23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

One example out of probably hundreds why teams say they are broke. It's like giving a kid a hammer and wondering how the glass topped coffee table got broken.

 
StandOnIt said:
Who offered the charter system in the first place? Give them an inch, they take a mile.
Click to expand...
Rob Kauffman was the major force in the creation of the charter system. It was his vision and his leadership. Same as the RTA, also his vision and leadership that brought that about.

From Nascar's perspective, the charter system was revenue-neutral and expense-neutral. It improved the economic viability of the race teams, with the target of financial stability that would attract new investment... realizing that the octogenarian team owners wouldn't be there forever to put on the weekly show.

Brian France realized the dangers of cup series team owners mostly being way, way past normal retirement age... and a dearth of new owners due to the money-losing business model. I think it's safe to say Jim France views the owners differently. To Jim, there are always owners around, in the truck series, in ARCA, etc. Or eliminate team owners entirely... NASCAR could just own all the cars, employ all the crew chiefs and road crews, and keep all the cash. LOL.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Rob Kauffman was the major force in the creation of the charter system. It was his vision and his leadership. Same as the RTA, also his vision and leadership that brought that about.

From Nascar's perspective, the charter system was revenue-neutral and expense-neutral. It improved the economic viability of the race teams, with the target of financial stability that would attract new investment... realizing that the octogenarian team owners wouldn't be there forever to put on the weekly show.

Brian France realized the dangers of cup series team owners mostly being way, way past normal retirement age... and a dearth of new owners due to the money-losing business model. I think it's safe to say Jim France views the owners differently. To Jim, there are always owners around, in the truck series, in ARCA, etc. Or eliminate team owners entirely... NASCAR could just own all the cars, employ all the crew chiefs and road crews, and keep all the cash. LOL.
Click to expand...
Kauffman certainly championed it, but it was never a thing that he or the RTA could create. The only people who could create it was NASCAR themselves, and they did it for all the reasons you pointed out. What I think has changed is the loose thread you identified at the end. NASCAR has essentially already been caught saying they'd be just as fine kicking all the owners to the curb and putting everything under their control and keeping all the money in house. That's not a model any other legitimate motorsport uses, but maybe NASCAR doesn't care if you or I or anyone thinks they're legitimate and they're perfectly fine joining Monster Jam (which does sorta use this model) and the WWE in the "sports entertainment" category so long as the TV checks clear.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Rob Kauffman was the major force in the creation of the charter system. It was his vision and his leadership. Same as the RTA, also his vision and leadership that brought that about.
Click to expand...
Rob was driving the charter system because he had more than anyone else to gain. He got awarded charters for a shut down team. Then in turn sold those, all while technically no longer having a team....
 
wi_racefan said:
Rob was driving the charter system because he had more than anyone else to gain. He got awarded charters for a shut down team. Then in turn sold those, all while technically no longer having a team....
Click to expand...
Kaufman’s Cup Charter eligibility depended upon previous performance on the racetrack, rather than someone’s expectations for that.
 
aunty dive said:
Kaufman’s Cup Charter eligibility depended upon previous performance on the racetrack, rather than someone’s expectations for that.
Click to expand...
So the fact that he was there front man and biggest advocate for charters was just pure coincidence that from a monetary standpoint he had the most to gain?
 
I don't blame NASCAR for all of this, but treating the teams like subcontractors is insulting, in my opinion.

NASCAR has done a lot for racing, but the owners deserve some respect as partners. I am not going to pretend to know all of the details, but the drivers have taken pay cuts over the last decade while NASCAR wants to keep their books closed and play hardball.

I have a hard time feeling the kind of sympathy that I'm reading from others, and I don't think the France family is at any risk of losing their business. It is just a power struggle, and NASCAR needs good teams more than they care to admit or accept.
 
wi_racefan said:
So the fact that he was there front man and biggest advocate for charters was just pure coincidence that from a monetary standpoint he had the most to gain?
Click to expand...
You’re putting words in my mouth. While he was serving his own interest, he served the interests of the group.

Who would do otherwise?
 
Greg said:
I don't blame NASCAR for all of this, but treating the teams like subcontractors is insulting, in my opinion.

NASCAR has done a lot for racing, but the owners deserve some respect as partners. I am not going to pretend to know all of the details, but the drivers have taken pay cuts over the last decade while NASCAR wants to keep their books closed and play hardball.

I have a hard time feeling the kind of sympathy that I'm reading from others, and I don't think the France family is at any risk of losing their business. It is just a power struggle, and NASCAR needs good teams more than they care to admit or accept.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the reasons teams are always crying for more money are because of examples like this. Gibbs spent a million dollars coming up with a faster pit gun. The reason for so many brake failures is because teams have figured out that different brake compounds on individual wheels make the car turn better ( I wonder how much that cost?). So we can go round and round with the poor me's until the cows come home.

I think there is more at stake here than we need mo money. That's always a factor, but the end game is more control IMO. It's easy to see why Nascar wanted control at the back end of the charters.
 
Greg said:
I don't blame NASCAR for all of this, but treating the teams like subcontractors is insulting, in my opinion.

NASCAR has done a lot for racing, but the owners deserve some respect as partners. I am not going to pretend to know all of the details, but the drivers have taken pay cuts over the last decade while NASCAR wants to keep their books closed and play hardball.

I have a hard time feeling the kind of sympathy that I'm reading from others, and I don't think the France family is at any risk of losing their business. It is just a power struggle, and NASCAR needs good teams more than they care to admit or accept.
Click to expand...
1761947263876.png
 
wi_racefan said:
So the fact that he was there front man and biggest advocate for charters was just pure coincidence that from a monetary standpoint he had the most to gain?
Click to expand...
I don't agree that Kauffman had "the most to gain." His team earned two charters. Hendrick earned four. Multiple teams earned three. They gained more than Kauffman. Arguably, the pure back-marker teams gained the most per charter... because more of the payout was a flat amount per car rather than performance based. Arguably, Nascar gained the most as their race teams - the ones that actually put on the show every week - collectively had greater financial stability at a time when such stability was in very short supply.

I agree with @aunty dive... Kauffman's vision, innovation, and leadership served the interests of the entire Nascar industry.
 
Anyone remember this thread?


In practical terms, the Court has denied NASCAR request to prevent trial because the statute of limitations had already passed before the suit was filed. Therefore the trial will proceed as scheduled.

Furthermore, the Court has determined that the definition of “premier stock car racing” is effectively controlled by NASCAR and the trial will pertain to the control NASCAR has over it, rather than a wider definition that NASCAR believes, including F1 and IndyCar.
Click to expand...
 
NASCAR Statement: “NASCAR looks forward to proving that it became the leading motorsport in the United States through hard work, risk-taking, and many significant investments over the past 77 years. The antitrust laws encourage this—and NASCAR has done nothing anticompetitive in building the sport from the ground up since 1948. While we respect the Court’s decision, we believe it is legally flawed and we will address it at trial and in the Fourth Circuit if necessary. NASCAR believes in the charter system and will continue to defend it from 23XI and Front Row’s efforts to claim that the charter system itself is anticompetitive.”
 
sports.yahoo.com

Michael Jordan's race team just scored a major win against NASCAR

A federal judge on Tuesday issued a key victory for two race teams, one owned by Michael Jordan, that further pressures NASCAR to settle the antitrust lawsuit filed against it by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps said last week the series is “trying our...
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
 
I mean really? Saying they can't race the car anywhere else is a violation of the Sherman act? Restricts competition because they can't do so? You can't race the car anywhere else if you wanted to. It doesn't work that way.
F-1 and Indycar aren't equal to Nascar? Lol.

The teams said in alleging the relevant market for premier stock car racing teams that “NASCAR’s Cup Series is currently the only buyer.” The argument was backed by the the expert opinion of Dr. Daniel Rascher, who concluded that “premier stock car racing” is a distinct form of automobile racing, and other types of motorsports like Formula 1 and IndyCar, and all lower levels of stock car racing, are not an equal substitute to NASCAR.

Guess who Dr. Daniel Rascher is? More stick n ball.
He is recognized for his work on significant legal cases affecting college athletics, including House v. NCAA, which aims to secure financial opportunities for former athletes.
Recognition

In 2025, Dr. Rascher was named one of college football's most influential figures by the Sports Business Journal, highlighting his impact on the landscape of college athletics and his advocacy for student-athletes' rights.
 
StandOnIt said:
Pretty sure if Nascar doesn't get a fair shake from Bell they will appeal. Bell has already shown he is biased.
Click to expand...
And you think they'll get a mistrial and everything thrown out on that basis? Lol, good luck with that.

I will be absolutely shocked if NASCAR doesn't settle between now and the trial date. The teams will get forever renewing charters and FRM/23XI will get paid for 2025 as charter teams and probably some legal fees too. I bet Denny feels a lot better after this is all over and he tells the world about his exciting 2026 campaign behind the wheel.

(Obviously Indycar and F1 aren't equivalent to NASCAR, lol. Indycar has a fraction of its revenue and F1 is a global entity)
 
virtualbalboa said:
And you think they'll get a mistrial and everything thrown out on that basis? Lol, good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Huh? It's an appeal to a higher court. I posted what Nascar said.

While we respect the Court’s decision, we believe it is legally flawed and we will address it at trial and in the Fourth Circuit if necessary. NASCAR believes in the charter system and will continue to defend it from 23XI and Front Row’s efforts to claim that the charter system itself is anticompetitive.”
 
StandOnIt said:
Huh? It's an appeal to a higher court. I posted what Nascar said.

While we respect the Court’s decision, we believe it is legally flawed and we will address it at trial and in the Fourth Circuit if necessary. NASCAR believes in the charter system and will continue to defend it from 23XI and Front Row’s efforts to claim that the charter system itself is anticompetitive.”
Click to expand...
What are they gonna appeal? The trial is going to be about whether or not they are operating in an anticompetitive fashion within the market of stock car racing. Do you think their appeal gets it turned into a trial about whether or not RTA is illegal?
 
StandOnIt said:
Huh? It's an appeal to a higher court. I posted what Nascar said.

While we respect the Court’s decision, we believe it is legally flawed and we will address it at trial and in the Fourth Circuit if necessary. NASCAR believes in the charter system and will continue to defend it from 23XI and Front Row’s efforts to claim that the charter system itself is anticompetitive.”
Click to expand...

This has always been the next option for NASCAR (appeal to the 4th circuit court), which they have successfully done to counter Bell’s previously horrible judgements. Bell’s written rulings smack of clumsy juxtaposition, claiming NASCAR’s filing contends one position while their opposition to the plantiff’s motion takes the opposite tack. Bell really makes no persuasive reasoning on why he granted the plantiff’s motion…just did it. No surprise from the Jordan idol lover. Bell has demonstrated time and again he is biased, yet he pushes the parties to settle. Why? Because even HE knows he can’t completely direct and control a jury trial.
 
Conover said:
This has always been the next option for NASCAR (appeal to the 4th circuit court), which they have successfully done to counter Bell’s previously horrible judgements. Bell’s written rulings smack of clumsy juxtaposition, claiming NASCAR’s filing contends one position while their opposition to the plantiff’s motion takes the opposite tack. Bell really makes no persuasive reasoning on why he granted the plantiff’s motion…just did it. No surprise from the Jordan idol lover. Bell has demonstrated time and again he is biased, yet he pushes the parties to settle. Why? Because even HE knows he can’t completely direct and control a jury trial.
Click to expand...
Lol. Some stick n ball "expert" says yep Nascar is a monopoly, Bell goes yep, your arguments last week Nascar are nul and void, can't be discussed at the trial. Pretty close to the stunt of the cake and eat it too the 4th circuit found.
 
Somebody needs to go get Roger Penske, Gene Haas, Chip Ganassi, and Spire Motorsports for "expert" witnesses.

The partial summary judgment ruling means that NASCAR’s argument that the teams have options to compete in other racing series is moot. The issue at trial will be whether NASCAR has illegally used its power to keep there from being competition for premier stock-car racing.
 
aunty dive said:
His “buddy” is following the law.

A concept foreign to some of the biased ass clowns posting in this thread.
Click to expand...

Easy there Aunty. One can recognize and comment on a judge’s rulings with prejudice, especially this one. Bell’s legal basis for some of these decisions are shaky. His application of law in earlier rulings proved invalid when the higher 4th circuit court ruled against him unanimously, not once but twice. Takes some pretty bad twisting of the law to have your decisions obliterated by a higher 7 judge panel.

I’m not reviewing all this nor can say it would matter if I did. But NASCAR has a top team of attorneys who specialize in this area of the law. They’ve said they are willing again to appeal some of these rulings to the 4th circuit. I hope they do, as I read a lot of bias coming from Bell from the earliest days of court appearances by both parties. Frankly, I believe he is loading up wins for the plantiff’s to try and force NASCAR to settle on weak grounds. He knows a jury trial can take its own direction. Jordan cabal wants a settlement. They’re playing hard ball right up to trial, thinking they and their pocket judge can bend NASCAR over for their own satisfaction.

Just my opinion.
 
Conover said:
Easy there Aunty. One can recognize and comment on a judge’s rulings with prejudice, especially this one. Bell’s legal basis for some of these decisions are shaky. His application of law in earlier rulings proved invalid when the higher 4th circuit court ruled against him unanimously, not once but twice. Takes some pretty bad twisting of the law to have your decisions obliterated by a higher 7 judge panel.

I’m not reviewing all this nor can say it would matter if I did. But NASCAR has a top team of attorneys who specialize in this area of the law. They’ve said they are willing again to appeal some of these rulings to the 4th circuit. I hope they do, as I read a lot of bias coming from Bell from the earliest days of court appearances by both parties. Frankly, I believe he is loading up wins for the plantiff’s to try and force NASCAR to settle on weak grounds. He knows a jury trial can take its own direction. Jordan cabal wants a settlement. They’re playing hard ball right up to trial, thinking they and their pocket judge can bend NASCAR over for their own satisfaction.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

In your opinionating, you're misrepresenting key facts yet again. The only ruling by Bell that has been overturned is the preliminary injunction. You keep wrongly implying it was multiple rulings. Additionally, the ruling was not 7-0 because the entire appeals court declined to review the matter further. It was 3-0. This is simple correction, but why do you keep misstating basic facts?

If NASCAR has confidence that Bell's wider rulings on the merits of the case will be overturned on appeal, maybe they're only posturing in their recent public statements that they are urgently working to settle the case. We'll see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom