23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

This is what I was going by. I see they have larger cars also.
1737511979938.jpeg
1737512045716.jpeg
 
Conover said:
Please explain to us the details of this sanctioning agreement, what it exactly says, and what led the track to make this business deal in the first place. Was it made under duress? Did it involve any other partners relative to investment in infrastructure, paving, lighting, etc? Was the state of NC involved? Seems like a LOT of parties tied into this track were forced to participate against their will via a “monopolistic” bully. 🫢
Click to expand...
Throughout this thread, I have seen many posts defending NASCAR's position in this case by pointing out the plaintiffs were not forced to participate in the sport and/or the business of stock car racing. Not just posts by @Conover, but also several others in this thread who are adamantly in NASCAR's cheering section. People, that's not a valid defense. If that defense were valid, there would never be an antitrust conviction, ever... because every monopolist could offer that defense.

The antitrust laws make certain behaviors illegal. Those behaviors don't magically get regarded as 'no harm, no foul' just because the monopoly's customers could have chosen to invest in mutual funds or maybe fast food restaurants instead. Any company or individual seeking to participate in, or transact with, a market controlled by a monopolist could have chosen a different line of business. That's irrelevant. Anti-competitive monopolistic business practices are illegal because they are unfair to others in that market, and because they are bad for consumers broadly. It's a matter of public policy.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Throughout this thread, I have seen many posts defending NASCAR's position in this case by pointing out the plaintiffs were not forced to participate in the sport and/or the business of stock car racing. Not just posts by @Conover, but also several others in this thread who are adamantly in NASCAR's cheering section. People, that's not a valid defense. If that defense were valid, there would never be an antitrust conviction, ever... because every monopolist could offer that defense.

The antitrust laws make certain behaviors illegal. Those behaviors don't magically get regarded as 'no harm, no foul' just because the monopoly's customers could have chosen to invest in mutual funds or maybe fast food restaurants instead. Any company or individual seeking to participate in, or transact with, a market controlled by a monopolist could have chosen a different line of business. That's irrelevant. Anti-competitive monopolistic business practices are illegal because they are unfair to others in that market, and because they are bad for consumers broadly. It's a matter of public policy.
Click to expand...
You ever hear of a non disclosure agreement, or one that restricts you from being able to work for a competitor for a year? I have I have signed them, more then once. So quit with the nonsense. It is common practice.
 
StandOnIt said:
You ever hear of a non disclosure agreement, or one that restricts you from being able to work for a competitor for a year? I have I have signed them, more then once. So quit with the nonsense. It is common practice.
Click to expand...
Non-compete agreements were shot down by the FTC last year. I have no info whether non-disclosures are still viable.

www.ftc.gov

FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes

www.ftc.gov www.ftc.gov

But being a common practice doesn't mean it's legal.
 
StandOnIt said:
You ever hear of a non disclosure agreement, or one that restricts you from being able to work for a competitor for a year? I have I have signed them, more then once. So quit with the nonsense. It is common practice.
Click to expand...
The track has a NASCAR sanction.

As per the terms of that contractual arrangement, NASCAR killed Rockingham’s deal with the Super Cup Stock Car series. This is not complicated.
 
StandOnIt said:
Why is it on their schedule then there not complicated?
Click to expand...
It's not the larger track the series has run on in the past. It's not there because the agreement with NASCAR prohibits it.

Have you seen 'Little Rock'? A few wooden grandstands, no bathrooms or food vending facilities. Hosting a race there will incur the extra expenses of bring in temporary grandstands, Port-As, etc. There aren't any gates, anyone can wander in. I guarantee none of that $9 million was spent on it. Why should they have to use it when there's a better facility on the same property?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Non-compete agreements were shot down by the FTC last year. I have no info whether non-disclosures are still viable.

www.ftc.gov

FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes

www.ftc.gov www.ftc.gov

But being a common practice doesn't mean it's legal.
Click to expand...
From the same article. See NDAs

Alternatives to Noncompetes​

The Commission found that employers have several alternatives to noncompetes that still enable firms to protect their investments without having to enforce a noncompete.

Trade secret laws and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) both provide employers with well-established means to protect proprietary and other sensitive information. Researchers estimate that over 95% of workers with a noncompete already have an NDA.

The Commission also finds that instead of using noncompetes to lock in workers, employers that wish to retain employees can compete on the merits for the worker’s labor services by improving wages and working conditions.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
It's not the larger track the series has run on in the past. It's not there because the agreement with NASCAR prohibits it.

Have you seen 'Little Rock'? A few wooden grandstands, no bathrooms or food vending facilities. Hosting a race there will incur the extra expenses of bring in temporary grandstands, Port-As, etc. There aren't any gates, anyone can wander in. Why should they have to use it when there's a better facility on the same property?
Click to expand...
It doesn't say they are racing there. Keep us abreast in September on which track they race on ok?
 
StandOnIt said:
From the same article. See NDAs

Alternatives to Noncompetes​

The Commission found that employers have several alternatives to noncompetes that still enable firms to protect their investments without having to enforce a noncompete.

Trade secret laws and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) both provide employers with well-established means to protect proprietary and other sensitive information. Researchers estimate that over 95% of workers with a noncompete already have an NDA.

The Commission also finds that instead of using noncompetes to lock in workers, employers that wish to retain employees can compete on the merits for the worker’s labor services by improving wages and working conditions.
Click to expand...
What do these kinds of of arrangements between employers and employees have to do with this subject matter?
 
StandOnIt said:
If you don't think that the owners don't get proprietary information I guess that shouldn't be a problem for you guys.
Click to expand...
....do you know what a nondisclosure agreement is? Because I'm really having a tough time trying to grasp how an NDA results in a racing series not being able to run a track over a clause from another series. It would, however, prevent the track owners from publicly saying that one series was blocking another. Clearly that didn't happen.

Speaking of which: What is the benefit to me as a racing fan that NASCAR can dictate to tracks who they can and cannot permit bookings of? Seems clear as mud as to what it is that I get if NASCAR tells a track owner Indycar can't run there other than I can't see Indycar.
 
virtualbalboa said:
....do you know what a nondisclosure agreement is? Because I'm really having a tough time trying to grasp how an NDA results in a racing series not being able to run a track over a clause from another series. It would, however, prevent the track owners from publicly saying that one series was blocking another. Clearly that didn't happen.

Speaking of which: What is the benefit to me as a racing fan that NASCAR can dictate to tracks who they can and cannot permit bookings of? Seems clear as mud as to what it is that I get if NASCAR tells a track owner Indycar can't run there other than I can't see Indycar.
Click to expand...
I figured you would have problems.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Technically, the track didn't say it. The blocked series did.

But yeah, I didn't follow how NDAs came into this either.
Click to expand...
True, but that means the track said it to them. If you reveal information about, for example, my litigation that concluded in a settlement in 2023 with information given to you by the company I was in legal action against, someone let that leak and I can seek damages from the construction firm. I would guess NASCAR would probably be very unhappy to discover that a track let it slip that exclusivity clauses were why someone else couldn't race at Rockingham if there was also a NDA related to all business dealings or even specifics in the business dealings.
 
StandOnIt said:
Oh I think you boys will figure it out when discovery happens and the loss of the gory details so many drool for are redacted. Lol.
Click to expand...
“In most jurisdictions, discovery documents are considered part of the court record and are generally considered public record, meaning anyone can access them unless a court order restricts access due to privacy concerns or other legal reasons.”
 
aunty dive said:
“In most jurisdictions, discovery documents are considered part of the court record and are generally considered public record, meaning anyone can access them unless a court order restricts access due to privacy concerns or other legal reasons.”
Click to expand...
And even if records are blocked from the public, lawyers for both sides will be able to some or all of them.
 
I took a look at the Supercup website. 13 events on the schedule, 6 of which show the venues as TBA. 25 year old cars and drivers known only to people who attend the local tracks these guys race on.

In this case, I can see NASCAR’s point. Why would they want this rag-tag band “performing” on a track emblazoned with NASCAR Sanctioned signage?

There’s a place for this group. The Rock isn’t it and the sanctioning agreement in place enables NASCAR’s veto. It’s just business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom