23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

wi_racefan said:
Click to expand...

While I don't think it's up to NASCAR to fund teams 100%, O'Donnell's comparison to IndyCar season expenditures was apples to boat anchors. Excluding the I500, IndyCar races are maybe half as long as Cup races, and they run less than half as many races as Cup. I doubt the Frances are willing to cut back to that schedule.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
While I don't think it's up to NASCAR to fund teams 100%, O'Donnell's comparison to IndyCar season expenditures was apples to boat anchors. Excluding the I500, IndyCar races are maybe half as long as Cup races, and they run less than half as many races as Cup. I doubt the Frances are willing to cut back to that schedule.
Click to expand...
I was more interested in the teams wanting 720 million a year
 
The more and more this drags on it becomes very clear that 23XI (and FRM from a smaller part) had no intentions of negotiating the charter deal. It was "give us what you want or we'll sue you". Like had been brought up before - negotiation through litigation
 
Charlie Spencer said:
While I don't think it's up to NASCAR to fund teams 100%, O'Donnell's comparison to IndyCar season expenditures was apples to boat anchors. Excluding the I500, IndyCar races are maybe half as long as Cup races, and they run less than half as many races as Cup. I doubt the Frances are willing to cut back to that schedule.
Click to expand...
And it appears they are all on big Fox also. They should be making twice that right? Maybe they will sue also.
 
StandOnIt said:
Growing the sport for everybody fans included, not just Nascar. A team gets a new primary sponsor, that is growth for them. A new OEM comes on board, that is a lot of opportunities for many people to go racing.
Click to expand...
That's using the ends to justify the means.

I'm still inclined to think breaking up AT&T resulted in reduced consumer service and satisfaction. Rightly or wrongly, that wasn't up to the court to consider, only if it was a monopoly.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
That's using the ends to justify the means.

I'm still inclined to think breaking up AT&T resulted in reduced consumer service and satisfaction. Rightly or wrongly, that wasn't up to the court to consider, only if it was a monopoly.
Click to expand...
The difference is that AT&T was considered an essential service at the time. Nobody needs to be in nascar
 
wi_racefan said:
The more and more this drags on it becomes very clear that 23XI (and FRM from a smaller part) had no intentions of negotiating the charter deal. It was "give us what you want or we'll sue you". Like had been brought up before - negotiation through litigation
Click to expand...
I mean, there was an attempt at negotiating over a full year and even NASCAR admits that they sent the agreements to people at 5PM with a deadline to return a signed one of one hour.
 
StandOnIt said:
post #4937. It should be self explanatory. Growing the sport for everybody fans included, not just Nascar. A team gets a new primary sponsor, that is growth for them. A new OEM comes on board, that is a lot of opportunities for many people to go racing.
Here is what the judge said to a full courtroom full of reporters and interested people and it is already out on the internet. That is partially true, but biased against Nascar's argument.

NASCAR was told before jury came in that growing the sport is not a defense. Judge: “growing the sport is another way of saying increasing the revenues of NASCAR.”
Click to expand...
Growing the sport doesn't necessitate increases of revenue to either FRM or 23XI in this dynamic. A new sponsor for another team is irrelevant to them if not an outright negative. Same with a new OEM. But any new sponsor coming into the sport with intention of activation is going to be a financial benefit to NASCAR because of the media deals and their ownership of half the races. NASCAR is the sport. Everyone agrees on this.
 
StandOnIt said:
And it appears they are all on big Fox also. They should be making twice that right? Maybe they will sue also.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how much effect the distribution channel has on series or team profitability, or the difference between each series' average income per race over a season. I don't know enough to say if being on broadcast Fox means Indy makes twice as much per race as Cup. Since the ratings for an IndyCar race aren't close to Cup, I would expect they'd get less per race. Fox is just looking for content to fill air time before football start. IndyCar is happy to be on one network.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
As I noted, it's not NASCAR's job to fund the teams. But it can't expect the teams to run a Cup schedule on an IndyCar budget.

If France thinks it's 1960 and Denny thinks it's 2000, both are wrong.
Click to expand...
O'Donnell's point about the money given to Indycar teams also bit him in the ass when he also had to admit that such payment represented 200% (!) of the value of Indycar's media deal. 25% is a pretty far cry from 200%.

There's a consistent entity here in all the things I've seen who isn't interested in negotiations. That entity is not Phelps, O'Donnell, the team owners, the drivers, or anyone who has been put on the stand thus far. That entity has been stated repeatedly in documents from both sides that they are completely uninterested in negotiations and it even seems as though the executives in NASCAR are frustrated by, as they themselves wrote, "legacy mindset hinders growth."
 
virtualbalboa said:
Growing the sport doesn't necessitate increases of revenue to either FRM or 23XI in this dynamic. A new sponsor for another team is irrelevant to them if not an outright negative. Same with a new OEM. But any new sponsor coming into the sport with intention of activation is going to be a financial benefit to NASCAR because of the media deals and their ownership of half the races. NASCAR is the sport. Everyone agrees on this.
Click to expand...
But Hamlin himself saying they are one sponsor away from disaster is irreverent right? I gave many examples to prove that growing the sport doesn't just increase Nascar's position but can increase many other's as well. I guess I will make it simpler to grasp and keep the goalposts from moving.
It's very possible in 23XI's and Front Row's case that "growing the sport" could mean more sponsors which would mean more income for their teams.
 
virtualbalboa said:
There's a consistent entity here in all the things I've seen who isn't interested in negotiations. That entity is not Phelps, O'Donnell, the team owners, the drivers, or anyone who has been put on the stand thus far. That entity has been stated repeatedly in documents from both sides that they are completely uninterested in negotiations and it even seems as though the executives in NASCAR are frustrated by, as they themselves wrote, "legacy mindset hinders growth."
Click to expand...
Daytona Beach, on the shores of De Nile, France.
 
StandOnIt said:
It's very possible in 23XI's and Front Row's case that "growing the sport" could mean more sponsors which would mean more income for their teams.
Click to expand...
The subject of 'Growing the sport' is itself moving the goalposts. The question isn't why NASCAR took actions, it's whether they were illegal. That's probably why it isn't an acceptable defense. I can fill in a wetland to build a factory and provide hundreds of jobs but it's still a violation of the law.
 
StandOnIt said:
But Hamlin himself saying they are one sponsor away from disaster is irreverent right?
Click to expand...
Is the sport called 23XI Racing or NASCAR racing?

StandOnIt said:
I gave many examples to prove that growing the sport doesn't just increase Nascar's position but can increase many other's as well.
Click to expand...

They all increase NASCAR's position. That's the bottom line. There's no way to make NASCAR bigger without being a benefit to NASCAR.

StandOnIt said:
It's very possible in 23XI's and Front Row's case that "growing the sport" could mean more sponsors which would mean more income for their teams.
Click to expand...
Why would someone else's sponsors (NASCAR or another team's) necessarily lead to more income for their team?

You do understand that NASCAR necessarily needs to spend money on their product in ways which may not necessarily result in direct financial returns, right?
 
Sure didn't seem like MJ was on the stand long? Guess besides his name he doesn't have much input on the matter
 
wi_racefan said:
Sure didn't seem like MJ was on the stand long? Guess besides his name he doesn't have much input on the matter
Click to expand...
Ask NASCAR's lawyers. They could have asked anything they wanted to. This isn't pro wrestling and MJ isn't cutting a promo.
 
StandOnIt said:
post #4937. It should be self explanatory. Growing the sport for everybody fans included, not just Nascar. A team gets a new primary sponsor, that is growth for them. A new OEM comes on board, that is a lot of opportunities for many people to go racing.
Here is what the judge said to a full courtroom full of reporters and interested people and it is already out on the internet. That is partially true, but biased against Nascar's argument.

NASCAR was told before jury came in that growing the sport is not a defense. Judge: “growing the sport is another way of saying increasing the revenues of NASCAR.”
Click to expand...
So you disagree that revenue would increase or ???
 
StandOnIt said:
Notice Bell said that while the jury was out but the whole press core was sitting there. It already is all over the internet. Instead of calling council to the bench and whispering to them the problems he has, Bell seems perfectly fine admonishing the lawyers with the press in the room and they go out and blast it on the internet.
Click to expand...
C'mon man, are you really gonna advocate for trials behind closed doors and concealed from the press? Like in Russia? I know you aren't gonna advocate for that in America. I for one am glad the trial is being conducted in public before the entire press corp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom