23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

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.
 
They’ve got stuff on Polk. I suspect they’ve held some of their discovery cards back, ready to play at trial. Opening statement describe the outline of what the jury will learn, and Polk is an integral part of the scheme.
 
Revman said:
Denny is doing just fine with that high school diploma of his. How are you doing?
Click to expand...

My net worth might be better than Denny the front man, Denny the empty spokesman, who is leveraged out to his left titty in debt. If they lose all this, how’s he gonna pay back the bank of Jordan, and all the other creditors, on a $35M glam shop that can’t stay open without charters?

I don’t care if he has a diploma or a PhD…he’s a play school business man. Not just my opinion…his own people say he’s bad. But he brings in big bucks racing for JGR…I certainly can’t compete with that despite my advanced education.
 
Nascar has gone ahead with their contract dispute defense instead of what Judge Bell was trying to to put them in the Sherman Act box during pre trial and his ruling out Nascar's ability to say other forms of racing were available for 23 XI to pursue.
 
Denny pointed out on the stand that 11 of the original 19 signed charter teams, as of
2016 are now off the grid, "only one side is going out of business".

If that is a fact, the jury wont like hearing that, neither the judge.

Geez I wish this was televised.
 
Hotrod said:
Denny pointed out on the stand that 11 of the original 19 signed charter teams, as of
2016 are now off the grid, "only one side is going out of business".

If that is a fact, the jury wont like hearing that, neither the judge.

Geez I wish this was televised.
Click to expand...

That is easier to understand when NASCAR’s attorney does his cross exam questioning, pointing out the nuances of competition, sponsorship, financing, and the issues previously with non competitors (start and park, rent a ride).
 
Conover said:
My net worth might be better than Denny the front man, Denny the empty spokesman, who is leveraged out to his left titty in debt. If they lose all this, how’s he gonna pay back the bank of Jordan, and all the other creditors, on a $35M glam shop that can’t stay open without charters?

I don’t care if he has a diploma or a PhD…he’s a play school business man. Not just my opinion…his own people say he’s bad. But he brings in big bucks racing for JGR…I certainly can’t compete with that despite my advanced education.
Click to expand...
*might*....and how do you know about Denny's net...and what he would pay back. Ya don't.....and he is kicking ass with that high school diploma--learning on the fly. Not bad for a ****** high school student, really. I am sure that Denny thinks Polk is a ****** driver. Trash talk...guy stuff.
 
Hotrod said:
Denny pointed out on the stand that 11 of the original 19 signed charter teams, as of
2016 are now off the grid, "only one side is going out of business".

If that is a fact, the jury wont like hearing that, neither the judge.

Geez I wish this was televised.
Click to expand...
Denny thinks Nascar should finance his whole racing operation. In what world of racing does that happen?
 
Revman said:
Again, he isn't a stupid redneck who should be flogged. Phelps couldn't carry his cup.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but it's very clear that your opinions on this matter are very slanted based on your love for TRD and 23XI. If Rick was in the same lawsuit against nascar we all know which side you would be on.
 
wi_racefan said:
Then why are the cars loaded with sponsorship and the manufactures dump so much into it?
Click to expand...
Because they like to make even more money than the guaranteed sums provided via F1's media rights sharing agreement. You don't think NASCAR is the only entity that should be able to make as much money as they desire, right?
 
Hotrod said:
Denny pointed out on the stand that 11 of the original 19 signed charter teams, as of
2016 are now off the grid, "only one side is going out of business".

If that is a fact, the jury wont like hearing that, neither the judge.

Geez I wish this was televised.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how this statement helps 23XI. Each one of those teams made a decision to sell their charters and profit from the sale. Businesses sell their assets all the time. Does “going out of business” mean there is a financial loss? I don’t necessarily think so.
 
virtualbalboa said:
Because they like to make even more money than the guaranteed sums provided via F1's media rights sharing agreement. You don't think NASCAR is the only entity that should be able to make as much money as they desire, right?
Click to expand...
If F1 was providing enough money to fund the whole racing operation then why is there such a big performance gap in the field? If all teams are given enough money by F1 to run a team then the playing field would be pretty level then?
 
DIDIT said:
I don’t understand how this statement helps 23XI. Each one of those teams made a decision to sell their charters and profit from the sale. Businesses sell their assets all the time. Does “going out of business” mean there is a financial loss? I don’t necessarily think so.
Click to expand...
Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.....

The only one that really went out of business that I know of was Starcom. Sounded like nascar was pushing them to sell because they weren't maintaining the performance goals.
 
DIDIT said:
I don’t understand how this statement helps 23XI. Each one of those teams made a decision to sell their charters and profit from the sale. Businesses sell their assets all the time. Does “going out of business” mean there is a financial loss? I don’t necessarily think so.
Click to expand...
You and I understand that, but will the jurors? Unless NASCAR explains it, they'll equate 'going out of business' with 'going broke', because that's what happened with Uncle Lee's barbeque business. Heck, most of them won't know filing for bankruptcy isn't 'going out of business' either.
 
wi_racefan said:
If F1 was providing enough money to fund the whole racing operation then why is there such a big performance gap in the field?
Click to expand...
Because some teams are better than others? Also they don't all get paid the same amount. The amounts are public, you know. As is the cost cap that the teams face.

wi_racefan said:
If all teams are given enough money by F1 to run a team then the playing field would be pretty level then?
Click to expand...
Do me a favor and compare the results and qualifying speeds today to where they were 25 years ago.
 
wi_racefan said:
Then why are the cars loaded with sponsorship and the manufactures dump so much into it?
Click to expand...
Bingo. Hamlin doesn't have a clue how it works in the racing world. They wanted 20 mil per car, Nascar gave them 12 plus. Well over 50%.

Examples include Red Bull’s title sponsors, Petronas for Mercedes, Oracle for Red Bull, Santander for Ferrari, etc. Sponsorships often fund 50–80% of a team’s operating costs.
 
StandOnIt said:
Examples include Red Bull’s title sponsors, Petronas for Mercedes, Oracle for Red Bull, Santander for Ferrari, etc. Sponsorships often fund 50–80% of a team’s operating costs.
Click to expand...
And if you ask ChatGPT this is likely what it'll say. The problem is that times have changed and the media deals Liberty has for F1 are very different than the Bernie days. Ferrari has a license to print money because of their special 9 figure payments + portion of Constructors points fund from Liberty/FOM. They don't need anyone, Santander or other, to show up to the track. They still get sponsors however because there is literally no good reason not to in their position.
 
hat is the latest happening in the suit?

Dec. 2, 2025 update

Denny Hamlin spent more than three hours on the stand in the morning, with NASCAR trying to poke holes in his testimony about how unfair NASCAR treats its teams.

Hamlin testified he makes approximately $14 million annually as one of the top drivers in the sport and stressed his co-ownership in 23XI racing is about investing in the sport and its future. As a 40 percent owner in his race team, he said he has invested $45 million into his team; under cross-examination he said he has put in more than $10 million so far and the rest he is on the hook for in loans.

Hamlin and NBA icon Michael Jordan started 23XI Racing in 2021, and in Hamlin’s prospectus, he projected a $900,000 profit in the first year. The team has made more than that, including more than $3 million in 2023.

The team built a $35 million shop that opened in 2024, which NASCAR attorneys noted he budgeted for $9-10 million, indicating he egregiously spends money. Hamlin said that was pre-COVID and didn’t include everything inside the facility.

The cross-examination of Hamlin was at times contentious, especially with NASCAR attorney Lawrence Buterman questioning why 23XI Racing would ask for $205 million in damages when they have emails showing a potential 10 percent return on investment being strong. Hamlin deferred to his experts.

Buterman also tried to show Hamlin as being hypocritical, that he told Jordan that the NASCAR charter system and its new Next Gen car would be reasons to invest in NASCAR but now claims they are part of NASCAR’s anti-competitive strategy.

Hamlin also was asked about podcast comments where he praised NASCAR and the Next Gen for evening the playing field and NASCAR’s scheduling for creating new markets. Hamlin said he was delivering the NASCAR talking points to help promote the sport.

Hamlin also was asked why is it fair for him to have exclusivity clauses in contracts with drivers as well as control of their intellectual property while it isn’t fair for NASCAR to do the same with the teams. Hamlin said it is because NASCAR has a monopoly while the drivers have choices.

Buterman also took issue with Hamlin and his attorney saying that the charters are like renting an apartment because they expire. Buterman indicated that wasn’t a fair comparison because you can’t sell a home you are renting compared to their ability to sell a charter.

What To Know About NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit: Denny Hamlin's Lengthy Testimony | FOX Sports

Two teams — Michael Jordan's 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports — are suing NASCAR alleging a violation of antitrust laws. Here is the latest news and everything to know about the saga.
www.foxsports.com www.foxsports.com
 
StandOnIt said:
Buterman indicated that wasn’t a fair comparison because you can’t sell a home you are renting compared to their ability to sell a charter.
Click to expand...

This lawyer is a moron. You can assign a lease to a new tenant, with the approval of the landlord. In fact, that kind of sounds like selling a charter!

Also, Dennis praising NASCAR in the past is irrelevant to them being a monopoly.
 
Naitch said:
This lawyer is a moron. You can assign a lease to a new tenant, with the approval of the landlord. In fact, that kind of sounds like selling a charter!

Also, Dennis praising NASCAR in the past is irrelevant to them being a monopoly.
Click to expand...
So you think you can sell a home you are renting? Pretty plain point was made there.
 
Naitch said:
This lawyer is a moron. You can assign a lease to a new tenant, with the approval of the landlord. In fact, that kind of sounds like selling a charter!

Also, Dennis praising NASCAR in the past is irrelevant to them being a monopoly.
Click to expand...
Literally this is the first day of the trial and the first witness, lol. This thread is gonna be like 500 pages long before this trial is over, much less the inevitable post-trial motions and whatnot.
 
A charter is a temporary license to get certain benefits from NASCAR. You never truly own it because it can expire and go away. It is analogous to a leased property, to which you can sell the rights.

NASCAR is the “landlord.”
 
virtualbalboa said:
Literally this is the first day of the trial and the first witness, lol. This thread is gonna be like 500 pages long before this trial is over, much less the inevitable post-trial motions and whatnot.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I get scared that the internet is going to dry up, and that life will become pointless.

But thus thread demonstrates the passion and dedication. We ARE indeed a people with a purpose and a destiny. "Selah!"
 
Naitch said:
You can assign a lease to a new tenant, with the approval of the landlord. In fact, that kind of sounds like selling a charter!
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with this type of transaction. Does the new lessee write a big honkin' check to the outgoing tenant?

This is a point that has long confused me. Good luck clarifying it to the jurors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom