Search results

Why do people pay 'protection' money? Fear of retribution. Unwillingness to stand together. In court, the number is irrelevant. If 36 houses are robbed and only 4 call the cops, saying 'The other people didn't complain' isn't a defense. Illegal actions are illegal, regardless of how few...

Yes. The buyer can only use it under the conditions specified in NASCAR's licensing of the intellectual property behind the car, i.e., it cano only be raced a sanctioned Cup event. Intellectual property restrictions are quite common in business. Technically, none of us own the software we're...

My biggest annoyance with streaming is that it runs almost 30 seconds behind OTA or cable. I see race comments posted here well before I see the action on my set. I notice this with both my local provider's app and with Peacock. I don't know if it's my connection speed or if that's the way...

Same effect on the teams' balance sheet. Again, like your point about 'This is how NASCAR has always operated', that doesn't mean it isn't illegal. That's the 'All the other kids did it!' defense, and we know what Mom said about that. Two teams chose to not jump off the roof.

No, they're flat out taking them away with no compensation for what 23XI paid for them. (I don't recall if FRM was gifted theirs or had to pay for them.) That's what I'm referring to when I say charters can be taken away at NASCAR's discretion at the end of contracts. Would you pay as much for...

No, NASCAR said nothing about a smaller field. Field size is still 40 cars. Specifically, NASCAR said they would have 32 chartered teams, leaving 8 starting positions for open cars. Under the current contract, there were 36 charter starting spots. Where did those other four go, out with the...

That doesn't mean the way NASCAR operates isn't an illegal monopoly. 'Tradition!' rarely holds up in court.

Okay, maybe I've mistaken something, but my understanding is when the current contract ends at the end of the year, 23XI and FRM will no longer have charter assets to sell. This at the core of the court case; taking a charter away is preventing a team from selling. Which would you pay more...

I'm not sure what you find weird about it. It's a standard monopoly lawsuit. They're common in the business world. This one just happens to involve the business of motorsports entertainment.

And after the current contract expires? You're dodging the question, Senator.

And after the current contract expires? That's what ownership brings, the security that the owner will still hold the asset regardless of NASCAR's contractual whims.

The teams that received the first 36 charters got them for nothing. Everyone since has had to pay an increasing amount of money. NASCAR may not be receiving a cut of the sales but they could easily include that in the contract. Call it an asset management fee or something.

Oh, Canada? (See what I did there?) Yeah, if travel costs are an issue, I stick with Milwaukee, RA, or the Indy two-fer.

Not when NASCAR can take the charter away at the end of the contract with no compensation.

Oh, the Mazdas are tentatively scheduled! Those guys are a hoot and a half! Sports car racing's answer to midget wrestling. General admission $25 for Friday, $45 for Sat, $55 for Sun. Ugh; him say, 'Heap big bargain, Kemosabe! You head-um off at pass!'

Guaranteed starting spot; that aids in attracting sponsors who know the car will be seen every week. Also assists in attracting top drivers who don't have to worry about making the field. Bigger slice of the prize money. Makes it easier to afford top talent, both in and out of the car...

NBA, NFL, MLB all require approval by a majority of owners to sell or relocate a franchise.

Respectfully, I don't see Denny or MJ starting a team just so they can toss money at lawyers to sue NASCAR. Both have better things to do with their resources, and I doubt either is THAT altruistic. That also doesn't account for Front Row being in this too. That team was around long before...

From the linked article, While the overall tone implies they signed, you're correct that the article doesn't explicitly say either team signed.

Given a choice between the two, my cynical outlook has me leaning toward the first one.