23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

[aunty dive]

Ok my turn. What is the advantage to owning a charter?

Permanent charters have the potential to be assets that increase in value over time.

The Vancouver Canucks paid an expansion fee of $6 million USD to join the National Hockey League (NHL) in 1970–71. That was three times the cost of the 1967 expansion. Adjusted for inflation, $6 million in 1970–71 is equivalent to $47.1 million today.

In 2017, Las Vegas Golden Knights ownership paid $500 million USD for their franchise and in 2021, the Seattle Kraken paid $650 million USD for the same privilege.

I don’t pretend to know what the ceiling is for the value of a permanent NASCAR Cup Series charter. I do know how much Tommy Baldwin paid for his.

 

[StandOnIt]

I think it is an attempted money grab myself and all of the is smoke off the pile.

 

[StandOnIt]

Permanent charters have the potential to be assets that increase in value over time.

The Vancouver Canucks paid an expansion fee of $6 million USD to join the National Hockey League (NHL) in 1970–71. That was three times the cost of the 1967 expansion. Adjusted for inflation, $6 million in 1970–71 is equivalent to $47.1 million today.

In 2017, Las Vegas Golden Knights ownership paid $500 million US for their franchise and in 2021, the Seattle Kraken paid $650 million USD for the same privilege.

I don’t pretend to know what the ceiling is for the value of a permanent NASCAR Cup Series charter. I do know how much Tommy Baldwin paid for his.

Nascar isn't and hasn't set the price on what they can sell a charter for.

 

[StandOnIt]

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

As it stands right now, both teams can sell the charters they have for whatever the traffic will bear.

 

[aunty dive]

Nascar isn't and hasn't set the price on what they can sell a charter for.

No one has suggested otherwise.

NASCAR’s interests are served by their ability to approve or deny a transfer of ownership. We’ll see whether or not the final settlement of all these issues includes a percentage payment to NASCAR when transfers change hands.

Wave a big enough slice of the action in their faces and they’ll fold on the permanent charter argument like a cheap tent in a stiff breeze.

 

[KTMLew01]

No one has suggested otherwise.

NASCAR’s interests are served by their ability to approve or deny a transfer of ownership. We’ll see whether or not the final settlement of all these issues includes a percentage payment to NASCAR when transfers change hands.

Wave a big enough slice of the action in their faces and they’ll fold on the permanent charter argument like a cheap tent in a stiff breeze.

I want to know if NASCAR gets a cut of the cost of the cars/parts. Be really surprised if they don't. They have fairly successfully taken all the profit of racing without incurring any costs.

 

[StandOnIt]

No one has suggested otherwise.

NASCAR’s interests are served by their ability to approve or deny a transfer of ownership. We’ll see whether or not the final settlement of all these issues includes a percentage payment to NASCAR when transfers change hands.

Wave a big enough slice of the action in their faces and they’ll fold on the permanent charter argument like a cheap tent in a stiff breeze.

If you are talking about Nascar's side, I don't think so. I have never heard of Nascar getting a cut on a charter sale. It could be but I have never heard it to be so and many charters have been bought and sold since the start. Remember Nascar gave that to teams free and clear for nothing, That doesn't sound like an organization that would be demanding a cut on every sale but a program to help teams if they got out of Nascar for any reason like a golden parachute. Pretty sure Hamlin would be saying something if that was so. Lol.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

Remember Nascar gave that to teams free and clear for nothing,

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.

 

[aunty dive]

If you are talking about Nascar's side, I don't think so. I have never heard of Nascar getting a cut on a charter sale. It could be but I have never heard it to be so and many charters have been bought and sold since the start. Remember Nascar gave that to teams free and clear for nothing, That doesn't sound like an organization that would be demanding a cut on every sale but a program to help teams if they got out of Nascar for any reason like a golden parachute. Pretty sure Hamlin would be saying something if that was so. Lol.

I don’t think they have their fingers in the current pie either.

Suggesting it as a bargaining chip on the way toward a settlement of differences. The 2 parties can end the legal proceedings any time they choose to.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

As it stands right now, both teams can sell the charters they have for whatever the traffic will bear.

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.

 

[KTMLew01]

Yo yo yo

 

[StandOnIt]

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.

I believe they have charters they can sell now. Nobody is saying they don't.

 

[aunty dive]

I believe they have charters they can sell now. Nobody is saying they don't.

Over time, Permanent Charter ownership will have much more value than what they have now.

At the core of the disagreement.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

I believe they have charters they can sell now. Nobody is saying they don't.

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

 

[StandOnIt]

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

That hasn't happened before and many transactions have happened. Years earlier I know Nascar threatened to sell them to others if a team didn't produce, but in all cases they were sold by the unproducing teams to others and to my knowledge Nascar has never taken a charter and sold it out from under a team. I believe that would be a court case if they didn't allow a team to sell their charter. Is that good enough councilman?

Over time, Permanent Charter ownership will have much more value than what they have now.

At the core of the disagreement.

Nobody can prove that the charters would be more valuable if they owned them out right. Unless there was a case in court that proved that was so or somewhere in business that situation happened.

 

[SlicedBread22]

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 Denny and MJ's partnership.

If you want a theory, try that they started the team with the expectation other owners, including FRM, already had - that the new contract would make the charters permanent.

I started any discussion about this in here by saying I don't know very much about it.. I have also have mentioned a few times that there's a good chance Im wrong. I'm purely speculating. It's just a weird situation.

 

[aunty dive]

Nobody can prove that the charters would be more valuable if they owned them out right. Unless there was a case in court that proved that was so or somewhere in business that situation happened.

Now you’re just being obtuse.

It’s a reasonable expectation given how much their value has risen since Baldwin sold his for $2.5 million and by how dramatically franchise values have increased across the pro sports board.

 

[StandOnIt]

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 Denny and MJ's partnership.

If you want a theory, try that they started the team with the expectation other owners, including FRM, already had - that the new contract would make the charters permanent.

I thought the way Hamlin was acting after he backed into the wall. The way Denny was grabbing his back I thought that he may have been trying for a workman's comp case. But I think when he figured out he was going to have to quit racing and that would kill the golden calf, he shut up about it and turned his attention to the killer car that was going to kill drivers lol. I have so much fun with Denny. I'm going to miss him when he is gone.

 

[StandOnIt]

Now you’re just being obtuse.

It’s a reasonable expectation given how much their value has risen since Baldwin sold his for $2.5 million and by how dramatically franchise values have increased across the pro sports board.

That's your opinion. Again comparing stick and ball to Nascar seldom works. What we have heard are that charters are selling from between 20-40 million...nobody knows publicly for sure. Probably because of non disclosure which Stick and ball doesn't have or doesn't want.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

It's just a weird situation.

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.

 

[aunty dive]

That's your opinion. Again comparing stick and ball to Nascar seldom works. What we have heard are that charters are selling from between 20-40 million...nobody knows publicly for sure. Probably because of non disclosure which Stick and ball doesn't have or doesn't want.

Is it your argument that permanent charters would not dramatically increase in value over time?

Your relentless assault on comparisons to “stick and ball” sports is falling on deaf ears here. From a business perspective, the franchise / charter issues are more than similar enough to invite Motorsports and other sports journalists and pundits to make them in the public domain every day.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

I believe that would be a court case if they didn't allow a team to sell their charter.

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.

Nobody can prove that the charters would be more valuable if they owned them out right

Which would you pay more for, something you knew you'd have control of, or something that could disappear due to actions outside your control? Again, this is based on my understanding that the charters go poof when the contract ends.

If that's not the case, I'll revisit your posts and positions.

 

[StandOnIt]

Is it your argument that permanent charters would not dramatically increase in value over time?

Your relentless assault on comparisons to “stick and ball” sports is falling on deaf ears here. From a business perspective, the franchise / charter issues are more than similar enough to invite Motorsports and other sports journalists and pundits to make them in the public domain every day.

That again is your opinion. They are Nascars to do with what they may. So far for years there is an established pattern, a history of the way they do business. They want to keep it that way. They aren't a model of stick and ball.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

So far for years there is an established pattern, a history of the way they do business.

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

 

[aunty dive]

That again is your opinion. They are Nascars to do with what they may. So far for years there is an established pattern, a history of the way they do business. They want to keep it that way. They aren't a model of stick and ball.

No one has said anything to the contrary.

Again … Is it your argument that permanent charters would not dramatically increase in value over time?

 

[StandOnIt]

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 for, something you knew you'd have control of, or something that could disappear due to actions outside your control? Again, this is based on my understanding that the charters go poof when the contract ends.

If that's not the case, I'll revisit your posts and positions.

There hasn't been one word about 23 and Front row losing their charters. Nascar has said they will race with a smaller field next year, not we have charters for sale, come and get them here.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

There hasn't been one word about 23 and Front row losing their charters. Nascar has said they will race with a smaller field next year, not we have charters for sale, come and get them here.

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 Daytona tide?

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 a charter that's currently being demonstrated to disappear as you would for one you knew you had permanently?

 

[StandOnIt]

Is it your argument that permanent charters would not dramatically increase in value over time?

I said it plainly that there is no proof either way because to my knowledge I don't know of anybody that had a company issued charter gifted to them and then was allowed full custody of it and it rose or fell in value because of that.

 

[KTMLew01]

There hasn't been one word about 23 and Front row losing their charters. Nascar has said they will race with a smaller field next year, not we have charters for sale, come and get them here.

The 2024 Charter is no more. They didn't sign for a 2025 Charter. You do understand that right?

 

[StandOnIt]

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 Daytona tide?

yep, So why did you ask the question if you knew the answer lol. In other words once again, they aren't selling the charters they have out from under them.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

yep, So why did you ask the question if you knew the answer lol. In other words once again, they aren't selling the charters they have out from under them.

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 a charter that's currently being demonstrated to disappear as you would for one you knew you had permanently?

 

[StandOnIt]

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 a charter that's currently being demonstrated to disappear as you would for one you knew you had permanently?

Taking them away and not renewing them are two different things. Everybody has except these two organizations.
If I was displeased with the new deal and it wasn't working out, I would set up my company to sell, put feelers out and see what it would bring.

 

[aunty dive]

I said it plainly that there is no proof either way because to my knowledge I don't know of anybody that had a company issued charter gifted to them and then was allowed full custody of it and it rose or fell in value because of that.

Given that the value of TEMPORARY charters have risen rather sharply since they were first granted, IF the charters were to become permanent because of an agreement between the parties or because of a decision made by the court, is it your position that they would not dramatically increase in value over time as has been the case across the board in all other professional sports?

 

[Charlie Spencer]

Taking them away and not renewing them are two different things.

Same effect on the teams' balance sheet.

Everybody has except these two organizations.

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.

 

[StandOnIt]

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.

Eh, that's your take. So far it isn't the courts, they looked at the contract and and said nope.

 

[KTMLew01]

Taking them away and not renewing them are two different things. Everybody has except these two organizations.
If I was displeased with the new deal and it wasn't working out, I would set up my company to sell, put feelers out and see what it would bring.

Explain the difference.

23xi BOUGHT their Charters. Now, as of Jan 1st, no Charter.

Where did it go? Without Charter, how much is "it" worth with "it" being The Team/Business? Not guaranteed to be able to start races. Nascar owns the cars. Exactly what is anyone buying?

 

[aunty dive]

Eh, that's your take. So far it isn't the courts, they looked at the contract and and said nope.

The trial has yet to begin.

 

[StandOnIt]

Given that the value of TEMPORARY charters have risen rather sharply since they were first granted, IF the charters were to become permanent because of an agreement between the parties or because of a decision made by the court, is it your position that they would not dramatically increase in value over time as has been the case across the board in all other professional sports?

I've said more than once, there is no proof either way up or down because I know of no other situation what it has happened.

 

[aunty dive]

I didn’t ask for proof. I asked for your opinion.

 

[KTMLew01]

I've said more than once, there is no proof either way up or down because I know of no other situation what it has happened.

If Charters were available for 2.5 million, like when they started, Jr Motorsports would be a Cup team. Junior drug his feet too long.