Search results

There is a no-antitrust lawsuit clause in the 2025 charter agreement. That is a known fact. A judge commented on it months ago.

You might try responding to the question. A conversation might ensue which is what I was looking for.

I’m aware of the content.

No court order required to see this … https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/nascar-monopoly-antitrust.pdf#page22

I asked about the no antitrust lawsuit clause that appeared in the first charter agreements. Neither the agreements nor the charters themselves existed 45 years ago.

It’s been there since 2016.

Robbie Price 2nd. Great kid from Vancouver Island. His family will be thrilled.

I’ve often wondered what prompted NASCAR to include a no antitrust lawsuit clause in its charter agreement document.

“The legal battle continues, with the teams seeking a permanent injunction to restore their chartered status.”

Refresher … “U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell questioned a "no sue" clause in NASCAR's charter agreement, which barred teams from bringing antitrust lawsuits, stating it could violate antitrust law by forcing teams into a "catch-22". Although an appeals court later disagreed and stated that...

I didn’t say they had. The court is yet to rule. I said they can’t.

NASCAR cannot violate The Sherman Act in order to “maintain an orderly environment.”

As a monopoly. 😇

NASCAR can veto the transfer of a charter if they choose to do so.

It would depend upon the percentage paid.

I’d like to know whether or not NASCAR takes a cut when charters change hands. Discovery documents will answer that question.

That’s the standard business model for franchised pro sports when leagues expand and fees are paid. Emphasis on the word franchised.

If NASCAR sells one of the “seized” charters, who gets paid?

Gibbs and Hendrick are the only teams with 4 charters … baked into the original allocation. Expansion of existing 3 car teams is no longer possible.