23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Conover said:
My bottom line is this: if all the teams want is to own their Charters, and the courts say NASCAR must allow that to happen, then teams should be prepared to PAY UP. No matter what the courts determine, one element is absolutely without dispute. The charters were NEVER represented, claimed or legally constructed as PROPERTY that could be in perpetual forever ownership by those teams acquiring the,. They were awarded at the start of the charter system, without compensation, since they were a participation rights model based upon meeting specific criteria as set by NASCAR. The continuation of using charters was always based upon NASCAR’S DESIRE TO USE THE SYSTEM. Teams paid other teams to aquire the rights to using the charter, subject to NASCAR approval. At no time did NASCAR receive compensation for them.

THEREFORE, of teams want to own these permanently, they should have to pay NASCAR, the owner of these, fair market value. Teams wanna be like the NFL? Be prepared to pay for the franchise.
Click to expand...

Your idea bears no resemblance to the NFL. The teams of the NFL own the NFL. When a franchise changes hands or is created via expansion, it’s other team owners that get paid. You’re simply fantasizing about punishing racing teams and creating another financial windfall for the France family.
 
Conover said:
I think what Stand On It and I are trying to explain is that the plantiff’s are seeking to establish parameters for their ability to exercise these clauses, which can undermine NASCAR as an organization. It doesn’t mean there are cabals or forces already organizaed to do this. It does mean the potential for exploitation would exist. Power unused is still power. An open door, a point of leverage.
Click to expand...
Alright then: So then there are only two potential situations which lead to the outcome you are fearing.

1) FRM and 23XI, independent of the RTA, have decided that they want to invest years and tens of millions of dollars, to break up NASCAR using antitrust action because that is their real end goal, not obtaining slightly better conditions for their race teams with NASCAR's self admitted franchise system. Whether or not this would even actually be the result of their lawsuit rather than subsequent lawsuits given that these plaintiffs aren't requesting relief from damages real or potential that would land them race tracks would be a good question to ask one's self before throwing out conspiracy theories, but I digress.

2) NASCAR refuses under any circumstance, similar to the NCAA with the O'Bannon suit, to negotiate. From the time that suit was submitted to the time we wound up with the NIL from other rulings which followed it (which I will remind everyone is objectively ENTIRELY the NCAA's fault) was 12 years. Oddly enough, I still seem to be watching Bowl games too.

At the end of the day, in my view, anything that happens from here on out is NASCAR's call. NASCAR can go to the negotiating table any time it wants to and end this, because if they do, there's really no one else who is resourced enough and has a case against NASCAR from actually being harmed who could cause this issue. I don't see how a "full field" being knocked back to 32 and guys like Bubba and Reddick losing seats is helpful for fans or the series over permanence of charters or free ability to use the likeness of the car in marketing. But then again, I understand if you think it would be an existential crisis for the series if someone other than the Frances owned Iowa, Homestead, or MIS again if you've attached too much of your identity in NASCAR's corporate success.
 
aunty dive said:
Not sure what you intended with this post. If you have time, please explain.
Click to expand...

Haha, well, I agree with you. With everything you've said in this thread really.

The comment of yours I was responding to provided details around antitrust / this case that SHOULD be straight forward, but a lot of people in here are somehow overcomplicating with opinions.

My comment was my own convoluted twist on "does a bear **** in the woods?" in effort to express my agreeing with you.

Perhaps next time a "I'm with you here" would have been far more transparent

🤣
 
Conover said:
I think what Stand On It and I are trying to explain is that the plantiff’s are seeking to establish parameters for their ability to exercise these clauses, which can undermine NASCAR as an organization. It doesn’t mean there are cabals or forces already organizaed to do this. It does mean the potential for exploitation would exist. Power unused is still power. An open door, a point of leverage.
Click to expand...
Yep, that is pretty much it. Like I have said, I have no problem with a competing series, but make them race their own car on their own tracks. As I read what the the teams are suing for I believe they are trying to break up what they describe as an "unfair monopoly". Some appear to be gleeful if this happens. That's fine, I'm not surprised. More will be revealed the 8th and the 10th of next month when they lay out their evidence.
 
jaqua19 said:
Haha, well, I agree with you. With everything you've said in this thread really.

The comment of yours I was responding to provided details around antitrust / this case that SHOULD be straight forward, but a lot of people in here are somehow overcomplicating with opinions.

My comment was my own convoluted twist on "does a bear **** in the woods?" in effort to express my agreeing with you.

Perhaps next time a "I'm with you here" would have been far more transparent

🤣
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I appreciate that. 😎
 
KTMLew01 said:
Some guys keep saying the Charters were given to the teams. So no money involved. Yet. Some also believe team should buy the Charter from Nascar. They owe Nascar xxxxxxxxxxxxx? dollars right now for their current Charters. Odd how any transaction adjacent to Nascar results in sacks of money falling into their hands.
Click to expand...
So you answer me..why should charters so valuable because they are granted by NASCAR without the teams paying NASCAR a fee, ESSENTIALLY A RENTAL, be gifted to the team forever with no compensation?

Imagine you own an apartment building, and decide to provide rental units to your employees as a perk of their employment. Should the employees be GIVEN ownership of their units when you, as an employer, no, longer want to include the free rentals? Should you, the apartment building owner, have to surrender YOUR property, for NOTHING?

Please explain.
 
Conover said:
why should charters so valuable because they are granted by NASCAR without the teams paying NASCAR a fee ...be gifted to the team forever without compensation
Click to expand...
Apartments cost money to build and maintain. Charters cost next to nothing to create, just some labor hours by existing salaried employees and retained lawyers. NASCAR has no capital investment in charters. Unlike a physical building, I suspect charters have minimal balance sheet value and aren't depreciable. Unlike apartment rents, charters don't provide NASCAR any income.
 
Conover said:
So you answer me..why should charters so valuable because they are granted by NASCAR without the teams paying NASCAR a fee, ESSENTIALLY A RENTAL, be gifted to the team forever with no compensation?

Imagine you own an apartment building, and decide to provide rental units to your employees as a perk of their employment. Should the employees be GIVEN ownership of their units when you, as an employer, no, longer want to include the free rentals? Should you, the apartment building owner, have to surrender YOUR property, for NOTHING?

Please explain.
Click to expand...
Need a number. What does Nascar think they are worth?
 
The resolution of all disputes / differences of opinion about charter ownership will be driven by the court’s primary decision. Did NASCAR violate antitrust law or did they not?

If the ruling favors the plaintiffs, NASCAR faces the prospect of severe financial penalties, a forced restructuring of the current ownership model of its several associated companies and severe restrictions on any business practices judged to be in contravention of The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 and The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914.

The discovery process will probably shed some light on the Charter issue regarding NASCAR’s original intent on issuance, their reaction to the escalating values attached by teams trading them amongst themselves and whether or not NASCAR has ever collected transfer fees from teams. If they have, do they continue to do so?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Apartments cost money to build and maintain. Charters cost next to nothing to create, just some labor hours by existing salaried employees and retained lawyers. NASCAR has no capital investment in charters. Unlike a physical building, I suspect charters have minimal balance sheet value and aren't depreciable. Unlike apartment rents, charters don't provide NASCAR any income.
Click to expand...
Value in a business is not just about physical structures, even though that is the use of my analogy. Value includes market position, goodwill, etc. The fact that no team competes for the maximum participation payment value that chartered teams do (by design) creates value. NASCAR should not have to give away value they developed, invested in to create, and own just to appease team owners.
 
Conover said:
Value in a business is not just about physical structures, even though that is the use of my analogy. Value includes market position, goodwill, etc. The fact that no team competes for the maximum participation payment value that chartered teams do (by design) creates value. NASCAR should not have to give away value they developed, invested in to create, and own just to appease team owners.
Click to expand...
NASCAR obtains a return on their investment into the sport. Whatever value they developed is irrelevant without the teams being on the track.
 
virtualbalboa said:
NASCAR obtains a return on their investment into the sport. Whatever value they developed is irrelevant without the teams being on the track.
Click to expand...
But they don’t have to use a charter system to field racing. The teams could choose to not enter the events but NASCAR provides a significant value to those participating/qualifying. You could also say teams are irrelevant without NASCAR. Neither statement is really relevant to the definition of today’s charter value and the right of NASCAR to seek reimbursement if courts force team ownership rights.
 
Conover said:
But they don’t have to use a charter system to field racing.
Click to expand...
That's sort of right. They didn't have to use a charter system. Regardless, NASCAR instituted one, and now that they have, they are stuck with it. They tried pretty hard to get away from it, which we know for a fact because waaaaaay back a year ago there are plenty of easily google-able articles being put out by the likes of The Athletic about the fact that NASCAR's initial drafts of deals with teams for this new media deal involved getting rid of charters entirely and replacing them with increases to the race purses. There are still charters and they are contractually obligated now to fulfill the minimum requirements of those charters.

Conover said:
The teams could choose to not enter the events but NASCAR provides a significant value to those participating/qualifying. You could also say teams are irrelevant without NASCAR. Neither statement is really relevant to the definition of today’s charter value and the right of NASCAR to seek reimbursement if courts force team ownership rights.
Click to expand...
NASCAR would have to show damages to justify demanding money for the charters as "reimbursement". What damages are they showing here? They literally gave away the charters, by your own volition.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I see how that creates value for the charter holders but I don't see how it benefits NASCAR. Call me dense.
Click to expand...
The notion that NASCAR can claim damages over a revenue distribution model it created and entered into contracts with the teams over (and for which it is being sued for anticompetitive practices related to!) is pretty hilarious, NGL.
 
Conover said:
Value includes market position, goodwill, etc.
Click to expand...
True in general. In the case of NASCAR, do the charters create goodwill with anyone except the race teams? If not, then charging for what NASCAR gave away is going to destroy that. As to market position, how do charters improve that? Indeed, the whole case is based on NASCAR being a monopolistic market-dominator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom