23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Another leg on the table is kicked out. Pretty much rules out the possibility of either outlier team and the click bait talking heads in the media crying about missing the race while they are suing Nascar.
 
Bravo Nascar, change the narrative, took Dennys win on old tires and the created drama for the ending right out the window. Bravo.
 
And changing rules in the middle of the game willy-nilly as they see fit, can they do the same with charters also? Are they now gonna do provisionals now as they see fit to do if the 40 car entry limit is reached per race?
 
Essentially a PR move by NASCAR. It puts them in a positive light when there was really no chance of 41 cars showing up to any upcoming races.

"We tried to defuse the situation and guaranteed our adversaries a starting position even with them putting us in this difficult situation" blahblahblah
 
It shuts up the what about's talking about the possibility of 23 tennis shoe not making the race and the evil bully Nascar angle. It begs the question of would they even be here if there weren't charters?
 
I would imagine that a win at Indy would pay pretty good. Will they reduce the prize money paid to the team for not being a charter team?
 
Conover said:
I understand the confusion. It really is about the value of things. Remember after Covid when the supply of new cars was so low, used car prices skyrocketed? We had a 2 year old Honda Pilot under lease, in mint condition. I was retiring and wanted to reduce autos. Because of the value of that rented asset, we not only were relinquished from all future payment obligations, they also paid us several thousand dollars to aquire it.

The Charters were formed and originally conferred without any payment to NASCAR. From the beginning they represented a form of contractural leasehold between the team and NASCAR. Take land as an example. In leasehold property, the lessee (tenant) obtains the right to possess and use the property for a specific period, but does not own the land itself. The landowner (lessor) retains ownership and can reclaim the property at the end of the lease term. Leasehold agreements define the rights and responsibilities of both parties, including the payment of leasing fees. Charters were “sold” by teams to other team owners, which was really just a transfer of rights to the benefits of the Charter system and an agreement to NASCAR’s obligations.
Click to expand...
The problem with that land situation here is this.

Say you owned the property and I was the tenant. I can't just go and sale that to someone else and make money off of it. But a team CAN sale their charter and make money off it. So see how that doesn't make sense?
 
Blaze said:
The problem with that land situation here is this.

Say you owned the property and I was the tenant. I can't just go and sale that to someone else and make money off of it. But a team CAN sale their charter and make money off it. So see how that doesn't make sense?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, what's getting sold isn't the property itself, it's the permission to live on it for a contractually limited period of time.
 
StandOnIt said:
yep. They are an open team. Reports are that open teams get about a third compared to teams who have charters.
Click to expand...
Freddie and Tommy Baldwin talked about this on DBC in the last couple weeks about payout, Tommy said it is about 18 to 19% of what they would get if chartered.
 
Blaze said:
I've never had to rent before, could the person renting pass the lease to someone else, and get paid for that?
Click to expand...

Yes, you can sublease an apartment. You could theoretically charge more rent than you’re paying but you would have to find a really dumb subletter.
 
Naitch said:
Yes, you can sublease an apartment. You could theoretically charge more rent than you’re paying but you would have to find a really dumb subletter.
Click to expand...
And permission had to be stated in the original lease to be able to do it legally.
 
Blaze said:
I've never had to rent before, could the person renting pass the lease to someone else, and get paid for that?
Click to expand...
Well, if we're going to run with this analogy, it might be more equivalent to paying the current lease holder to break his lease early.

I'm definitely not saying the analogy is perfect, just that it's as close as I've come to understanding. The whole thing falls apart when we consider the landlord isn't making a dime.
 
Naitch said:
Yes, you can sublease an apartment. You could theoretically charge more rent than you’re paying but you would have to find a really dumb subletter.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Charlie Spencer said:
Well, if we're going to run with this analogy, it might be more equivalent to paying the current lease holder to break his lease early.

I'm definitely not saying the analogy is perfect, just that it's as close as I've come to understanding. The whole thing falls apart when we consider the landlord isn't making a dime.
Click to expand...
I mean idk if you can say "if I'm going to run with that." because that's what it seems Con was saying. Because a team can "sell" something they dont own and make money off of it. But supposedly you can do that, I guess.

I just still think its odd. Because you're not paying NASCAR any "rent money" and then you can take something they say you don't own, and sell what you don't own to someone else to not own it.
 
Don't think it's a problem slanderously saying that Nascar is going to yank all of the charters away from everybody?
 
Yeah, just noise.


1754704097779.jpeg
 
StandOnIt said:
Don't think it's a problem slanderously saying that Nascar is going to yank all of the charters away from everybody?
Click to expand...
All I know on this particular point is what's in Pockrass's tweet you posted in #3306. That doesn't say anything about charters being taken away. It also says 'might', not 'will be'. Speculating on actions isn't slanderous.

EDIT and what's been posted here since is way over my head. Between the redactions and the legalese, I don't know enough to understand it. I hope to be able to leave this point alone until I figure it out.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
All I know on this particular point is what's in Pockrass's tweet you posted in #3306. That doesn't say anything about charters being taken away. It also says 'might', not 'will be'. Speculating on actions isn't slanderous.

EDIT and what's been posted here since is way over my head. Between the redactions and the legalese, I don't know enough to understand it. I hope to be able to leave this point alone until I figure it out.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering what happens if NASCAR is victorious on August 28. Will they put 6 charters in inventory or will they sell 3 to Junior at a heavily discounted price? 😁

How would this impact the actual trial?
 
Call this whatever you want…these are pretty serious allegations by NASCAR. If these teams are essentially manufacturing evidence, or are found to have unlawfully manipulated claims against NASCAR to intimidate other teams, that could lead to lots of consequences. Perhaps sanctions, certainly a lawsuit by NASCAR for damages. It could also impact the suit brought against NASCAR, by demonstrating a tainting of the alleged evidence (fruit from the poisoned tree).

Lastly, if these teams/owners really did utilize some putrid manipulations to soil NASCAR’s reputation and business with the other charter teams, a settlement option might be DOA. NASCAR may fight to the bitter end, and if they do win, will keep their foot on these teams until they sell out. No business wants to do business with people they cannot trust.
 
StandOnIt said:
Highly doubtful. Way too lucrative to the teams and Nascar.
Click to expand...
NASCAR doesn't care about the teams. Just what goes in the NASCAR bank account. If NASCAR cared about the teams, they would allow the teams to OWN THEM! I really don't understand the whole concept of BUYING something for 40 million and NOT owning it. Makes zero sense.
 
Conover said:
Call this whatever you want…these are pretty serious allegations by NASCAR. If these teams are essentially manufacturing evidence, or are found to have unlawfully manipulated claims against NASCAR to intimidate other teams, that could lead to lots of consequences. Perhaps sanctions, certainly a lawsuit by NASCAR for damages. It could also impact the suit brought against NASCAR, by demonstrating a tainting of the alleged evidence (fruit from the poisoned tree).

Lastly, if these teams/owners really did utilize some putrid manipulations to soil NASCAR’s reputation and business with the other charter teams, a settlement option might be DOA. NASCAR may fight to the bitter end, and if they do win, will keep their foot on these teams until they sell out. No business wants to do business with people they cannot trust.
Click to expand...
That's what Nascar has been saying from the first. They said there was actions underway to undermine their business. Sounds like they have proof at this time that it happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom