23XI statement on signing Charter agreement

1000003376.jpg
 
Statement from John Probst at NASCAR

"https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mo...TS&cvid=693bd21719dd4830b8d65d817176825e&ei=8"

>>'It's on them.' Engineer says NASCAR gave teams 'every opportunity' to cut costs​


...The teams accusing NASCAR of being an unlawful monopoly have testified a lot over the last eight days that life in the Cup Series has become increasingly and unbearably expensive and that they have no option but to pay up.

On Wednesday, one of the lead engineers at NASCAR had a one-word response to such a claim:

"Bewilderment..."<<
 
Tumbleweed said:
Statement from John Probst at NASCAR

"https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mo...TS&cvid=693bd21719dd4830b8d65d817176825e&ei=8"

>>'It's on them.' Engineer says NASCAR gave teams 'every opportunity' to cut costs​


...The teams accusing NASCAR of being an unlawful monopoly have testified a lot over the last eight days that life in the Cup Series has become increasingly and unbearably expensive and that they have no option but to pay up.

On Wednesday, one of the lead engineers at NASCAR had a one-word response to such a claim:

"Bewilderment..."<<
Click to expand...
This is a good article, written from the early testimony of NASCAR witnesses and prior to the settlement. Probst expanded his explanations on the Next Gen car, which 30 out of 36 teams voted for adopting:

There were several reasons, Probst went on to say. But the one that kept cropping up, and is most relevant to the antitrust trial, is that the car was meant to - and theoretically is - saving teams money.

"It's competition that drives cost more so than rules do," Probst said. He added, "Our last-placed teams have regional airplanes. ... It's on the teams if they want fancy war rooms. That's their business."
He added: "We give them every opportunity (to cut costs). ... It's on them."

Despite the settlement and increased revenues the teams will receive, THIS POINT REMAINS. The teams will ALWAYS operate at the ragged edge of “profitability”, because they spend every nickel on themselves, their facilities, their racing operations, in order to NOT REPORT PROFITS! It is a TAX avoidance strategy. Lavish salaries, homes, race shops, private jets, etc. What is lost in all this rah rah for NASCAR’s concessions is the BS being peddled by poor mouthing teams before and during this trial. I don’t want to hear any more of it from Hamturd, or Childress, or Hendrick, any of them. They’ve got a bigger money tree now…watch them spend it just as fast as it falls.
 
Conover said:
Despite the settlement and increased revenues the teams will receive, THIS POINT REMAINS. The teams will ALWAYS operate at the ragged edge of “profitability”, because they spend every nickel on themselves, their facilities, their racing operations, in order to NOT REPORT PROFITS! It is a TAX avoidance strategy. Lavish salaries, homes, race shops, private jets, etc. What is lost in all this rah rah for NASCAR’s concessions is the BS being peddled by poor mouthing teams before and during this trial. I don’t want to hear any more of it from Hamturd, or Childress, or Hendrick, any of them. They’ve got a bigger money tree now…watch them spend it just as fast as it falls.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat true, though overly simplified. Yes, when provided more revenue, race teams will tend to spend it in the pursuit of speed and competitive advantage.

Now explain why your preferred outcome was for the teams to receive less revenue and the France heirs to receive more, funneled into their trusts and tax avoidance schemes. Because that's all this is about at the core. The revenue streams are largely fixed. It's a matter of how the pie is divided.

If your argument is that race teams tend to spend all they have, the contrast must be that the Frances don't. If the race teams reinvest their earnings, it helps create a thriving racing industry for the employees and suppliers they are paying. If the Frances are "smarter" in their wealth building, how does that help the sport as a whole because they spend less and hoard more?
 
gnomesayin said:
This is somewhat true, though overly simplified. Yes, when provided more revenue, race teams will tend to spend it in the pursuit of speed and competitive advantage.

Now explain why your preferred outcome was for the teams to receive less revenue and the France heirs to receive more, funneled into their trusts and tax avoidance schemes. Because that's all this is about at the core. The revenue streams are largely fixed. It's a matter of how the pie is divided.

If your argument is that race teams tend to spend all they have, the contrast must be that the Frances don't. If the race teams reinvest their earnings, it helps create a thriving racing industry for the employees and suppliers they are paying. If the Frances are "smarter" in their wealth building, how does that help the sport as a whole because they spend less and hoard more?
Click to expand...
You assume I did not want any larger revenue distribution for teams. What I was against involved the CENTRAL CONTENTION in the lawsuit…that NASCAR used anticompetitive monospony practices to stifle competition causing damages. I still say that was NOT proven and not what happened.

You are correct that, at the core of the suit, it was all about money, and charters. The Jordan Hamcrap Jenkie cabal didn’t like the revenues, wanted more, and used a targeted technically challenging basis for suing NASCAR because they didn’t like the terms of the contract agreed upon by the other teams. That is NOT a valid reason to contest in court, so they preyed on weaknesses in some NASCAR decisions and contract language. NASCAR via France and family made this absurdly more difficult and contentious than necessary. Ultimately I expect their financial payout was immensely higher than if they had resolved all this prior to the charter contracts, but that is all behind everyone now.

Your concern about the France’s use of money earned has no bearing on this, and my arguments do not either. I approach the whole thing from a business perspective and as a racing fan. I’ve called out both parties for their ugliness and stupidity. I still despise Hamcrap. The point of my post was that the RACE TEAMS HAVE NO MORE EXCUSES. I do not want to hear whiny cat crying from the 23XI camp ever again. They got enough money to escape declaring bankruptcy from their extreme overspend on their Taj Mahal headquarters. It might even be enough to keep DipDenny from spending them into skid row.
 
The problem is once one team starts spending, the other teams have to as well if they want to remain competitive. That's why a spending cap would work in theory. Though I would imagine teams would find a way around it eventually
 
Very well written response. There are several points I agree on. Yes, the antitrust lawsuit was a mechanism available to the teams to redress the defeat they experienced during charter negotiations. The monopoly was never going to be broken up unless the Frances decided to drive themselves right off the cliff. None of the parties wanted it to be.

I don't take offense to 23XI and FRM using antitrust to achieve their ends, because we are dealing with savvy parties who will all use every tool available to them. I also believe that NASCAR made themselves vulnerable to such a challenge by deliberately engaging in excessively anticompetitive behaviors that walked right up to the line of illegality. That's why the lawsuit was viable.

Ultimately my sympathies didn't lie with Michael Jordan or Denny Hamlin. I have a certain amount of respect for the gumption it took to mount the challenge when nobody else was willing or able, but that's it. My sympathies were with the race teams as a whole, and all of the racing people they employ. I am in favor of more equitable distribution of profits and more seats at the table when decisions are made, because the last two decades of leadership as is have been shaky at best.

The lawsuit was far from perfect and had many regrettable aspects. But in the end, it nudged things in that direction. For that I am glad.
 
The France family forgot what it meant to be a benevolent dictator. Someone had to remind them.

Also, for the first time they ran into somebody who had FU money and the willingness to use it
 
gnomesayin said:
Very well written response. There are several points I agree on. Yes, the antitrust lawsuit was a mechanism available to the teams to redress the defeat they experienced during charter negotiations. The monopoly was never going to be broken up unless the Frances decided to drive themselves right off the cliff. None of the parties wanted it to be.

I don't take offense to 23XI and FRM using antitrust to achieve their ends, because we are dealing with savvy parties who will all use every tool available to them. I also believe that NASCAR made themselves vulnerable to such a challenge by deliberately engaging in excessively anticompetitive behaviors that walked right up to the line of illegality. That's why the lawsuit was viable.

Ultimately my sympathies didn't lie with Michael Jordan or Denny Hamlin. I have a certain amount of respect for the gumption it took to mount the challenge when nobody else was willing or able, but that's it. My sympathies were with the race teams as a whole, and all of the racing people they employ. I am in favor of more equitable distribution of profits and more seats at the table when decisions are made, because the last two decades of leadership as is have been shaky at best.

The lawsuit was far from perfect and had many regrettable aspects. But in the end, it nudged things in that direction. For that I am glad.
Click to expand...
Very well said!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom