23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Why, if the teams win the suit, it's called a monopoly, they have the charters, can sell them partly to other investors, be able to take the car, force Nascar to open up race dates on their Nascar tracks so they can compete head to head with Nascar. If you are all for that happening? So be it. I think it is B.S. myself. Warts and all Nascar came from nothing, absolutely completely self owned, don't owe nobody nothing and these robber barons need to f' right off and go down the road.
 
StandOnIt said:
Once again, besides that, the Charters gave the teams something of value if they left the sport....But Nascar has to approve who they are selling them to.
Click to expand...
Yep, but NASCAR could have sale approval without having the charters expire concurrent with the TV contracts, or expiring at all.. Other sports are able to provide owners with asset documents while retaining control over the sales, without having the assets expire periodically.
 
StandOnIt said:
Some of why the teams are suing? They want to take the car that Nascar developed and compete elsewhere with it. They want the courts to force Nascar to allow the teams to race on tracks that Nascar owns. This is all behind their monopoly claims.
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I want to admit that I do not understand all of the legal and judicial points. I only post with the mindset of how I think it should be handled.

I don"t think the cars running in a different series, other than Nascar would ever go far or is a serious threat. Nascar has no equal or anyone close in that regard. That issue seems like a non starter to me and I can't see that as end game for the unsigned teams.

If a bad actor or unwanted team is no longer allowed to compete: imo they should at least be able to sale off their hardware, and possibly some assets like transfering contracts versus getting nothing when at all when they walk away.

That would still allow Nascar to run the sport without utterly destoying any one that dares to disagree. Why even claim a team owns the charter when it can be taken away from them.
 
StandOnIt said:
If you are all for that happening? So be it.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for others but I think if 23xi and FRM win*, only the charter ownership will change. As to running the cars elsewhere, running other series on NASCAR tracks, etc, you might as well ask me if I'm for oxygen suddenly converting to uranium; it's not going to happen. Those aren't really what the suit is about.

*But I don't think there will be a trial to win. One way or another, this will be settled out of court.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Well, for one thing, we wouldn't be looking at a lawsuit that has charter ownership at its core. Seeing charters taken away with no compensation can't look good to potential new manufacturers, or to owners NASCAR would really like to come on board (JRM).

NASCAR doesn't need to hold the charters to determine how the money is split. When the terms of the TV contract changed, NASCAR told the teams how much they'd get. In the end, there was no negotiation of that. Indeed, it tells the non-chartered teams how much they'll get. For decades it changed the rules regarding who was guaranteed to start and how money much they'd get, and it didn't need charter control to do it. If there's no negotiation leverage for the teams, if NASCAR can make and change rules as it wishes, if giving the charters directly to the teams doesn't affect how NASCAR runs the sport, why bother with complication of charter contracts?
Click to expand...
Charlie, I get the confusion, really do. But NASCAR’s charter system was never, repeat NEVER set up to become the property of the teams. They were never the equivalent of a franchise. Both at the beginning, and ever since, they were a contract vehicle, made to do precisely as described just a few posts previously by @StandOnIt. Did the teams ever compensate NASCAR for these charters? Nope. If there was to be an attachment of property rights to these, NASCAR should be the one entity to get paid. NASCAR allowed charter teams to sell the rights to aquire the charter contracts, based on their approval of the new team and a signed contract. Was that a good idea? Probably not, but they demonstrated a desire to help teams who leave the sport use the contract acquisition dollars to help offset the depreciation on their existing cars, equipment and facilities.

Despite that, Jordan, Hamcrap and Jenkins decided they would not sign the new contract, and by lawsuit force NASCAR to completely alter their legal enterprise. How? By gutting a significant percentage of NASCAR’s long standing business value and handing it over to the teams…with NO compensation. That’s not proving a “monopoly”….that’s raiding the mothership like a gang of pirates.

Also in answer to Miss Lew…I certainly have a bias in this…based upon the law and what is right relative to business practices. In my opinion this lawsuit is mostly a greedy raid on the racing organization I love, by owners who are following one megalomaniac owner with tons of money, who is used to getting his way via expensive lawyers and favored judicial venues. I truly hope the owners recognize their best path forward is to settle, by asking NASCAR to please allow them to sign the current charter agreement…after compensating them for the millions in legal fees and additional punitive damages from the episode. Absent that, I hope they lose their case, and their teams are sold off. Let them go start their own competing racing series with Jordan’s money and media connections. NASCAR is NOT a monopoly, they won’t mind.
 
wi_racefan said:
Nascar never placed a value on them, that has always been the charter holder and the potential buyer
Click to expand...
Understood but if the charter will sale for x million dollars, a team that is removed from the seris will still suffer that loss.

In addition to this if Nascar has no interest in the value, reclassing them into something permanent should no big deal (unless they want to use that value as a tool to control them).
 
Conover said:
But NASCAR’s charter system was never, repeat NEVER set up to become the property of the teams. They were never the equivalent of a franchise. Both at the beginning, and ever since, they were a contract vehicle, made to do precisely as described just a few posts previously by @StandOnIt.
Click to expand...
Again, I understand that. I'm asking WHY it was set up that way, what benefits this brought to NASCAR that it wouldn't have if it had given the charters outright.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Again, I understand that. I'm asking WHY it was set up that way, what benefits this brought to NASCAR that it wouldn't have if it had given the charters outright.
Click to expand...
Round and round we go. You dismissed what I said about Nascar being forced to let the teams use Nascar tracks and Nascar's car to hold races. It's very possible this could happen if Nascar loses the suit. FYI. Intellectual property includes the car, parts, pieces etc..

That is the biggest question. The teams appear to want their preferred terms of the charter deal — they would like to see permanent charters, more of a say in the governance of the sport and more control of their intellectual property than what is in the 2025 charter agreement. But there could be other/different changes that address the antitrust issues. Could NASCAR be required to sell the tracks, and if so, who would buy them, and how would that address the teams' issues?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Again, I understand that. I'm asking WHY it was set up that way, what benefits this brought to NASCAR that it wouldn't have if it had given the charters outright.
Click to expand...
If given the charters outright, as property, three major issues.

1. NASCAR would lose any control over the quality of teams who come into their racing organization. For example, they don’t want junk owners buying charters just so they can get crappy sponsors just to run dud entries that ride around to get paid. That diminishes the quality of the product. Even more importantly….
2. They need to maintain contractural controls over the many requirements and details related to the sport and the business. The CHARTER dictates via contract the duties and responsibilities of the racing teams and NASCAR.
3. Why would NASCAR just GIVE teams ownership of the limited and precious charters? They become the virtual equivalent of franchisees, without the structure. AND NASCAR wouldn’t receive any legit compensation for such a valuable surrender of equity.
 
Conover said:
If given the charters outright, as property, three major issues.

1. NASCAR would lose any control over the quality of teams who come into their racing organization. For example, they don’t want junk owners buying charters just so they can get crappy sponsors just to run dud entries that ride around to get paid. That diminishes the quality of the product. Even more importantly….
2. They need to maintain contractural controls over the many requirements and details related to the sport and the business. The CHARTER dictates via contract the duties and responsibilities of the racing teams and NASCAR.
3. Why would NASCAR just GIVE teams ownership of the limited and precious charters? They become the virtual equivalent of franchisees, without the structure. AND NASCAR wouldn’t receive any legit compensation for such a valuable surrender of equity.
Click to expand...
NASCAR can veto the transfer of a charter if they choose to do so.
 
Conover said:
If given the charters outright, as property, three major issues.

1. NASCAR would lose any control over the quality of teams who come into their racing organization. For example, they don’t want junk owners buying charters just so they can get crappy sponsors just to run dud entries that ride around to get paid. That diminishes the quality of the product. Even more importantly….
2. They need to maintain contractural controls over the many requirements and details related to the sport and the business. The CHARTER dictates via contract the duties and responsibilities of the racing teams and NASCAR.
3. Why would NASCAR just GIVE teams ownership of the limited and precious charters? They become the virtual equivalent of franchisees, without the structure. AND NASCAR wouldn’t receive any legit compensation for such a valuable surrender of equity.
Click to expand...
You most certainly are a lawyer. Lots of words that never get to the point.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Again, I understand that. I'm asking WHY it was set up that way, what benefits this brought to NASCAR that it wouldn't have if it had given the charters outright.
Click to expand...
Leverage over the teams to sign. Losing 30 to 40 million of worth per charter is a lot of money to lose if the teams don't sign. If the charters were permanent Nascar would lose most of their leverage over the teams.
 
Conover said:
1. NASCAR would lose any control over the quality of teams who come into their racing organization. For example, they don’t want junk owners buying charters just so they can get crappy sponsors just to run dud entries that ride around to get paid. That diminishes the quality of the product.
Click to expand...
The first version of the contract covered that with the minimum performance standards. Running at the bottom consistently would (theoretically) result in having your charter revoked. NASCAR can retain approval of charter transfer if the charters are in the teams' hands. The charters don't need to expire periodically to enforce that.
Conover said:
2. They need to maintain contractural controls over the many requirements and details related to the sport and the business. The CHARTER dictates via contract the duties and responsibilities of the racing teams and NASCAR.
Click to expand...
That can be done with rules independent of the charter agreement.
Conover said:
3. Why would NASCAR just GIVE teams ownership of the limited and precious charters? They become the virtual equivalent of franchisees, without the structure. AND NASCAR wouldn’t receive any legit compensation for such a valuable surrender of equity.
Click to expand...
NASCAR doesn't receive any compensation now. It distributed the charters at no charge.

None of those issues seem to be a problem with franchises in other sports.
 
aunty dive said:
I’d like to know whether or not NASCAR takes a cut when charters change hands.

Discovery documents will answer that question.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how that's relevant, unless the cut changes based on who's buying and selling. If it's the same percentage or same fixed amount for each transaction, I don't know what the problem would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom