23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

1746793095394.jpeg

8:30 a.m. ET audio only :(
 
Today was about the dispute that arose from the ruling that let 23XI and Front row complete their buying of the charters, being able to compete with the same benefits of the other teams who had signed the charter agreements. In other words as one of the judges who said, having your cake and eating it too.

It's all right here cued up at the point the proceedings start. For how long it will stay that way is anybodies guess.
 
The summary response by NASCAR counsel, following one judge’s unsolicited response that the parties seek mediation, was (paraphrasing) “we will be involved in mediation your honor but these parties want us to rewrite the terms of the Charter Agreement, and we are not going to do that.” NASCAR’s attorney also cited case law judgements that verified a lack of Sherman Act violation if a party refuses to sign a commercial business agreement. Lastly they reminded the court that the current injunction was improper as it is hurting teams who signed Charter agreements and NASCAR (due to non Charter teams receiving a bigger portion of funds than entitled. Kessler argues rescinding the injunction would have major downstream impacts due to Charters already purchased.
 
wi_racefan said:
Seems like things are swinging back to nascars side this time
Click to expand...
For the time being on this matter it sure looks like it. Ridiculous they get everything the teams get who signed the agreement while they are suing for treble damages. They have to win their case for that to go into effect. No cake and eat it too.
 
StandOnIt said:
For the time being on this matter it sure looks like it. Ridiculous they get everything the teams get who signed the agreement while they are suing for treble damages. They have to win their case for that to go into effect. No cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...
I always wondered how you can make the argument about how bad the system is, while expanding.....

It's so terrible, give me more please!
 
Charlie Spencer said:
No. I appreciate your posting it but at almost 90 minutes long, I'm not likely to.
Click to expand...
it's half that, 45 minutes. There are 2 cases on that clip. As much as you have contributed to this thread it sounds like a cop out to me.
Charlie Spencer said:
I'm not sure what that means but Jayski linked to a written summary.

www.sportingnews.com

Federal appeals court hears oral argument over 23XI, Front Row NASCAR charter status | Sporting News

www.sportingnews.com www.sportingnews.com
Click to expand...

Being a summary in print instead of hearing the voices and being unabridged it lacks a lot compared to the real thing. IMO Kessler was soundly defeated with his arguments. Kessler was Interrupted frequently, directed back to the subject on hand instead of the look over here distractions he was alluding to. The original case and verdict was questioned and found to be invalid. The case Kessler used for justification in the first judgement was found to not apply to this case. Either you guys are sitting with your tails between your legs or your afraid to hear the arguments in the first place. None of you have said a peep so far.... that isn't your way.
 
StandOnIt said:
it's half that, 45 minutes. There are 2 cases on that clip.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'll fit it in on my next walk.

StandOnIt said:
Being a summary in print instead of hearing the voices and being unabridged it lacks a lot compared to the real thing.
Click to expand...
I absorb information better when I can read it. It's much easier for me to go back to previous material in a text format than trying to refind it in an audio or video format. I'm lousy with names and it's easier when I can go back and re‐read who is who.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Thanks. I'll fit it in on my next walk.


I absorb information better when I can read it. It's much easier for me to go back to previous material in a text format than trying to refind it in an audio or video format. I'm lousy with names and it's easier when I can go back and re‐read who is who.
Click to expand...
It would be different if that was a well printed piece. I think you will see that when you listen to the piece.
 
StandOnIt said:
it's half that, 45 minutes. There are 2 cases on that clip. As much as you have contributed to this thread it sounds like a cop out to me.


Being a summary in print instead of hearing the voices and being unabridged it lacks a lot compared to the real thing. IMO Kessler was soundly defeated with his arguments. Kessler was Interrupted frequently, directed back to the subject on hand instead of the look over here distractions he was alluding to. The original case and verdict was questioned and found to be invalid. The case Kessler used for justification in the first judgement was found to not apply to this case. Either you guys are sitting with your tails between your legs or your afraid to hear the arguments in the first place. None of you have said a peep so far.... that isn't your way.
Click to expand...
Peep.

Today’s hearing applies only to NASCAR’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling that the plaintiffs can race with charter status for this season. This is an appeal hearing of a lower court’s ruling, not a “case”. Until the 3 judge panel rules, nothing has been found to be invalid or to “not apply” in these circumstances.

Most of the noise was made by one of the three jurists. Based on the video and the written summary, I can’t tell which way the other two are leaning, if at all.
 
aunty dive said:
Peep.

Today’s hearing applies only to NASCAR’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling that the plaintiffs can race with charter status for this season. This is an appeal hearing of a lower court’s ruling, not a “case”. Until the 3 judge panel rules, nothing has been found to be invalid or to “not apply” in these circumstances.

Most of the noise was made by one of the three jurists. Based on the video and the written summary, I can’t tell which way the other two are leaning, if at all.
Click to expand...
It is a case. Says so right at the bottom of the clip. It is an appeal and that pertains to the case. semantics.
1746837912574.png
 
StandOnIt said:
Today was about the dispute that arose from the ruling that let 23XI and Front row complete their buying of the charters, being able to compete with the same benefits of the other teams who had signed the charter agreements. In other words as one of the judges who said, having your cake and eating it too.

It's all right here cued up at the point the proceedings start. For how long it will stay that way is anybodies guess.
Click to expand...

Interesting. It sounds like if the teams survive losing this battle that they'll win the war.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Interesting. It sounds like if the teams survive losing this battle that they'll win the war.
Click to expand...
Didn't sound like that to me at all. The tell for me will be if they lose the mess of having been permitted to have all the rights that chartered teams have. The having your cake and eat it too clause. If they are allowed to continue on with no changes, I would think Nascar would have an uphill battle.
 
StandOnIt said:
The tell for me will be if they lose the mess of having been permitted to have all the rights that chartered teams have. The having your cake and eat it too clause.
Click to expand...
But that had no relevance to the overall antitrust / monopoly core issue. The one judge said he thought they had a good case for that.

As I remember, the original plan was 23FRM would be treated as open teams EXCEPT the money they would have won if chartered would go into escrow until the primary case was resolved. I doubt 23XI will go broke but I don't know if FTM can afford to finish the season on an open team's winnings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom