23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement
- Thread starter Blaze
- Start date
This pretty much is Nascar's case. We have heard plenty about 23XI's. This is from Matt Weaver's recollection.
NASCAR attorney John E. Stephenson provided the opening statement for the Sanctioning Body with the trial attorney making his first appearance in court for this case with Chris Yates front and center over the past 15 months.
Stephenson’s argument was consistent from what NASCAR has articulated over the summer. He framed 23XI and Front Row as effectively attacking the charter system, one that NASCAR has honored with every word and ‘every cent’ as agreed upon each time since 2016.
He frequently alluded to 23XI and Front Row as having not made any antitrust claims about the charter system until after the extension deadline and when they issued the final offer in September 2024.
“Literally none of these things were raised to NASCAR until the lawsuit was filed,” Stephenson said. “From 2016 to 2024, none of it was brought up.”
Stephenson pointed to a letter from 23XI on September 6 that explained why they were not signing the agreement and that it made no mention of anticompetitive behavior. He said the same of communications with Front Row.
Instead, the NASCAR position is that 23XI likely always intended to bring a lawsuit if they could not secure the financial terms it sought from the Sanctioning Body. “A lawsuit is our greatest leverage,” Stephenson said of a Curtis Polk (23XI co-owner) email produced in discovery. He also used a frequent NASCAR talking point -- that 23XI and Front Row continue to engage in ‘negotiation through litigation.’
That is what NASCAR says 23XI and Front Row are doing -- suing the Sanctioning Body only in the pursuit of better terms and not with some altruistic pursuit of righting an antitrust wrong.
Stephenson pointed to another Polk email that said of a proposed meeting with NASCAR that ‘I hope they don’t come because it will build our record,’ with the lawyer arguing that 23XI wasn’t negotiating in good faith.
He said that private Polk emails from 2023 that expressed ‘admiration’ for the France family’s business acumen and made no reference to anticompetitive behavior.
The NASCAR position continues to be, and it was made by Stephenson to the jury for the first time, that if the charters were such a byproduct of anticompetitive behavior and a ‘bad deal’ then why did 23XI keep buying them?
In responding to 23XI and Front Row’s opening statement about the non-compete clause that teams have to agree to in order to compete in Cup, Stephenson said it is no different than the non-compete clause that drivers sign with teams.
As for the provision for teams to not compete against NASCAR, Stephenson said that was a trade-off the Sanctioning Body wanted from teams in exchange for greater guaranteed revenue.
“Be all in on NASCAR Stock Car racing, is what that says,” Stephenson argued. “You’re getting guaranteed money. They agreed to it. They never made claims against it until filing their lawsuit.”
About 23XI and Front Row’s claim that NASCAR’s merger with sister-company International Speedway Corporation was an anti-competitive measure to secure tracks and maintain their monopsony, Stephenson said it was about ‘schedule flexibility’ and ‘innovation’ because NASCAR needed to take risks for events like Downtown Chicago and Downtown Los Angeles -- despite owning nearby racetracks.
Making those decisions, or decisions that resulted in a loss were things NASCAR or ISC couldn’t do as a publicly traded entity.
Stephenson repeatedly asked ‘why are we here,’ and pointed to Polk as having a pre-meditated plan to bring NASCAR to trial if unable to secure the charter terms 23XI and Front Row sought.
NASCAR attorney John E. Stephenson provided the opening statement for the Sanctioning Body with the trial attorney making his first appearance in court for this case with Chris Yates front and center over the past 15 months.
Stephenson’s argument was consistent from what NASCAR has articulated over the summer. He framed 23XI and Front Row as effectively attacking the charter system, one that NASCAR has honored with every word and ‘every cent’ as agreed upon each time since 2016.
He frequently alluded to 23XI and Front Row as having not made any antitrust claims about the charter system until after the extension deadline and when they issued the final offer in September 2024.
“Literally none of these things were raised to NASCAR until the lawsuit was filed,” Stephenson said. “From 2016 to 2024, none of it was brought up.”
Stephenson pointed to a letter from 23XI on September 6 that explained why they were not signing the agreement and that it made no mention of anticompetitive behavior. He said the same of communications with Front Row.
Instead, the NASCAR position is that 23XI likely always intended to bring a lawsuit if they could not secure the financial terms it sought from the Sanctioning Body. “A lawsuit is our greatest leverage,” Stephenson said of a Curtis Polk (23XI co-owner) email produced in discovery. He also used a frequent NASCAR talking point -- that 23XI and Front Row continue to engage in ‘negotiation through litigation.’
That is what NASCAR says 23XI and Front Row are doing -- suing the Sanctioning Body only in the pursuit of better terms and not with some altruistic pursuit of righting an antitrust wrong.
Stephenson pointed to another Polk email that said of a proposed meeting with NASCAR that ‘I hope they don’t come because it will build our record,’ with the lawyer arguing that 23XI wasn’t negotiating in good faith.
He said that private Polk emails from 2023 that expressed ‘admiration’ for the France family’s business acumen and made no reference to anticompetitive behavior.
The NASCAR position continues to be, and it was made by Stephenson to the jury for the first time, that if the charters were such a byproduct of anticompetitive behavior and a ‘bad deal’ then why did 23XI keep buying them?
In responding to 23XI and Front Row’s opening statement about the non-compete clause that teams have to agree to in order to compete in Cup, Stephenson said it is no different than the non-compete clause that drivers sign with teams.
As for the provision for teams to not compete against NASCAR, Stephenson said that was a trade-off the Sanctioning Body wanted from teams in exchange for greater guaranteed revenue.
“Be all in on NASCAR Stock Car racing, is what that says,” Stephenson argued. “You’re getting guaranteed money. They agreed to it. They never made claims against it until filing their lawsuit.”
About 23XI and Front Row’s claim that NASCAR’s merger with sister-company International Speedway Corporation was an anti-competitive measure to secure tracks and maintain their monopsony, Stephenson said it was about ‘schedule flexibility’ and ‘innovation’ because NASCAR needed to take risks for events like Downtown Chicago and Downtown Los Angeles -- despite owning nearby racetracks.
Making those decisions, or decisions that resulted in a loss were things NASCAR or ISC couldn’t do as a publicly traded entity.
Stephenson repeatedly asked ‘why are we here,’ and pointed to Polk as having a pre-meditated plan to bring NASCAR to trial if unable to secure the charter terms 23XI and Front Row sought.