23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

Maybe they can do like Nascar did. Get off their privileged asses, create a car, find and use tracks that others own to race on like Nascar did. Novel Idea I know in these days and times.
They arent many Tracks ready for a big stock car series they dont own. They would have to basically race on small tracks that aren't up to good enough safety standards for a stock car series that could be on the level of NASCAR.

Maybe this will sway you, think if their monopoly was broken up, and someone could actually one day start a competive series, maybe then we could get a damn good points system that's not the joke that you constantly bitch that it is. Because if some other series comes along, does that, gains momentum, and NASCAR is still using some sort of playoff BS, maybe it makes NASCAR adapt.
 
I'm guessing a lot of them, but no one has filed a lawsuit over it.
In order to file a lawsuit, you have to first have suffered damages as a result of the actor you are suing since that is the purpose of bringing a civil suit. The average person doesn't qualify. Those who might qualify to sue such a company generally have reason not to do so and/or they don't meet the criteria.
 
Am I missing something here and does SMI have a contract to only hold nascar stock car races?

That's what 12 major tracks that anyone can run at right?
 
Am I missing something here and does SMI have a contract to only hold nascar stock car races?

That's what 12 major tracks that anyone can run at right?
No contract, but NASCAR could easily prevent it from just saying they would pull races from them.

11 tracks SMI owns. One of which isn't active(Kentucky) so basically 10 tracks. Charlotte is basically NASCAR's home, so i doubt they would work with a competitor. So we're down to 9. So if all tracks had 2 races we're looking at an 18 race maybe 20 if I'm wrong about Charlotte. But that's also assuming they would work with another stock car organization.

NASCAR being able to use any sort of power to do that, is what makes it a monopoly.
 
No contract, but NASCAR could easily prevent it from just saying they would pull races from them.

11 tracks SMI owns. One of which isn't active(Kentucky) so basically 10 tracks. Charlotte is basically NASCAR's home, so i doubt they would work with a competitor. So we're down to 9. So if all tracks had 2 races we're looking at an 18 race maybe 20 if I'm wrong about Charlotte. But that's also assuming they would work with another stock car organization.

NASCAR being able to use any sort of power to do that, is what makes it a monopoly.
So this is all based on the potential of a possible threat? Boy that sounds thin.
 
So this is all based on the potential of a possible threat? Boy that sounds thin.
Well if NASCAR would never do it, what would be so bad about ruling they couldn't? I mean if it wouldn't change anything on how they would handle the situation then its no big deal, correct? Or do we have to let them do what they want, and just hope they won't do it?
 
^ If 2 sausages were sitting in a frying pan discussing The Sherman act, it would sound something like this.

Cooked sausages, naturally.
 
So this is all based on the potential of a possible threat? Boy that sounds thin.
Wasn't there an issue within the last couple of years regarding the CARS tour not running at Rockingham because of NASCAR markings around the track?

Didn't my English teacher tell me to not use run-on sentences?
 
Wasn't there an issue within the last couple of years regarding the CARS tour not running at Rockingham because of NASCAR markings around the track?

Didn't my English teacher tell me to not use run-on sentences?
It was one of the vintage series IIRC and they wound up at the smaller track instead as a result of NASCAR throwing a fit.
 
Am I missing something here and does SMI have a contract to only hold nascar stock car races?
No contract...
@Blaze is wrong, I believe. I am almost 100% certain that Nascar's sanction agreement includes a clause that the host track cannot also host a non-Nascar stock car race in the same year, unless Nascar grants special permission to do so.

This contractual prohibition is relevant to the lawsuit in several ways, IMO. First, it's an example of Nascar's enormous power over other members of the racing community being used to stifle competition. Do any other sanction agreements include such an extraordinary provision?

Second, Nascar's exclusionary clause specifies stock cars but makes no mention of Indycar, F1, sports cars, motocross, or sprint cars... because these various forms of racing are not part of Nascar's market, which is premier-level stock car racing.
 
Second, Nascar's exclusionary clause specifies stock cars but makes no mention of Indycar, F1, sports cars, motocross, or sprint cars... because these various forms of racing are not part of Nascar's market, which is premier-level stock car racing.
That is from the previous contract. This below is from the current one

“The provision was expanded upon in the 2025 charter agreement. … teams with 2025 Charter Agreements are now prohibited from participating in any ‘automobile or truck racing’ series not sanctioned by NASCAR.”
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Pat
I am almost 100% certain that Nascar's sanction agreement includes a clause that the host track cannot also host a non-Nascar stock car race in the same year, unless Nascar grants special permission to do so. ... Second, Nascar's exclusionary clause specifies stock cars but makes no mention of Indycar, F1, sports cars, motocross, or sprint cars... because these various forms of racing are not part of Nascar's market, which is premier-level stock car racing.


Respectfully, source and documentation, please.
 
That is from the previous contract. This below is from the current one

“The provision was expanded upon in the 2025 charter agreement. … teams with 2025 Charter Agreements are now prohibited from participating in any ‘automobile or truck racing’ series not sanctioned by NASCAR.”
I think the clause @LewTheShoe mentioned refers to host tracks, not teams.
 
@Blaze is wrong, I believe. I am almost 100% certain that Nascar's sanction agreement includes a clause that the host track cannot also host a non-Nascar stock car race in the same year, unless Nascar grants special permission to do so.

This contractual prohibition is relevant to the lawsuit in several ways, IMO. First, it's an example of Nascar's enormous power over other members of the racing community being used to stifle competition. Do any other sanction agreements include such an extraordinary provision?

Second, Nascar's exclusionary clause specifies stock cars but makes no mention of Indycar, F1, sports cars, motocross, or sprint cars... because these various forms of racing are not part of Nascar's market, which is premier-level stock car racing.
Thanks for the correction
 
Respectfully, source and documentation, please.
Charlie, I posted from general knowledge having observed many discussions of the sancring agreements over the years. However, it is also discussed in 23XI & FRM's original fijing of the lawsuit in 2024, widely reported including...

 
1762638954529.png
 
Doesn't RWR run a car in the CARS tour? I thought it won the owner's title?
RWR also runs a two-car team in F1. Between that and Penske and Mark's participation in multiple series, authorization looks to be as easy to get a driver's waiver. Still, having to ask permission sounds anti-competitive to my untrained ear but I'm not a lawyer.
 
Back
Top Bottom