23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

virtualbalboa said:
I'm not saying that any of the above is wrong or that it couldn't be true. Do I think the Dagers called up the France family and said "You want this thing? You get checks from the occasional sport truck race from it too"? Yeah. Probably. Does that really matter in the context of this discussion? Not in the way a lot of people think. If you are right about the 90s/00s, "NASCAR gave us money to inflate our value and car counts while ASA and other series died, but also wanted us to be complementary and not competitive" is not the great look some think.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I'm not making any claims one way or another about ARCA as it pertains to the lawsuit, I was just trying to lay some background for those that don't know and make the point that ARCA has served solely at the discretion of NASCAR since the 50's. NASCAR could have snuffed it out at a moment's notice if it so desired, but didn't. A couple of weeks ago I mentioned benevolent dictatorships, and this is an example how it can work in a positive way. NASCAR didn't need ARCA, but did the right thing and allowed it to survive and occasionally even thrive for decades, and look at it as a compliment to, not a detriment to NASCAR. Bill Sr. had a similar relationship with John Bishop, the man behind the original incarnation of IMSA, which has come full circle with Jim France being the driving force behind professional sports car racing in America.
 
KTMLew01 said:
It's CART all over again. That all worked out eventually. Mostly.
Click to expand...
The CART/IRL split almost killed open wheel racing. It took at least 15 years to get over that only for IndyCar to be basically what CART used to be. Most of today's NASCAR fans may be dead and gone in that time frame. NASCAR will work something out before too long. If Big Bill or Bill Jr. were still around and in charge, they'd just squeeze out MJ and FRM. Today's group won't do that but will get the message across in other ways.
 
Formerjackman said:
Just to be clear, I'm not making any claims one way or another about ARCA as it pertains to the lawsuit, I was just trying to lay some background for those that don't know and make the point that ARCA has served solely at the discretion of NASCAR since the 50's. NASCAR could have snuffed it out at a moment's notice if it so desired, but didn't. A couple of weeks ago I mentioned benevolent dictatorships, and this is an example how it can work in a positive way. NASCAR didn't need ARCA, but did the right thing and allowed it to survive and occasionally even thrive for decades, and look at it as a compliment to, not a detriment to NASCAR. Bill Sr. had a similar relationship with John Bishop, the man behind the original incarnation of IMSA, which has come full circle with Jim France being the driving force behind professional sports car racing in America.
Click to expand...
Again, not an argument against any of this having been the case. The fact that ARCA served solely at the discretion of NASCAR is actually the problem in a legal sense.
 
Ernie_Irvan#4 said:
lol 23XI and FRM have no leverage right now. What are they expecting NASCAR going to change in the agreement when they already have 98% of the teams signed.

Denny , I understand you wanted “stand up to the man” and fight the power, but you built a solid team with two good drivers, you have one driver that is fighting for a championship, you really wanted throw all of that away.
Click to expand...

one really good driver and one average one who brings it tons of sponsorship $$ because of the summer of 2020.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I already hate myself for asking but wither IMSA in all this? Are the Frances damned for running a monopolistic sports car series?
Click to expand...
Separate entity. Also there's plenty of other sports car organizations in the country, and since being a professional driver is only nominally a consideration for being involved with sports car racing, doesn't so much matter.
 
I can see that Mr. Kessler is well acquainted with hyperbole!

If anyone could help me with this I sure would appreciate it. To the best of my knowledge Nascar never even hinted that the charters would become permanent. I thought the charters were to guarantee a starting spot and a much higher purse. They may have been looking for a way to get rid of the start & park embarrassment as well. I thought NASCAR was always clear about charters being tied to their broadcast deals.

Did I miss something where NASCAR led teams to believe that they actually owned the charters in their possession?
 
AlTerego said:
I can see that Mr. Kessler is well acquainted with hyperbole!

If anyone could help me with this I sure would appreciate it. To the best of my knowledge Nascar never even hinted that the charters would become permanent. I thought the charters were to guarantee a starting spot and a much higher purse. They may have been looking for a way to get rid of the start & park embarrassment as well. I thought NASCAR was always clear about charters being tied to their broadcast deals.

Did I miss something where NASCAR led teams to believe that they actually owned the charters in their possession?
Click to expand...
Here's the Jayski page on it:


The stipulations for the charters pretty clearly indicate that teams would be expected to sell the charter if they leased it out for a season and intended to do so again; that can't happen unless the teams own it. The real agreement details and the nature of the charters in full isn't available to us. Unlike, say, the FIA or Indycar or IMSA or....actually, anyone else....NASCAR doesn't publish technical or sporting regulations anywhere. All of it is behind login screens.
 
AlTerego said:
I can see that Mr. Kessler is well acquainted with hyperbole!

If anyone could help me with this I sure would appreciate it. To the best of my knowledge Nascar never even hinted that the charters would become permanent. I thought the charters were to guarantee a starting spot and a much higher purse. They may have been looking for a way to get rid of the start & park embarrassment as well. I thought NASCAR was always clear about charters being tied to their broadcast deals.

Did I miss something where NASCAR led teams to believe that they actually owned the charters in their possession?
Click to expand...
Yes he is well acquainted lol. The short answer is that Nascar owns them. Kessler thinks they should be permanent and solely owned by the teams along with other things like intellectual property.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
How do you prove a negative? If no one has even tried to complete with my World Champion Farting league, am I by default guilty of monopolistic practices?
Click to expand...
There are too many free-styling boys out there to turn farting into a monopoly.

I have had to threaten to spray a few down with a fire extinguisher to stop them.
 
Greg said:
There are too many free-styling boys out there to turn farting into a monopoly.
Click to expand...
Guys in the garage can't compete with top-tier tooters. The can't afford the wind tunnel time. They can't go to Kroger and buy high-methane Mr. Taggert's Beans* off the shelf. Street tires don't cut it for skid marks.

* Please don't tell me if no one gets the reference.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
In some ways, they're going to throw everything at the wall.

NASCAR will probably settle because they don't want to have to open their books in discovery.
Click to expand...
You think they have something to hide? It's a private company and like all private companies their objective is to make money.

In many cases Nascar takes the majority of the financial risks here.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
What is fair about forcing Nascar to have to let other series (of which there aren't any) race on their tracks with a similar stock car that doesn't exist (because that is Nascar's fault)?
If you want to compete with a product like Nascar has, you go build your own damn car, go build your own tracks and everything else just like Nascar did. Nascar worked and scraped to be what it is today.
They want everything handed to them on a silver platter so they can compete or they want to stay and race in Nascar on their terms.
 
I struggle to see the legal framework to justify NASCAR as a monopoly.

-NASCAR has the right to be a family-owned business. Doesn't mean that IS right but it's THEIR right.
-NASCAR controls the tracks... well... if they didn't those tracks would likely not exist. There's no other racing series in the country looking to race at venue over a mile in length or that seat 50,000+ fans. The tracks exist because most of them need NASCAR and NASCAR needs the tracks to have a professional oval racing series.
-Teams in auto racing race in different series all the damn time. Penske, Trackhouse, Rick Ware, Haas come to my mind first. These are racing teams that exist outside of the NASCAR "monopoly".
-The charters are controlled by NASCAR. That's what the teams signed up and agreed to in 2015.
-Teams wanted "kit cars" to keep costs down. They wanted budget caps that were never implemented. Now they want to complain about single suppliers and the cost of the cars???

This is the most shill-sounding post on this thread. Some of this is just to play devil's advocate.

If this October 2 announcement never happened the hatred for NASCAR in this thread would be 100x less than it is now.
 
StandOnIt said:
What is fair about forcing Nascar to have to let other series (of which there aren't any) race on their tracks with a similar stock car that doesn't exist (because that is Nascar's fault)?
If you want to compete with a product like Nascar has, you go build your own damn car, go build your own tracks and everything else just like Nascar did. Nascar worked and scraped to be what it is today.
They want everything handed to them on a silver platter so they can compete or they want to stay and race in Nascar on their terms.
Click to expand...

Can't believe I'm saying this but I agree 100%.
 
Speedbowl14 said:
I struggle to see the legal framework to justify NASCAR as a monopoly.

-NASCAR has the right to be a family-owned business. Doesn't mean that IS right but it's THEIR right.
-NASCAR controls the tracks... well... if they didn't those tracks would likely not exist. There's no other racing series in the country looking to race at venue over a mile in length or that seat 50,000+ fans. The tracks exist because most of them need NASCAR and NASCAR needs the tracks to have a professional oval racing series.
-Teams in auto racing race in different series all the damn time. Penske, Trackhouse, Rick Ware, Haas come to my mind first. These are racing teams that exist outside of the NASCAR "monopoly".
-The charters are controlled by NASCAR. That's what the teams signed up and agreed to in 2015.
-Teams wanted "kit cars" to keep costs down. They wanted budget caps that were never implemented. Now they want to complain about single suppliers and the cost of the cars???

This is the most shill-sounding post on this thread. Some of this is just to play devil's advocate.

If this October 2 announcement never happened the hatred for NASCAR in this thread would be 100x less than it is now.
Click to expand...
Facts aren't shilling IMO. I am pretty disgusted seeing how many people immediately jumped on the band wagon after hearing one side from a lawyer and nothing from the other side and are getting hysterical about it.
I was around when Indycar split and they IMO haven't been the same since. Almost all of the good drivers after the split went into Nascar and it has been that way every since.
 
Speedbowl14 said:
I struggle to see the legal framework to justify NASCAR as a monopoly.

-NASCAR has the right to be a family-owned business. Doesn't mean that IS right but it's THEIR right.
-NASCAR controls the tracks... well... if they didn't those tracks would likely not exist. There's no other racing series in the country looking to race at venue over a mile in length or that seat 50,000+ fans. The tracks exist because most of them need NASCAR and NASCAR needs the tracks to have a professional oval racing series.
-Teams in auto racing race in different series all the damn time. Penske, Trackhouse, Rick Ware, Haas come to my mind first. These are racing teams that exist outside of the NASCAR "monopoly".
-The charters are controlled by NASCAR. That's what the teams signed up and agreed to in 2015.
-Teams wanted "kit cars" to keep costs down. They wanted budget caps that were never implemented. Now they want to complain about single suppliers and the cost of the cars???
Click to expand...
No diss to you, but part of the issue IMO (and this is often true online on this topic) is that you are spelling out conditions which may very well be the result of anticompetitive action or at least would certainly be conditions you'd expect in that situation. The rationale of "Just build your own tracks and cars if you don't like it" being how things are done is literally the sort of thing antitrust law intends to prevent happening. You don't need a full tilt monopoly for the issue to be one where the government can intervene. Spirit and Frontier didn't merge because they were told they could not. Albertsons and Kroger are in a similar conundrum right now.
 
virtualbalboa said:
No diss to you, but part of the issue IMO (and this is often true online on this topic) is that you are spelling out conditions which may very well be the result of anticompetitive action or at least would certainly be conditions you'd expect in that situation. The rationale of "Just build your own tracks and cars if you don't like it" being how things are done is literally the sort of thing antitrust law intends to prevent happening. You don't need a full tilt monopoly for the issue to be one where the government can intervene. Spirit and Frontier didn't merge because they were told they could not. Albertsons and Kroger are in a similar conundrum right now.
Click to expand...
I think Speedbowl14 has listed many excellent points. What I continue to not understand is the ongoing reference by VB and others to how NASCAR “keeps” competitors out. PLEASE detail for me what racing series have attempted to run their cars on NASCAR tracks, or better yet, establish a new series where they have pursued existing drivers & teams in Cup, Xfinity or Trucks, in order to compete with the “monopoly”? If there was any effort remotely underway I am sure we’d hear about it. Does NASCAR cast their immense weight into stiff arming the Cars series? Tony Stewart’s SRX that had their own TV deal?

My gosh, Jeffery K does his closing argument in the media and some of you are ready to erect the gallows!
 
The application for a temporary injunction is the first test.

If the plaintiff’s case has merit, one will be granted.
 
Conover said:
I think Speedbowl14 has listed many excellent points. What I continue to not understand is the ongoing reference by VB and others to how NASCAR “keeps” competitors out. PLEASE detail for me what racing series have attempted to run their cars on NASCAR tracks, or better yet, establish a new series where they have pursued existing drivers & teams in Cup, Xfinity or Trucks, in order to compete with the “monopoly”? If there was any effort remotely underway I am sure we’d hear about it. Does NASCAR cast their immense weight into stiff arming the Cars series? Tony Stewart’s SRX that had their own TV deal?

My gosh, Jeffery K does his closing argument in the media and some of you are ready to erect the gallows!
Click to expand...
Last night, Some children on Reddit were trying to dig up the corpse of SRX and trying to present that as a worthy competitor to NASCAR as a result of this lawsuit. “If Only Roger Penske and Tony Stewart got together to get it going again”. Ive seen a lot of bad ideas since these news broke of the lawsuit in the last 48 hours, but that took winner winner chicken dinner for me.
 
StandOnIt said:
I am pretty disgusted seeing how many people immediately jumped on the band wagon after hearing one side from a lawyer and nothing from the other side and are getting hysterical about it.
Click to expand...

You appear to have heard one side and reflexively taken the opposing side before that side has uttered a word in response. You've repeatedly impugned and insulted the parties that make up the one side, and anyone who voices any support for their claims.

Your disgust at impulsive overreactions might be more persuasive if any of your responses to the topic contained something akin to, "I'll wait and see how the legal process plays out before passing judgment on this."
 
gnomesayin said:
You appear to have heard one side and reflexively taken the opposing side before that side has uttered a word in response. You've repeatedly impugned and insulted the parties that make up the one side, and anyone who voices any support for their claims.

Your disgust at impulsive overreactions might be more persuasive if any of your heated responses to the topic contained something akin to, "I'll wait and see how the legal process plays out before passing judgment on this."
Click to expand...
False. If you would care to look back at the thread, I posted the majority of the communication from all of the layers as soon as it became known. Furthermore I have read many articles I haven't posted here.
 
gnomesayin said:
You appear to have heard one side and reflexively taken the opposing side before that side has uttered a word in response. You've repeatedly impugned and insulted the parties that make up the one side, and anyone who voices any support for their claims.

Your disgust at impulsive overreactions might be more persuasive if any of your heated responses to the topic contained something akin to, "I'll wait and see how the legal process plays out before passing judgment on this."
Click to expand...
It’s rinse and repeat. Something about uttering victim mentality, insult. Start over again. Anyways I think you’re right, I’m not rooting for a side here. I’m anticipating how it will play it out and then make a decision on judgement when a final result is passed. I’m also gonna stay out of how to spend Penske, Hendrick, Tony Stewart or anyone else’s money for that matter in relation to teams. Folks are getting all kinds of worked up over a situation that we are even getting a fraction of a glimpse of
 
aunty dive said:
All behind the paywall.

If The Times wasn’t such a rag, I’d pay up.
Click to expand...
Oh that’s dumb on my part, I was excited to share the information and links with folks on here, while failing to realize not everyone is a member of the site.
 
gnomesayin said:
You appear to have heard one side and reflexively taken the opposing side before that side has uttered a word in response. You've repeatedly impugned and insulted the parties that make up the one side, and anyone who voices any support for their claims.

Your disgust at impulsive overreactions might be more persuasive if any of your responses to the topic contained something akin to, "I'll wait and see how the legal process plays out before passing judgment on this."
Click to expand...
This is your first post in this thread and instead of an opinion on topic you choose a personal attack. Is it a problem with anybody including me to have an opinion or a thought about the topic? You somehow think everybody should have your wait and see attitude. Hey, that's great if you want to do that and others also. I wonder if that is be the case and that is your opinion , why are you reading this thread in the first place and making personal attacks on the posters that are discussing the topic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom