wi_racefan
Team Owner
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2017
- Messages
- 6,402
- Points
- 773
Nasar didn't put that value on them, teams did. The benefits of a charter were gifted to teams. Beyond that the teams placed a value on those benefits
23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement
- Thread starter Blaze
- Start date
I don't think he still will get it, it's been explained many many times.
The benefits were leased to the teams at no cost. Gifts, in theory, would belong to the teams and couldn't be taken back.
wi_racefan
Team Owner
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2017
- Messages
- 6,402
- Points
- 773
There's nothing to get nascar never set any prices for anything
This judge’s decisions and directives have demonstrated extreme bias. His previous decision was obliterated by the higher circuit court’s 3 judge panel, then destroyed by the full panel. Once again, his commentary attempts to disparage NASCAR’s efforts to demonstrate underhanded activity while showing favorable disposition of the plaintiffs and their counsel. He also gets back on his “settlement” horse, albeit through implication, as this is the ultimate goal for the team’s (they know their antitrust case is weak).
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 40,212
- Points
- 1,033
Rejected …
“The court is therefore focused on the merits of the antitrust case.”
“The court is therefore focused on the merits of the antitrust case.”
Yes, this judge says please ignore the illegal manipulation and false representation of evidence manufactured by the plantiff’s general manager….that is just getting in the way of forcing NASCAR to settle this in their favor.
I mean literally, the last paragraph of the statement posted by BP sounded like a child crying over his nanny’s punishment. This judge is in somebody’s pocket. Not sure if it’s MJ directly or via a Bell influencer, but his statement’s justifying disregard of these serious and proven facts by NASCAR are ridiculous.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 40,212
- Points
- 1,033
Goodness. When / where did this judge characterize the plaintiff’s actions as illegal manipulation and false representation of manufactured evidence?
That’s a serious accusation.
The judge did not. NASCAR’s motion presented the evidence that these actions were taken by the plantiffs. The names were redacted in the documents but by all accounts it appears to have been the GM of front row. I’m sure you read those as SOI posted them on this thread. For a judge to summarily dismiss that as unimportant or outside the context of this lawsuit is scandalous in my opinion.
And as I understand it, the judge said the 'evidence' didn't indicate anything illegal.
It appears to my untrained eye that the teams asked their drivers and sponsors to document possible action they could (not would) take if the teams didn't have charters. It's quite possible I'm not understanding what's going on.
Not exactly. The information presented to the court (THIS judge) in December 2024 was manufactured by FrontRow’s GM, was false, which helped gain the injunction against NASCAR, and led to the appeal to the higher circuit court, which destroyed THIS judge’s previous ruling. It was a LIE. Note the language from the filing. THIS judge ignores it because he was made to look like a fool, AND every ruling he has made has been for the plaintiffs.
Quoting from the NASCAR filing:
When NASCAR's counsel questioned this evidence in its briefing on Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed in December 2024,' 23XI represented to the Court that
"23XI had no involvement at all" in drafting it, Doc. 67-2 9 4, and Front Row told the Court that (REDACTED)
" Doc. 67-1 1 20.
Those sworn declarations, which were drafted by counsel, were false. The Court relied on those
declarations when granting Plaintiffs requested preliminary injunction, which multiplied the
proceedings by requiring NASCAR to seek an interlocutory appeal in the Fourth Circuit.
KTMLew01
Team Owner
KTMLew01
Team Owner
The discussion of selling the charters in Oct sure made my ears perk up. I'd kinda figured 90% of the stuff being said was just lawyers stirring the pot. Now that NASCAR has made it obvious they don't want 23xi and the other dude to stick around, seems like those teams should be looking for a buyer.
There is nowhere for them to go with the equipment/tooling they own. Need to get rid of everything. There also is no other series in the US that's as profitable, so continuing in racing in another series just is a no-win situation. Closest possible series is IMSA and NASCAR owns it. Bet they'd make entry as difficult as possible.
Sure looks like not signing will end their companies. I have no idea what happens if NASCAR IS determined to be a monopolistic business? What could the teams get? I have no idea. After this deal I wouldn't put much of any value on a charter.
There is nowhere for them to go with the equipment/tooling they own. Need to get rid of everything. There also is no other series in the US that's as profitable, so continuing in racing in another series just is a no-win situation. Closest possible series is IMSA and NASCAR owns it. Bet they'd make entry as difficult as possible.
Sure looks like not signing will end their companies. I have no idea what happens if NASCAR IS determined to be a monopolistic business? What could the teams get? I have no idea. After this deal I wouldn't put much of any value on a charter.
Probably should read the part that there are multiple parties interested in buying a charter(s) and they plan to auction them off to the highest bidders.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 40,212
- Points
- 1,033
The anti-trust action brought by 23X1 and Front Row against NASCAR has yet to be heard.
Everything that’s gone down so far is foreplay.
Everything that’s gone down so far is foreplay.
KTMLew01
Team Owner
That's lawyers throwing crap around. I don't see six NEW teams coming into this sport. Maybe 3 go to existing teams. Other 3 NASCAR tries to keep for themselves.
I know...lot of us have different opinion about original idea about charters. I'm on the side of, if it has value, a team owner has something to sell other than broken cars and a 15 y/o shop. The CHARTER is the value. That's precisely what this lawsuit, from the two teams viewpoint, is about.
I know you'll disagree. It's a free country. Or was until...
Can't say I have been able to figure out what the teams are suing Nascar for myself. They are all over the place.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 40,212
- Points
- 1,033
If the court determines that NASCAR violated the Sherman Act, those 6 charters will revert back to the 2 organizations that paid millions of dollars for them as will the charter portion of prize monies being held back.
The real financial penalties will start there. Playing with fire.
The real financial penalties will start there. Playing with fire.
Naitch
Reads history books
If not doing business with someone runs you out of business, is that not evidence of an illegal monopoly?
Huh? The teams have the option of running as open non chartered teams or they can go race in other series. It isn't Nascar's fault that they pay the most. BTW Nascar wasn't the ones that sued.
KTMLew01
Team Owner
{Quote}I know...lot of us have different opinion about original idea about charters. I'm on the side of, if it has value, a team owner has something to sell other than broken cars and a 15 y/o shop. The CHARTER is the value. That's precisely what this lawsuit, from the two teams viewpoint, is about. {Quote/}
KTMLew01
Team Owner
Not profitable and what other series with the Next Gen car? They don't own any other race cars.
Naitch
Reads history books
That’s not the core legal question.
Is NASCAR an illegal monopoly? If not doing business with them runs you out of business then the answer is likely yes.
This lawsuit is a risk though and 23XI and Front Row are playing with fire. The longer this drags out, the more of a risk it becomes.
Steve Phelps in his declaration states that he has personally spoken to multiple parties who are eager to buy the teams' charters. Those people's names are all redacted, but they take up five lines of the page.
I don't think you are getting it. They are contractors. They aren't owners in the company or stockholders or employees.
KTMLew01
Team Owner
That is your opinion. Did the other team owners sign a contract? Not talking about signing the charter. I need to see it in writing/print that Nascar teams are contracted.
Here is pretty much where we are now.
NASCAR’s Counterclaim: NASCAR filed a countersuit on March 5, 2025, alleging that 23XI, FRM, and 23XI co-owner Curtis Polk violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to pressure NASCAR through media campaigns, boycott threats, and interference with broadcast negotiations. The counterclaim was allowed to proceed, though 23XI and FRM’s motion to dismiss it was denied.
Now the teams are trying to get re-instated to chartered teams.
Current Status: As of July 2025, 23XI and FRM are racing as open teams, having lost their charter status after the injunction was vacated. They have requested a rehearing en banc to reinstate the injunction and continue to pursue their antitrust claims, with a trial set for December 1, 2025
So what we are talking about now are Nscar's answer as to why an injunction shouldn't be awarded.
NASCAR’s Counterclaim: NASCAR filed a countersuit on March 5, 2025, alleging that 23XI, FRM, and 23XI co-owner Curtis Polk violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to pressure NASCAR through media campaigns, boycott threats, and interference with broadcast negotiations. The counterclaim was allowed to proceed, though 23XI and FRM’s motion to dismiss it was denied.
Now the teams are trying to get re-instated to chartered teams.
Current Status: As of July 2025, 23XI and FRM are racing as open teams, having lost their charter status after the injunction was vacated. They have requested a rehearing en banc to reinstate the injunction and continue to pursue their antitrust claims, with a trial set for December 1, 2025
So what we are talking about now are Nscar's answer as to why an injunction shouldn't be awarded.
A charter is a contract a 7 year one at that.
KTMLew01
Team Owner
It's pointless.
In other words Nascar in a court of law proved that the teams claims of the Sherman act were bogus. The teams have appealed.
Yeah pretty much is.
Yes, the NASCAR Charter Agreement is a contract. It is a legally binding agreement between NASCAR and the Cup Series teams that sign it, outlining terms for participation in the NASCAR Cup Series. The charter guarantees chartered teams a starting spot in every race, a share of revenue (e.g., from broadcast deals and purses), and other benefits like consistent team branding. In exchange, teams agree to abide by NASCAR’s rules, including restrictions on competing in non-NASCAR stock car racing series and, in the 2025 agreement, a controversial release clause requiring teams to waive their right to sue NASCAR for antitrust violations.
Naitch
Reads history books
Yes
Let’s say I own a widget and there is only one store that can buy my widget. If that store blacklists me, I go out of business.
Is that possibly an illegal monopoly?
It’s a question worth asking.
Outright ownership of the charters. Everything else is window dressing. I haven't been able to figure out why NASCAR structured the charters as contractually expiring in the first place.