23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Greg said:
I wonder what a shock for a cup car would go for these days without some cost containment. A late model set was insanely expensive in the early 90s, no telling what it would be like today.
Click to expand...
Current dirt SLM 5 shock set-up in the $5-6K area. Another grand for the 5th coil shock. Teams will have 4-5 sets plus tooling & a dyno to rebuild/mod them. Even playing in the dirt ain't cheap.
 
KTMLew01 said:
Current dirt SLM 5 shock set-up in the $5-6K area. Another grand for the 5th coil shock. Teams will have 4-5 sets plus tooling & a dyno to rebuild/mod them. Even playing in the dirt ain't cheap.
Click to expand...
Maybe should mention the left rear suspension uses 2 shocks. So car has 6 shocks unless you touch the coil wire!
 
https://www.jayski.com/2025/03/26/nascar-counter-sues-23xi-racing-and-front-row-motorsports/

NASCAR counter sues 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports UPDATES​

March 26, 2025 at 8:44 PM

UPDATE 3: The two teams suing NASCAR over antitrust allegations said Wednesday in a filing that a countersuit against 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports and Michael Jordan’s manager is “an act of desperation” and asked that it be dismissed.

Wednesday’s filing claims that NASCAR’s counterclaim is “retaliatory” and “does not allege the facts necessary to state a claim.”

— Associated Press —
 
StandOnIt said:
It's just a coincidence that Nascar has decided to re-introduce a commissioner position to copy the structure of the stick n ball organization that the main characters come from that scream monopoly right?
Click to expand...
You can't tell them, you have to show them. There are no coincidences, everything happens for a reason.
 
Good to see these points being made.

NASCAR concludes:


“Plaintiffs’ market-definition argument boils down to this: An investor like Michael Jordan can create an entity for a specific investment, fully aware of the market dynamics and with countless other investment (and reinvestment) opportunities available, and then cry monopoly whenever the offered terms for a contract are not to his liking. Plaintiffs cannot cite a single case that has endorsed this argument because it defies common sense and basic economic principles.”
 
How many times does the judge have to repeat his opinion of NASCAR’s charter clause forbidding any anti-trust action ?
 
aunty dive said:
How many times does the judge have to repeat his opinion of NASCAR’s charter clause forbidding any anti-trust action ?
Click to expand...
Probably because it is B.S. in many ways.

Specifically, it objects to the district court ruling effectively that NASCAR is the sole buyer of a race team like 23XI and Front Row’s business – which would be the core pillar in making it come across as a monopoly.
NASCAR has said all along and continues to here, that Michael Jordan, who co-owns 23XI with Denny Hamlin, or Front Row team owner Bob Jenkins, could do racing business elsewhere.
 
Neither of their 21 car fleets and inventories of spare/replacement parts can be used anywhere else as per NASCAR’s ownership of the intellectual property rights to said items.

Exclusionary, proprietary, monopolistic … call it what you will.
 
StandOnIt said:
There is this thing in America that is called the court of appeals. ;) It's unlike Maga ville that thinks they can impeach judges that don't agree with them.
Click to expand...
Also, most judges are capable of rendering an unbiased verdict regardless of the personal opinions involved. Supreme Court excluded as necessary.
 
aunty dive said:
Neither of their 21 car fleets and inventories of spare/replacement parts can be used anywhere else as per NASCAR’s ownership of the intellectual property rights to said items.

Exclusionary, proprietary, monopolistic … call it what you will.
Click to expand...
They invested in Nascar. The Charters are selling for 40 million. Cry me a river. That doesn't include the equipment, or cars, trucks etc. All of it is saleable.
 
What does any of that have to do with the plaintiff’s inability to deploy their assets elsewhere? They’re suing, not crying.

Before this is over, somebody WILL be crying.
 
aunty dive said:
What does any of that have to do with the plaintiff’s inability to deploy their assets elsewhere? They’re suing, not crying.

Before this is over, somebody WILL be crying.
Click to expand...
Well as usual it depends on interpretation. You can "deploy" at 40 million a whack AND FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO DO.

You can interpret this how you like. I don't have any problem understanding the English.
“Plaintiffs’ market-definition argument boils down to this: An investor like Michael Jordan can create an entity for a specific investment, fully aware of the market dynamics and with countless other investment (and reinvestment) opportunities available, and then cry monopoly whenever the offered terms for a contract are not to his liking. Plaintiffs cannot cite a single case that has endorsed this argument because it defies common sense and basic economic principles.”
 
Some are just greedy.

“Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ pursuit of Charters through this litigation—paired with their purchase of additional Charters just last year, well into NASCAR’s alleged ‘monopsony’ —confirms that this is not a genuine monopolization case.
“It is a ploy by two team owners to exploit the judicial process to secure more money and better contractual terms than they could get at the bargaining table. Yet, the notion that the Sherman Act requires even a ‘monopsonist’ to bow to whatever terms its contracting party demands has been flatly rejected by cases NASCAR cited—and Plaintiffs’ brief conspicuously ignores.”
 
So far, NASCAR’s legal team hasn’t had much luck convincing the court that their positions are the correct ones. This latest version of their argument might correct that. Or not.

I wonder if their monthly invoice gets smaller every time they repeat themselves?
 
aunty dive said:
So far, NASCAR’s legal team hasn’t had much luck convincing the court that their positions are the correct ones. This latest version of their argument might correct that. Or not.

I wonder if their monthly invoice gets smaller every time they repeat themselves?
Click to expand...
You mean the tax write off for both sides? Considering they won with the first judge that excused himself, I wouldn't get too positive with yourself. This is a long way from being done.
 

Attachments

  • Forrest-Gump-fishing.jpg
    Forrest-Gump-fishing.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 9
aunty dive said:
So far, NASCAR’s legal team hasn’t had much luck convincing the court that their positions are the correct ones. This latest version of their argument might correct that. Or not.

I wonder if their monthly invoice gets smaller every time they repeat themselves?
Click to expand...
Maybe it is cheaper by the dozen. 😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom