23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Has anyone mentioned the possibility of teams being able to use whatever parts they want causing lower funded teams to be much less competitive?

Didn't we (in part) go to this system to lower costs for the teams? Have we not started seeing a lot of back markers start to run higher in the field over the last few years?

I'm curious of people thoughts or knowledge on this aspect of the case.

Hearing that the teams might be able to get whatever parts they want makes me think we could see a team find a huge advantage. Or am I crazy and just over thinking this one?
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of teams being able to use whatever parts they want causing lower funded teams to be much less competitive?

Didn't we (in part) go to this system to lower costs for the teams? Have we not started seeing a lot of back markers start to run higher in the field over the last few years?

I'm curious of people thoughts or knowledge on this aspect of the case.

Hearing that the teams might be able to get whatever parts they want makes me think we could see a team find a huge advantage. Or am I crazy and just over thinking this one?
Click to expand...
No you echo legit concerns IMO, same things I’ve been trying to express along with SOI, but others don’t see it or don’t want to game out the consequences of where this suit could take the sport.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of teams being able to use whatever parts they want causing lower funded teams to be much less competitive?

Didn't we (in part) go to this system to lower costs for the teams? Have we not started seeing a lot of back markers start to run higher in the field over the last few years?

I'm curious of people thoughts or knowledge on this aspect of the case.

Hearing that the teams might be able to get whatever parts they want makes me think we could see a team find a huge advantage. Or am I crazy and just over thinking this one?
Click to expand...
It takes critical thinking to try to look at the whole picture and the possible ramifications that can arise. The articles brought up in the suit have the possibility of doing just that and not only do they go back to an economic price war, but it's possible that a number of teams could break off and form their own series full or part time using some of Nascar's tracks and Nascar's car. I happen to see Nascar's point. They built their tracks with their own funds, not public tax payer funds, and they should be able to choose who races in their series and race tracks. The Charter is just the tip of the iceberg. :idunno:
 
Conover said:
No you echo legit concerns IMO, same things I’ve been trying to express along with SOI, but others don’t see it or don’t want to game out the consequences of where this suit could take the sport.
Click to expand...
Sure, we see it. We see the potential consequences.

We don't think they're worth considering because we think 23XI and FRM have minimal interest in the issues brought up in the suit. We think the teams have no economic interest in starting their own series or competing with this car in other series. We think they have NO interest in actually winning the suit. We think the lawsuit is only a tool to gain control of the charters, most likely in an out-of-court settlement that won't address the lawsuit charges in any major way.

We base this on the comments from multiple teams over the last two years of negotiations. Those comment repeatedly brought up charters as the main sticking point in a new deal; the issues in the lawsuit were not emphasized as primary goals during that period. We also base this on the timing of the lawsuit. If it was actually about the antitrust issues, it could have been brought anytime. Instead it was filed only after NASCAR stopped negotiations that centered around charter ownership.
 
StandOnIt said:
Here is an answer that is simple enough to grasp. See: wanting to race the car anywhere, on Nascar tracks using anybodies parts(intellectual property), on and on.

The broader implications of this lawsuit extend far beyond the courtroom doors. A decision favoring the racing teams could prompt substantial shifts in how NASCAR administers its revenue and operational agreements, potentially recalibrating competitive balance and financial equity among teams in the Series. Moreover, should 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports win, other teams may find encouragement to challenge the status quo, potentially paving the way for systemic changes in the sport.
Click to expand...
NASCAR has already made substantial shifts in how it administers revenue and operational agreements which have led to significant "recalibration" of what you said. Are you suggesting what exists now is the best version of NASCAR possible? If not, this is not a concern that rises to the level of existential for NASCAR. The only reason it could be existential to NASCAR is if NASCAR has been robbing the teams blind and discovery bears that truth out. I'm not sure I could reconcile the nature of NASCAR being inherently good or even "the best version possible" with a version of it that was shortchanging the competitors for it's own gain.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Sure, we see it. We see the potential consequences.

We don't think they're worth considering because we think 23XI and FRM have minimal interest in the issues brought up in the suit. We think the teams have no economic interest in starting their own series or competing with this car in other series. We think they have NO interest in actually winning the suit. We think the lawsuit is only a tool to gain control of the charters, most likely in an out-of-court settlement that won't address the lawsuit charges in any major way.
Click to expand...
The part that amuses me the most in that we're 61 pages into a thread titled "23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement" with people openly contending the charters are not a relevant factor in a lawsuit specifically about the charters.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of teams being able to use whatever parts they want causing lower funded teams to be much less competitive?
Click to expand...
Not really, since it isn't a serious concern of these two owners that they have made any public statements related to changing. Also: isn't one of these owners in the suit obviously one who'd be most negatively affected in that scenario?
 
virtualbalboa said:
The part that amuses me the most in that we're 61 pages into a thread titled "23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement" with people openly contending the charters are not a relevant factor in a lawsuit specifically about the charters.
Click to expand...
Technically, the lawsuit isn't specifically about the charters. I haven't seen them mentioned in the lawsuit.

But sex isn't mentioned when asking a girl to dinner and a movie.
 
If anyone thinks these team owners aren't drooling at the idea of getting parts wherever they want you're absolutely insane. It may not be what this is all about but you could bet on the fact Joe Gibbs and Rick Hendrick are sitting back just rubbing their hands together with a big evil grin just waiting for the verdict.
 
virtualbalboa said:
Not really, since it isn't a serious concern of these two owners that they have made any public statements related to changing.
Click to expand...
Why would they publicly state that?

Charlie Spencer said:
But sex isn't mentioned when asking a girl to dinner and a movie.
Click to expand...

This^

And yeah, I think whether FRM ends up winning or not in this they lose. They may get a bit more money for their low finishing position but I'm pretty sure these guys also like to run well and develop good reputations rather than being an back marker interim team for established drivers losing their edge to run for a year or 2 before they retire.


I do hope I'm wrong... but to completely dismiss this part of it is just ignorant.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Technically, the lawsuit isn't specifically about the charters. I haven't seen them mentioned in the lawsuit.

But sex isn't mentioned when asking a girl to dinner and a movie.
Click to expand...
Good thinking. Yesterday you said that the only thing it is about IS the charters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom