23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Charlie Spencer said:
Just because some think NASCAR is on the wrong side of this doesn't mean they want to see it go down in flames. Asking for a course correction isn't the same as wanting the ship grounded on the rocks.
Click to expand...
Eh, you can try minimizing and look over hereing all ya want, but some of us think Nascar is fighting for their survival.
 
StandOnIt said:
Before anybody gets carried away about Nascar calling the teams franchises and themselves a franchisor, read this below.
Click to expand...
I don't remember the term 'franchisee' being applied to teams before today. If they're franchisees, where do the charters fit in? I'm not aware of any franchise model that includes charters or similar mechanisms.

I'm NOT disagreeing with your definition. It will be up to the judge whether the term applies in this situation. From here, it looks like NASCAR's team is trying a new tactic because the others haven't been rollicking successes.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I don't remember the term 'franchisee' being applied to teams before today. If they're franchisees, where do the charters fit in? I'm not aware of any franchise model that includes charters or similar mechanisms.

I'm NOT disagreeing with your definition. It will be up to the judge whether the term applies in this situation. From here, it looks like NASCAR's team is trying a new tactic because the others haven't been rollicking successes.
Click to expand...
Having trouble with common legal terms are ya?
 
StandOnIt said:
Why don't you tell us how great it is going to be then with teams calling the shots?
Click to expand...
I don't see the teams as wanting to call the shots. As I've said all along, this is about charter ownership.

My unsupported expectation is the teams will wind up owning the charters, the existing contracts will be replaced with ones without a 'no lawsuits' clause, and nothing else will change. Other than losing the ability to take away charters on a whim, NASCAR will continue to run the show as they have.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I don't see the teams as wanting to call the shots. As I've said all along, this is about charter ownership.

My unsupported expectation is the teams will wind up owning the charters, the existing contracts will be replaced with ones without a 'no lawsuits' clause, and nothing else will change. Other than losing the ability to take away charters on a whim, NASCAR will continue to run the show as they have.
Click to expand...
I guess you haven't read what their grounds for the anti trust suite are. I posted them. The charter scuffle is because the teams didn't sign the franchise contract. Here lets jog your memory.
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)
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I don't see the teams as wanting to call the shots. As I've said all along, this is about charter ownership.

My unsupported expectation is the teams will wind up owning the charters, the existing contracts will be replaced with ones without a 'no lawsuits' clause, and nothing else will change. Other than losing the ability to take away charters on a whim, NASCAR will continue to run the show as they have.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Charter ownership creates increasing enterprise value over time as it has / does for every other professional sport on the planet.

If NASCAR agreed to it and the teams agreed to everything else including negotiated payouts on a rotating basis tied to broadcast contracts, the antitrust arguments would disappear in the blink of an eye.
 
StandOnIt said:
I guess you haven't read what their grounds for the anti trust suite are. I posted them. The charter scuffle is because the teams didn't sign the franchise contract.
Click to expand...
The strategic goal is to checkmate the king; capturing the queen is a tactic in the battle, not the outcome itself.

I understand what the stated grounds are. Regardless of what the lawsuit says, I think the teams couldn't care less about racing in other series, or buying other parts, or running on other tracks. The antitrust lawsuit is only a tool to reach the real goal, charter ownership. The teams are using the lawsuit to place NASCAR in a legally untenable position. They expect this will force NASCAR to settle out of court, with the teams gaining charter ownership as part of the settlement.

You apparently are taking the lawsuit's stated anti-trust issues at face value, with the goal of the lawsuit as to be able to create a series that competes with NASCAR. I don't think the teams are interested in that at all.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
The strategic goal is to checkmate the king; capturing the queen is a tactic in the battle, not the outcome itself.

I understand what the stated grounds are. Regardless of what the lawsuit says, I think the teams couldn't care less about racing in other series, or buying other parts, or running on other tracks. The antitrust lawsuit is only a tool to reach the real goal, charter ownership. The teams are using the lawsuit to place NASCAR in a legally untenable position. They expect this will force NASCAR to settle out of court, with the teams gaining charter ownership as part of the settlement.

You apparently are taking the lawsuit's stated anti-trust issues at face value, with the goal of the lawsuit as to be able to create a series that competes with NASCAR. I don't think the teams are interested in that at all.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the don't look over here at what is written in black and white. Lol. Sure Bud. If they win the anti-trust it will never happen they were only kidding.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Just because some think NASCAR is on the wrong side of this doesn't mean they want to see it go down in flames. Asking for a course correction isn't the same as wanting the ship grounded on the rocks.
Click to expand...
There are definitely people around here wishing the worst for NASCAR .. always has been.

I've been confused for years about why certain posters even bother watching or following the sport at all.

I've taken many several month long hiatus' from even bothering to come here at all over the last 11 years because of the way so many people seem to have such hate for the sport I love.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
There are definitely people around here wishing the worst for NASCAR .. always has been.

I've been confused for years about why certain posters even bother watching or following the sport at all.

I've taken many several month long hiatus' from even bothering to come here at all over the last 11 years because of the way so many people seem to have such hate for the sport I love.
Click to expand...
The same ones trashing it will tell you it's because they love it lol. I ain't lying man lol. A sane person wouldn't waste 5 minutes watching it is my belief.
 
StandOnIt said:
Yeah, the don't look over here at what is written in black and white. Lol. Sure Bud. If they win the anti-trust it will never happen they were only kidding.
Click to expand...
I see what you've posted in black and white. Should I take your words at face value, or are you using those words to convey a different message?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I see what you've posted in black and white. Should I take your words at face value, or are you using those words to convey a different message?
Click to expand...
I would take them at face value if I were you. You can dance around the fire all that you want, that is your choice. I don't come that way. I will keep posting what the anti trust is about and you can keep dancing. BTW you never answered my question about the Saudi/PGA takeover.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Explain them to me, please. The Saudis' PIF investment fund bought the PGA wholesale; no lawsuit was involved by the PGA, PIF, or the players. Play continues basically as it did before.
Click to expand...
Lol, Liv is formed, plays the shorter courses, independently owned,..not like (ARCA) that the outliers seem interested in on their anti-trust lawsuit among others things. Liv starts paying big money and some big name golfers switch to Liv. A 2 billion investment comes from the Saudi's for Liv. Counter suit filled by PGA. You now witnessed how a foreign entity took over the PGA.
Keep those blinders on if you can't see any similarities or could care less.
 
LIV wasn't formed by PGA golfers, it was formed by the PIF as a tool to improve the Saudis' public image. The PGA sued it after it was formed; it wasn't born of a suit against the PGA by players. Unlike the PIF, no one with $2B to blow is interested in starting a rival to NASCAR and poaching existing drivers. There's no 'sportwashing' benefit.

But let's go back to your original post on the subject:
StandOnIt said:
Why don't you tell us how great it is going to be then with teams calling the shots? How is that working out with the PGA/Saudi's?
Click to expand...
The players aren't calling the shots over at the merged PGA. They didn't start it. They didn't sue the PGA with a goal of starting another pro golf league. As to how it's working out, I see no little difference in the play of the tournaments I've watched. Same number of holes, basically the same courses, same major tournaments, same rules, same TV coverage, same fans in the galleries, mostly the same players. After all, it's the same management.

But it doesn't matter because the lawsuit isn't about calling the shots. It's about charter ownership, regardless of what the lawsuit says.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
LIV wasn't formed by PGA golfers, it was formed by the PIF as a tool to improve the Saudis' public image. The PGA sued it after it was formed; it wasn't born of a suit against the PGA by players. Unlike the PIF, no one with $2B to blow is interested in starting a rival to NASCAR and poaching existing drivers. There's no 'sportwashing' benefit.
Click to expand...
Liv was launched by X golfer Greg Norman with a 2 billion dollar investment by PIF (Saudi's). So no similarity to X basketball player and his partner right? I think it is time for you to say you don't care who owns Nascar.
 
StandOnIt said:
Liv was launched by X golfer Greg Norman with a 2 billion dollar investment by PIF (Saudi's). So no similarity to X basketball player and his partner right? I think it is time for you to say you don't care who owns Nascar.
Click to expand...
I ask again, please tell me what differences you see in how PGA golf is played today vs. five years ago.

I have no trouble saying I don't care who owns NASCAR. Why should I care? The ownership has no negative impact on my pocketbook. It's a form of entertainment, easily replaced. I got along nicely for the first 35 years of my life without it. I get along without it for 2.5 months every winter. It's not food or shelter, for crying out loud.

But NASCAR ownership isn't going to change. Other than charter ownership and the 'no lawsuits' clause, little will change a result of this lawsuit.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I ask again, please tell me what differences you see in how PGA golf is played today vs. five years ago.

I have no trouble saying I don't care who owns NASCAR. Why should I care? The ownership has no negative impact on my pocketbook. It's a form of entertainment, easily replaced. I got along nicely for the first 35 years of my life without it. I get along without it for 2.5 months every winter. It's not food or shelter, for crying out loud.

But NASCAR ownership isn't going to change. Other than charter ownership and the 'no lawsuits' clause, little will change a result of this lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Oh I understand full well the lack of empathy for a family that grew this sport from nothing to what it is today and are continuing to defend what they built.
 
StandOnIt said:
continuing to defend what they built.
Click to expand...
The judge will decide whether they're defending it legally. I'm certain the France family isn't going to wind up living in a used single-wide and having to clean Daytona hotel rooms to put Ramen on the table, so nope, no empathy. Businesses start and fail ever day, including ones over 75 years old.

But they're not going anywhere because this isn't about ownership or new series. The lawsuit is a tool to gain charter ownership. Nothing more or less. At the end, the Frances will still be running the show.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
The judge will decide whether they're defending it legally. I'm certain the France family isn't going to wind up living in a used single-wide and having to clean Daytona hotel rooms to put Ramen on the table, so nope, no empathy. Businesses start and fail ever day, including ones over 75 years old.

But they're not going anywhere because this isn't about ownership or new series. The lawsuit is a tool to gain charter ownership. Nothing more or less. At the end, the Frances will still be running the show.
Click to expand...
Keep telling yourself that.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
If that material was good enough to have on the beds, it's good enough to hang over the windows. Although maybe the mom-in-law was right; we probably should have washed them first. Nah, there's a lot of good times up there...
Click to expand...
carol-burnett-window-coverings.jpg
 
virtualbalboa said:
That is literally what the documents say. That is literally what the teams say. So, I guess that's not really an issue for him or me. You, though...
Click to expand...
You continue to miss this part. That's ok, I will help you remember.

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:
You continue to miss this part. That's ok, I will help you remember.

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...
I did not miss that part. I think this goes back to the part where I say that at some point, it becomes incumbent on those who do not understand to figure it out rather than argue with those who do.
 
StandOnIt said:
Oh I understand full well the lack of empathy for a family that grew this sport from nothing to what it is today and are continuing to defend what they built.
Click to expand...
That's the problem; these aren't the people that grew this sport from nothing. They're the greedy relatives of the departed people that grew the sport from nothing.
 
aunty dive said:
NASCAR has known for a long time that their business model violates anti-trust law and would be exposed by an aggressive action in the courts.

The no antitrust suit clause appeared in the contract covering the initial charter agreement in 2016. In 2016, 23X1 didn’t exist.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what Nascar knew or doesn't know, but please go on at every opportunity lol.
 
BobbyFord said:
That's the problem; these aren't the people that grew this sport from nothing. They're the greedy relatives of the departed people that grew the sport from nothing.
Click to expand...
as compared to greedy stick and ball billionaires who know little if nothing about the sport of auto racing that couldn't make a go of a stick and ball team that was something that they knew about lol. Good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom