23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

SlicedBread22 said:
My opinion has nothing to do with it.

I didn't ask what antitrust means.

My question was whether or not it would be possible for someone to start another, similar series.
Click to expand...
The CART/IRL split was devastating to open wheel. Devastating. Tony George could do it because of the Indy 500 worship which lives on today. Open wheel still isn't the same, but I wonder how these two situations are the same? The Indy Split by John Orevicz is a fascinating book about ego and greed. In this, the two situations are the same for sure. At risk, is the fan who spends a good chunk of hard earned cash to get to the events. I hope these guys don't run this thing into the ground.
 
BobbyFord said:
What about the clause in the contract that states you can’t sue NASCAR for antitrust violations?
Click to expand...
Indeed, it could be interpreted by the courts as unenforceable, or alternately it could be accepted as a condition of the business. I lean towards that being a reach on NASCAR’S part but then I’m not an attorney or judge. My degree is in Economics, and my experience is in senior management within a Fortune 500 corporation. I’ve dealt with numerous contracts, either agreements for doing business with vendors, or corporate sales agreements with large companies. While I knew things to look for, ultimately our legal department reviewed everything for obvious reasons. Nothing was anywhere close to the type of agreement NASCAR and the teams signed, but the concepts and terms are shared across many types of business.
 
Revman said:
The CART/IRL split was devastating to open wheel. Devastating. Tony George could do it because of the Indy 500 worship which lives on today. Open wheel still isn't the same, but I wonder how these two situations are the same? The Indy Split by John Orevicz is a fascinating book about ego and greed. In this, the two situations are the same for sure. At risk, is the fan who spends a good chunk of hard earned cash to get to the events. I hope these guys don't run this thing into the ground.
Click to expand...
Revman, I think that is my greatest fear. It’s easy for some fans to figuratively say “NASCAR is all wrong, they’ve got tons of money, so I hope those teams win this a stick it to the man!”. But the money in this sport HAS LIMITS for everyone. TV and sponsorship money is the largest chunk by far, with racetrack revenues from paying fans bringing up the rear. However this plays out, a significant loss by NASCAR will affect the sport. We don’t know how yet, but weakened or fractured racing organizations ultimately reflect back to the sport and fans.
 
wi_racefan said:
I prefer watching the cars tour myself
Click to expand...
Whether or not I prefer watching it (when the team streaming it bothers to ensure there's a consistent internet connection) is irrelevant to whether or not they're equivalents in the eyes of the law. We all know that the biggest pavement late model races pay a fraction of what a Cup or even Xfinity race does.
 
Revman said:
I hope these guys don't run this thing into the ground.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. Whatever the cause, if they have a split of the teams and they form a competing series, look what can happen using open wheel for an example. There are probably more variables than that and that has a good chance of weakening motorsports, not improving it.
Just what the hell is a judge going to do if they break up this so called monopoly to a sport they don't know diddly squat about?
 
BobbyFord said:
What about the clause in the contract that states you can’t sue NASCAR for antitrust violations?
Click to expand...

Conover said:
Indeed, it could be interpreted by the courts as unenforceable, or alternately it could be accepted as a condition of the business.
Click to expand...

The judge has already opined on this: “2) to the extent that NASCAR’s 2025 Charter Agreement includes a release that bars teams from asserting the antitrust claims asserted by Plaintiffs, such a provision would be a violation of the antitrust laws,”

You can’t break a law and then point to a contractual clause forbidding an injured party from seeking his legal recourse for your having done so.
 
aunty dive said:
The judge has already opined on this: “2) to the extent that NASCAR’s 2025 Charter Agreement includes a release that bars teams from asserting the antitrust claims asserted by Plaintiffs, such a provision would be a violation of the antitrust laws,”

You can’t break a law and then point to a contractual clause forbidding an injured party from seeking his legal recourse for your having done so.
Click to expand...
I believe that might be under appeal. The teams had until last Friday to make the sale of the charters. If they didn't get it done, the appeal is scheduled for this Monday I believe. Amazing how the court with it's clogged docket, pulls a deal like this. It looks a bit railroaded to me. In other words, hurry and get the deals done before I have a chance to see the appeal.
 
“In response to the emergent timeline, Judge Kenneth D. Bell says that he will rule on Monday (December 23) on whether to delay the enforcement of the injunction (pending appeal), further saying that if the sales haven't been completed, they cannot close until then.”
 
StandOnIt said:
Amazing how the court with its clogged docket, pulls a deal like this. It looks a bit railroaded to me. In other words, hurry and get the deals done before I have a chance to see the appeal.
Click to expand...
It looks to me like the judge is moving the case forward because there’s no reason for delay.

The appealing and the paper working should / will be completed before the 500. Put the focus back where it belongs for a week.
 
aunty dive said:
It looks to me like the judge is moving the case forward because there’s no reason for delay.

The appealing and the paper working should / will be completed before the 500. Put the focus back where it belongs for a week.
Click to expand...
No matter what happens relative to this, imagine how bad it will be if those teams go forward with paying for their charter rentals, then months later, NASCAR ultimately wins the legal fight. The organization wouldn’t have to provide charter benefits since the teams and NASCAR never consummated a signed agreement. In effect, the millions paid for those “chargers” would be fairly worthless.

I don’t expect that to happen, as I’m expecting a settlement at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
Conover said:
I don’t expect that to happen, as I’m expecting a settlement at some point.
Click to expand...
This is why I'm not worried about an Indy-style split. There's too much money involved for all involved to not settle. 23FRM has zero interest in starting another series.

When both sides are up to their butts in legal alligators, don't forget 23FRM's real goal is to gain the charters.
 
Conover said:
No matter what happens relative to this, imagine how bad it will be if those teams go forward with paying for their charter rentals, then months later, NASCAR ultimately wins the legal fight. The organization wouldn’t have to provide charter benefits since the teams and NASCAR never consummated a signed agreement. In effect, the millions paid for those “chargers” would be fairly worthless.

I don’t expect that to happen, as I’m expecting a settlement at some point.
Click to expand...
Given the weight of the carefully chosen words the judge used in his decision on the injunction application, it sounds to me like he’s already seen enough.

Just my opinion, of course.
 
Conover said:
For all of those trying to define the nature of monopoly power, you are respectfully wrong. There are multiple parameters to a condition of “monopoly”, and the ability to limit competitors (in this case other racing series that could compete) is one of them. The impact on the consumer is one of the most important gauges of “monopoly” power, and the amount of harm possible from that.

The plantiff’s are basing their arguments on claims of exclusionary conduct, which they say is harmful. NASCAR claims a business justification for the agreements they have created. Below is a summary from the FTC and a link to the website. Much is open to interpretation, hence the need for appeal by NASCAR:


FTC Link On Monopolization
Click to expand...

This is a smart post. However, I think you are misinterpreting the point that @virtualbalboa and I are making. While the determination of monopoly power does have to do with conduct that limits competition, it is crucial to recognize that these determinations are made by observing the market conditions as they are, not how they theoretically could be. It is not a defense to assert that a competitor could possibly be started.
 
gnomesayin said:
This is a smart post. However, I think you are misinterpreting the point that @virtualbalboa and I are making. While the determination of monopoly power does have to do with conduct that limits competition, it is crucial to recognize that these determinations are made by observing the market conditions as they are, not how they theoretically could be. It is not a defense to assert that a competitor could possibly be started.
Click to expand...
But it is part of a defense to demonstrate that they do not create BARRIERS to competitive entry. It’s one facet of monopoly, but not the only one. The real focus is on exclusionary conduct, where NASCAR has some potential issues IMO. Is it enough to grant all that the plantiff’s are claiming/asking for? We shall see.
 
Revman said:
The CART/IRL split was devastating to open wheel. Devastating. Tony George could do it because of the Indy 500 worship which lives on today. Open wheel still isn't the same, but I wonder how these two situations are the same? The Indy Split by John Orevicz is a fascinating book about ego and greed. In this, the two situations are the same for sure. At risk, is the fan who spends a good chunk of hard earned cash to get to the events. I hope these guys don't run this thing into the ground.
Click to expand...
Considering what their anti-trust issues are, it sounds to me like they want be able to split from the series and they want everything handed to them so they can do both. Race Nascar and wherever they want using Nascar's car and tracks and facilities.

Anti-trust issues.
1. Teams cannot race elsewhere
2. Teams cannot choose their own race car parts and suppliers
3. Tracks cannot hold other similar race events
4. NASCAR purchased competing race tracks (ISC) and race series (ARCA)
 
StandOnIt said:
Considering what their anti-trust issues are, it sounds to me like they want be able to split from the series and they want everything handed to them so they can do both. Race Nascar and wherever they want using Nascar's car and tracks and facilities.

Anti-trust issues.
1. Teams cannot race elsewhere
2. Teams cannot choose their own race car parts and suppliers
3. Tracks cannot hold other similar race events
4. NASCAR purchased competing race tracks (ISC) and race series (ARCA)
Click to expand...
Why would they need to include a clause against antitrust litigation?
 
aunty dive said:
It’s already out. It violates antitrust law, according to the written decision.

Trying to enforce it would be a fool’s errand.
Click to expand...

Did you know today is Saturday? It'd 2024?

Since we're discussing things that are so obviously true ..

I mean, good lord, some of the takes from certain folks in this thread certainly provides a lot of context...I'll say that.
 
Greg said:
The thing that I have learned is that we need more civil lawsuit TV.

Most everybody is an expert when it comes to murder trials thanks to Law and Order, Barnaby Jones, Perry Mason, Ironside etc.

But there is real famine of civil lawsuit knowlede, jargon, procedures, and the laws.

TV has failed us.
Click to expand...

Law and Order is basically a superhero show lol
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Neither of these mean he's infallible. As is the case with most successful people, the screw-ups are easily overlooked. None of us know what Beethoven wadded up and tossed in the fire.
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't matter, right. That's sort of the point.

No one is claiming perfection
 
StandOnIt said:
Considering what their anti-trust issues are, it sounds to me like they want be able to split from the series and they want everything handed to them so they can do both. Race Nascar and wherever they want using Nascar's car and tracks and facilities.

Anti-trust issues.
1. Teams cannot race elsewhere
2. Teams cannot choose their own race car parts and suppliers
3. Tracks cannot hold other similar race events
4. NASCAR purchased competing race tracks (ISC) and race series (ARCA)
Click to expand...

1. True---can't race the Next Gen CAR anywhere but in Cup. Can't sell the Next Gen car to an ARCA team, etc.
2. Teams used to build & sell parts and chassis. Now have to purchase from Nascar/Nascar approved suppliers. Parts ALWAYS required "approval" from Nascar but it's not the same thing. Now all parts filter thru Nascars fingers. Be surprised if money doesn't fall out into Nascars bank account during this process.
3. Correct but not relevant to this lawsuit.
4. THIS may well be proof of the lawsuit. Nascar has successfully cornered the market on CUP Racing. They ARE the only game in town. Car's Series is in fact 4 or more steps BELOW Cup. Absolutely zero comparison.
 
KTMLew01 said:
1. True---can't race the Next Gen CAR anywhere but in Cup. Can't sell the Next Gen car to an ARCA team, etc.
2. Teams used to build & sell parts and chassis. Now have to purchase from Nascar/Nascar approved suppliers. Parts ALWAYS required "approval" from Nascar but it's not the same thing. Now all parts filter thru Nascars fingers. Be surprised if money doesn't fall out into Nascars bank account during this process.
3. Correct but not relevant to this lawsuit.
4. THIS may well be proof of the lawsuit. Nascar has successfully cornered the market on CUP Racing. They ARE the only game in town. Car's Series is in fact 4 or more steps BELOW Cup. Absolutely zero comparison.
Click to expand...

I don't think this means that teams want to race outside of NASCAR.

And I DO think (totally a guess) that the goal is to leverage themselves for a bigger piece of the pie.
 
jaqua19 said:
I don't think this means that teams want to race outside of NASCAR.

And I DO think (totally a guess) that the goal is to leverage themselves for a bigger piece of the pie.
Click to expand...
Pretty plain as day. Granted this could be nothing but b.s. as they don't intend to race outside of the series, but there it is in black and white.
Anti-trust issues.
1. Teams cannot race elsewhere
2. Teams cannot choose their own race car parts and suppliers
3. Tracks cannot hold other similar race events
4. NASCAR purchased competing race tracks (ISC) and race series (ARCA)
 
jaqua19 said:
Did you know today is Saturday? It'd 2024?

Since we're discussing things that are so obviously true ..

I mean, good lord, some of the takes from certain folks in this thread certainly provides a lot of context...I'll say that.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you intended with this post. If you have time, please explain.
 
StandOnIt said:
Granted this could be nothing but b.s. as they don't intend to race outside of the series,
Click to expand...
It's a legal tactic. It doesn't matter whether they plan to race outside the series. What matters legally is if they can. It's not about the individual tactics, it's about the strategic battle for charter control.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
I see what ur trying to do here... but just so ur aware.. u failed at it. Quite hilariously too.. imo.

When did I say that they publicly denounced it? Pretty sure when I read my comment again it doesn't mention any of the things ur trying to be such a smart*ss about.

Hey, if two of ur friends are going out for dinner and they invite you and all the rest of your friends.. but you and your other friends don't go.. would it be safe to assume you didnt want to go to the restaurant?

The teams not suing is very obviously evidence that they don't want to sue. I'm not sure how much more simple it could be really.
Click to expand...
Excuse me if this has already been said.

But, there is always a chance that you DID want to go, but you knew that you couldn’t go for some other reason or another. They’ve been times where I wanted to go do something, but because of one reason or another, I couldn’t and I had to turn it down. It’s very possible that teams didn’t want to rock the boat. So I don’t think it’s very obvious evidence. Some of them maybe didn’t, some maybe did and didn’t think it was worth the effort.
 
StandOnIt said:
Pretty plain as day. Granted this could be nothing but b.s. as they don't intend to race outside of the series, but there it is in black and white.
Anti-trust issues.
1. Teams cannot race elsewhere
2. Teams cannot choose their own race car parts and suppliers
3. Tracks cannot hold other similar race events
4. NASCAR purchased competing race tracks (ISC) and race series (ARCA)
Click to expand...
This is what the suit is about, this is also why the court granted an injunction and now 23XI and FRM are charter teams in the 2025 NASCAR Cup Series. Ultimately, the onus isn't on me or anyone who understands why that injunction went through because it is based on precisely the things we are saying. The onus is on those who don't understand why to learn and understand why things are the way they are.
 
StandOnIt said:
My thoughts exactly. Whatever the cause, if they have a split of the teams and they form a competing series, look what can happen using open wheel for an example. There are probably more variables than that and that has a good chance of weakening motorsports, not improving it.
Just what the hell is a judge going to do if they break up this so called monopoly to a sport they don't know diddly squat about?
Click to expand...
I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that the RTA or any individual teams are seeking to start a competing NASCAR series. All I've seen are allusions to midweek races, which are pretty much by definition complementary. If NASCAR teams want to race more and see that as a path to making more money, I see a pretty obvious path forwards there for NASCAR, but I'm guessing they are afraid that it'll further cannibalize their own ticket sales or compete with their events for attendance regardless of what RTA picks.
 
Blaze said:
Excuse me if this has already been said.

But, there is always a chance that you DID want to go, but you knew that you couldn’t go for some other reason or another. They’ve been times where I wanted to go do something, but because of one reason or another, I couldn’t and I had to turn it down. It’s very possible that teams didn’t want to rock the boat. So I don’t think it’s very obvious evidence. Some of them maybe didn’t, some maybe did and didn’t think it was worth the effort.
Click to expand...
I get that.. but also the absence of evidence is not evidence.

I'm probably wrong. Doesn't really matter though. Maybe I'm not. Maybe sometimes I bring up certain talking points just to make conversation.

The main thing that is important for me in all of this is pretty simple.. if the 22 Team Penske car is on track and I'm able to watch nascar races from home I'll be happy with whatever they have going on behind the scenes. It's none of my business really. If this doesn't cripple the sport idc what happens.

Also I have zero sympathy for these team owners complaining about their financial situations. They're all multi millionaires who could decide to disappear from racing tomorrow and live on an island somewhere for the rest of their lives and we wouldn't even notice they were gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom