinner and a movie.
Click to expand...
Good thinking. Yesterday you said that the only thing it is about IS the charters.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I don't see the teams as wanting to call the shots. As I've said all along, this is about charter ownership.

My unsupported expectation is the teams will wind up owning the charters, the existing contracts will be replaced with ones without a 'no lawsuits' clause, and nothing else will change. Other than losing the ability to take away charters on a whim, NASCAR will continue to run the show as they have.
Click to expand...
This you?
 
Charlie likes to cover both sides against the middle. Some of us know him well from earlier scraps but we luv him. I tend to look at things conceptually, some try to make everything black and white. I think there is going to be a whole lot of grey before this deal is over and done. :idunno:
 
Let's see if I can do a better job of making my point.
Charlie Spencer said:
Technically, the lawsuit isn't specifically about the charters.
Click to expand...
The overall goal of FRM and 23XI is charter ownership, regardless of what's written in the charter. When I used the word "technically", I was referring to the specific legal wording of the lawsuit. As I recall, there is no specific mention off charter ownership in the lawsuit.

Regardless of what's written in the lawsuit, FRM and 23XI have no interest in racing the NextGen car in other series, new or existing. Regardless of what's written in the lawsuit charges, FRM and 23XI have no interest in racing the NextGen car on tracks not on the NASCAR Cup schedule. FRM and 23XI have one goal with this lawsuit: charter ownership.

I've already acknowledge SOI's point regarding parts sourcing as a lawsuit point. While I acknowledge his point, I don't see FRM or 23XI regarding it as a deal-breaker. If they can get charter ownership without agreement on alternate parts sourcing, they'll take it.

My apologies for not being more specific. I'll try to avoid using the word 'about' from here on. That seems to be what's causing the confusion.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Ok so Im going to take this opportunity to inform you that I can no longer take you seriously in this discussion whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Read his full post again carefully and see if you can comprehend it this time. This is a cheap and very dumb line of attack you two are pursuing against him. You didn't catch him in any level of contradiction.

Post in thread '23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement'
https://racing-forums.com/threads/23xi-statement-on-not-signing-charter-agreement.76593/post-2212387
 
gnomesayin said:
Read his full post again carefully and see if you can comprehend it this time. This is a cheap and very dumb line of attack you two are pursuing against him. You didn't catch him in any level of contradiction.

Post in thread '23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement'
https://racing-forums.com/threads/23xi-statement-on-not-signing-charter-agreement.76593/post-2212387
Click to expand...
I posted it in black and white. It's your prerogative to say whatever. The you didn't see what you saw is a defense I suppose.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Clearly none of us know what's going to happen... but I have a bad gut feeling about all of this that I can't seem to shake.
Click to expand...
Some agree. Others disagree. Collectively the only thing we agree on is that a lawsuit has been filed.

It's a big forum with plenty of room. I've admitted I'm just here to push this past 74 pages, or whatever the current count is for Hallie ;)
 
But since we're backtracking, I'm still waiting to hear any economic reasons why 23XI and FRM would want to run the NextGen outside of NASCAR Cup. Winning the lawsuit doesn't seem to offer any economic opportunities outside of Cup.

racing-forums.com

23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

racing-forums.com racing-forums.com

For that matter, I'm still waiting to hear what differences Saudi ownership has made in PGA play.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
But since we're backtracking, I'm still waiting to hear any economic reasons why 23XI and FRM would want to run the NextGen outside of NASCAR Cup. Winning the lawsuit doesn't seem to offer any economic opportunities.

racing-forums.com

23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

racing-forums.com racing-forums.com

For that matter, I'm still waiting to hear what differences Saudi ownership has made in PGA play.
Click to expand...
Simple question. Do the people/business who ran the PGA still have control of it? Uh, no it was taken over.

You don't follow WoO or the recent competing High Limit racing series. I guess you don't remember the Indycar split either. The 23XI deal has the potential to be worse then either of those two. You won't understand that either. That's OK though. Some of us do.
 
StandOnIt said:
Simple question. Do the people/business who ran the PGA still have control of it? Uh, no it was taken over.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting to hear what differences Saudi ownership has made in PGA play (and I =KNOW= I've consistently used the word 'play' in previous posts.) As a viewer, I don't give a rotund rodent's hirsute posterior who owns it. I have no objections to Saudi ownership as relates to management and play of PGA tournaments. (Their sportswashing is another subject.)

StandOnIt said:
You don't follow WoO or the recent competing High Limit racing series.
Click to expand...
No, I don't.

StandOnIt said:
I guess you don't remember the Indycar split either.
Click to expand...
That affected the on-track product. The PGA ownership hasn't affect on-course play.

StandOnIt said:
The 23XI deal has the potential to be worse then either of those two. You won't understand that either
Click to expand...
Sure, I understand it. I think that potential won't be realized because what's stated in the lawsuit isn't 23XI and FRM's real goal. There are no economic reasons for 23XI and FRM to run the NextGen car outside of NASCAR Cup sanctioning. NASCAR ownership, profitability, and racing management will be minimally affected, at worst.
 
StandOnIt said:
Simple question. Do the people/business who ran the PGA still have control of it? Uh, no it was taken over.

You don't follow WoO or the recent competing High Limit racing series. I guess you don't remember the Indycar split either. The 23XI deal has the potential to be worse then either of those two. You won't understand that either. That's OK though. Some of us do.
Click to expand...

Since we both have a major interest in sprint car racing, I'm genuinely curious then: You're a big fan of High Limit, right? Is your take that WoO's conduct deserved a split off series but NASCAR's doesn't?

Regardless, I think you are wildly off track. There will be no new competitor to NASCAR. WoO's control over that industry doesn't hold a candle to NASCAR'S dominant position in theirs. The antitrust suit is extremely unlikely to ever reach the verdict or enforcement stages.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
NASCAR ownership, profitability, and racing management will be minimally affected, at worst
Click to expand...
And by that statement, I mean it will be minimally affected by the out-of-court settlement, since a judge will never have to pass judgement, order changes, or award damages beyond legal fees.
 
gnomesayin said:
Since we both have a major interest in sprint car racing, I'm genuinely curious then: You're a big fan of High Limit, right? Is your take that WoO's conduct deserved a split off series but NASCAR's doesn't?

Regardless, I think you are wildly off track. There will be no new competitor to NASCAR. WoO's control over that industry doesn't hold a candle to NASCAR'S dominant position in theirs. The antitrust suit is extremely unlikely to ever reach the verdict or enforcement stages.
Click to expand...
Aw you think ya got a gotcha? Totally different situation with similarities that made it easy to do. #1 they use the same car...Hmmm 23XI wants rights to the car? #2 it was much easier for High Limit because they race on what? The same tracks with the same car. 23XI thinks it is an unfair monopoly that Nascar owns the tracks and excludes them from racing elsewhere. Why would that be an issue? That has nothing to do with Charters. They mentioned that in their suit BTW. It's your choice to believe what you may believe. To me these are valid possibilities. Is it possible that a breakup of this so called unfair monopoly could bring about those things and Nascar is forced to dissolve and be forced to allow competition with their car on their owned outright tracks? It has happend to larger corporations than Nascar. Anybody heard of Bell telephone?
 
gnomesayin said:
No, I'm not interested in gotchas. That may be your approach, I'm interested in discussion. As I said, I was genuinely curious about your opinions since you brought it up
Click to expand...

I've repeated what I said above numerous times. I know you think I am all wet. I don't care. It is a discussion forum.
 
StandOnIt said:
Call it like I see it. Others have the ability to ignore. :idunno:
Click to expand...

I appreciate your contributions to this discussion as well as those on the other side. A lot of things have been brought up that have caused me to think and that is good. From the outset I have felt this matter will be settled out of court and us fans won’t notice a difference.

You made a good point about ignoring others. Sometimes that is the best thing to do but few take that route.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
The strategic goal is to checkmate the king; capturing the queen is a tactic in the battle, not the outcome itself.

I understand what the stated grounds are. Regardless of what the lawsuit says, I think the teams couldn't care less about racing in other series, or buying other parts, or running on other tracks. The antitrust lawsuit is only a tool to reach the real goal, charter ownership. The teams are using the lawsuit to place NASCAR in a legally untenable position. They expect this will force NASCAR to settle out of court, with the teams gaining charter ownership as part of the settlement.

You apparently are taking the lawsuit's stated anti-trust issues at face value, with the goal of the lawsuit as to be able to create a series that competes with NASCAR. I don't think the teams are interested in that at all.
Click to expand...
In lawyerland, the use of rhetorical arguments is common practice.

“Legal rhetoric involves the strategic use of language to influence and persuade in legal contexts, incorporating elements such as argumentation, persuasion, and narrative. This form of rhetoric is critical for effective lawyering, as it helps in drafting documents, presenting cases, and negotiating settlements.”


In other words and in this case, plaintiffs’ attorneys present truthful statements worded in a manner intended to influence and persuade the jurist of the veracity of their claims while persuading the defendants of the futility of their legal position. The goal here is to convince NASCAR to agree to negotiate and to arrive at an agreeable out of court settlement. I think they’re already there with the judge … in his written decisions rejecting NASCAR’s motion to dismiss and subsequent rejection of their charter injunction appeal, the judge plainly stated that NASCAR’s actions are quite likely in violation of antitrust law. The seed is firmly planted. More appeals to be heard in early January … we’ll see if Kessler keeps piling up wins.

In the meantime, I’m trying to understand why any team owner in his right mind would rather employ more people and buy half a dozen very expensive Haas 5 axis milling machines and an autoclave much larger than anything he currently has in order to produce front / rear suspension control arms, hub carriers, etc. and carbon fiber diffusers and under trays when all he currently has to do is pick up the phone or log on to the suppliers’ websites to place his orders.

Nextgen is a genius design. Kudos to the sanctioning body for its conception and implementation. Development has been a rocky road but they’re almost there. If the reins are freed up, Goodyear can take it the rest of the way.
 
aunty dive said:
In lawyerland, the use of rhetorical arguments is common practice.

“Legal rhetoric involves the strategic use of language to influence and persuade in legal contexts, incorporating elements such as argumentation, persuasion, and narrative. This form of rhetoric is critical for effective lawyering, as it helps in drafting documents, presenting cases, and negotiating settlements.”


In other words and in this case, plaintiffs’ attorneys present truthful statements worded in a manner intended to influence and persuade the jurist of the veracity of their claims while persuading the defendants of the futility of their legal position. The goal here is to convince NASCAR to agree to negotiate and to arrive at an agreeable out of court settlement. I think they’re already there with the judge … in his written decisions rejecting NASCAR’s motion to dismiss and subsequent rejection of their charter injunction appeal, the judge plainly stated that NASCAR’s actions are quite likely in violation of antitrust law. The seed is firmly planted. More appeals to be heard in early January … we’ll see if Kessler keeps piling up wins.

In the meantime, I’m trying to understand why any team owner in his right mind would rather employ more people and buy half a dozen very expensive Haas 5 axis milling machines and an autoclave much larger than anything he currently has in order to produce front / rear suspension control arms, hub carriers, etc. and carbon fiber diffusers and under trays when all he currently has to do is pick up the phone or log on to the suppliers’ websites to place his orders.

Nextgen is a genius design. Kudos to the sanctioning body for its conception and implementation. Development has been a rocky road but they’re almost there. If the reins are freed up, Goodyear can take it the rest of the way.
Click to expand...
So what you have proven most of us already know. What you haven't proven is which of those claims are serious, and which if any or all can or will be ruled on by the court. That is anybodies guess. Notice there isn't any "we need more money" in the claims. Many people are positive that is what this is about. Could be, but that isn't specifically on their list of grievances about an unfair monopoly. In fact both teams said earlier that it would be just fine if they ran as unchartered teams next year....before they woke up. But you go ahead and think this is only about charters, nothing wrong with that, in fact you could be right. The lawyers could be saying we will reach for the sky and see what falls out. I think there is more to it than that.
 
I wasn’t attempting to prove or disprove anything.

I find the litigation strategies at work in this case interesting and posted about them. Simple as that.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Technically, the lawsuit isn't specifically about the charters. I haven't seen them mentioned in the lawsuit.

But sex isn't mentioned when asking a girl to dinner and a movie.
Click to expand...
I tried taking a screenshot of the Table of Contents from their filing ten hours ago, failed, and then drove 500 miles, but needless to say the bulk of the discussion is as relates to charters. It's pretty easy to find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom