franchising

Magnethead

Magnethead

Admin & Resident Techie
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
11,393
Points
783
Location
Ft Worth Tx
http://autoracingsport.com/nascar/a...bles-team-owners-want-part-control-of-nascar/

I don't like some parts, like limiting teams ect, but I do think having hendrick, penske, petty, rousch, the team owners having some power. Not alot of it, but enough. like enough so that, if one team owner doesn't like something, he can be outvoted. But if the team owners and nascar aren't seeing eye to eye, the team owners have a little more say so in their business than the frances do.

like say "nascar" has a 45% stake, while the big 4 car teams have 7% each, 3 car teams have 5%, and the "little guys" that have only 1 or 2 cars make up the rest of the percentage.. That way everybody has a little say-so.

or something like that. That way if you own a car, you can at least have a small in put on matters.
 
One of the things that franchising would do would ensure that the sport wouldn't lose what has made it so popular...at least that was the thinking years ago. It would have enabled the likes of Allison, Yarborough, the Wood brothers, etc. to keep their teams instead of withering on the vine. Much of that is too late now. Just think, even though we now have Richard Petty Motorsports, Petty has little or no sayso on how to run the teams. The sport has evolved into what it is today and that is who ever has the money, will control the sport and the teams. The old days of the independent teams having a shot at winning, albeit small, are gone. They have absolutely no chance of winning a race today. Even some of the multiteams are pretty much shutout with only a win or two here and there. Last year, not one Dodge made the Chase and one of those owners is non other than Roget Penske, Mr. Moneybags who will spend money to get the smallest of edges in racing. The former Evernham Motorsports, now GEM had three teams and the highest was 14th (tops of all Dodges) and had only two wins

I think that if you are going to franchise the sport, you should limit teams to two cars and that would allow more owners and give more drivers a shot at winning. But I feel the same was as Brian in some ways, racing is a sport where a man can build a team, find a sponsor and can with a good driver, make a race here and there. And if more and more big shot sponsors begin to see that their cars aren't making it into the races each week, then they should do something about it like sponsoring more than one car like they did in the old days. Go to your local track and cound how many cars have the same sponsor. You might be surprised. But of course, those cars don't get near the money those high tech Cup cars get and need.

All I want is to be entertained on raceday. I want to see a good race that keeps me on the edge of my seat and I want to see my driver win now and then just to keep me happy. I want to see some real rivalries between some top drivers. I don't like parity all that much so it doesn't bother me that the top dog runs away with the championship. The Chase was supposed to change that and that it did. But in the end, what matters to me the most is the entertainment value of the sport. When it fails to entertain me, I'll turn it off and who knows when I'll turn it back on. I used to watch baseball all the time. I knew every White Sox player on the team, the same could be said about da Bears. College basketball also had me very interested and now even the games I know that would be good, I only check the scores the following day. But auto racing is a totally different thing. If the wife and I are not at home to watch a race, she wants to tape it and not know anything about it before we watch it together. Me, hey I'll sneak a listen on the radio if I can find a station that carries the race, something that is getting harder and harder. Yes, I root for my favorites to win, but if I can see anyone racing hard and doing what they can to pass, that gets my attention as well and makes it more exciting. Knowing the reputations of the drivers is also part of it. We all love Mark Martin, but why? He's a total gentleman on the track and just races. He's not going to do anhthing that would be controversial because he doesn't believe in being that way. Just goes to show you that good guys don't finish last, but they don't win either. I'd love to see Mark with the spunk he had back in the late 80's when he was driving the Stroh's car. He was a bit more rash then, but a whole lot more exciting to watch. But back to franchising, I think the sport has grown too large for it now and the teams that should be in the sport now are long gone. So instead of worrying about this or that, just get out there and race and entertain the thousands of people who watch you. If you do that, people will continue to watch, but if you make changes that dull the sport, you could end up with what has happened over the years with major league baseball. :cool:
 
If you do that, people will continue to watch, but if you make changes that dull the sport, you could end up with what has happened over the years with major league baseball.

What's that Buck? Exciting games, relatively new teams like the Rays, who challenge the likes of The Red Sox and Yankees and actually make it to the Series? Baseaball has had its' ups and downs like any sport, the PED issue of course just won't die, hurt the sport, but at the same time it helped it also. I won't get into that because i could write a book about it.....lol. Getting back to Nascar....I think that a drivers' Union is one thing that is needed, better cars (for sure), Nascar did not finish their homwork here, and a voice from the owners. Franchising at this point like you said would be iffy at best. The union on the other hand would force Nascar to listen to its' drivers, there would be a president of the Union who would bring that voice to Nascar. Total control would no longer be in the Hands of France and his cronies. Too much control is not a good thing. We have discussed here in the past about Earnhardt Sr. being "the Guy" who would stand up to Nascar and make the drivers voice be noticed. That is not there anymore, that is what Nascar needs, that is what will make Cup racing better, more exciting, will make me want to go back to Vegas to watch a cup race. As it is now I'd rather go to my local track than watch an entire Cup race on Tv. I find the racing is boring, lacks the riviting excitement I crave, and the production values are very cheezy at best most of the time. Now is the time The Drivers need to unite, not the owners, the drivers need the power to make this a better sport.
 
I don't know about franchising. But Na$car should be sharing some of the wealth from it's broadcast and licensing fees.

As to following a team vs a driver. Those that hated Hendrick 2 years ago threw their support behind them and forgot about DEI when Jr signed on. With Mark joining him there are very few DEI fans left although I still like Truex aka Clambo.

The 'franchise" player on any team is the driver. If Jr, Kennseth, Biffle, Gordon, Johnson or Martin went to a smaller one car team the sponsor dollars would follow.

IMHO Na$car has to start sharing the wealth in order to maintain the continued growth of the sport.

And I think on any given short track you'll find drivers as equally talented as the Na$car stars that just haven't been in the right place at the right time in the right equiment.
 
Some great suggestions here, but don't look for anything to change soon. As long as NASCAR is making the money, and the drivers and owners are as well, things aren't going to change.

While we're on this subject, something is very visible here that many have talked about before and that is trying to unionize the drivers. Let's just think about this for a moment and then see what you can come up with a debate. When we look at the drivers out there in NASCAR land, don't we mostly see Republican voting (for the most part) guys? And for the most part, Republicans are a tad bit more conservative than Democrats. And for the most part, aren't Republicans the ones who are supposed to be opposed to unions? Well it seems to me that those in NASCAR feel that they can work to get their own contracts rather than having a bargaining unit. When Richard Petty, who is a devout Republican, tried to get the guys to unionize long ago, it was a bust. Maybe, just maybe these guys are satisfied with what they are making. Oh I know, once you get used to those millions, you want more, but for the most part, they work out their contracts and honor them or get bought out before trying to get more. I don't see it that the drivers need to unionize, but if you want to talk about the crews, then that's a different story...especially in these down economic times.

Whatchall tink?
 
Are the owners doing well? Just a question. If so why all the merging of teams?

In 1961 Curtis Turner got a lifetime ban from Big bill for attempting to unionize, he later returned in 1965.

Richard Petty attempted to unionize with the PDA in 1969.

"In August of 1969 eleven famous driver, led by Petty met in Ann Arbor, Michigan to discuss their options. The meeting resulted in the formation of the Professional Drivers Association or PDA. The PDA's purpose was to improve the conditions for drivers and crews throughout the sport. They also wanted paved areas at tracks where mechanics could work, decent washrooms for race participants, and most importanly pension plans. Big Bill France had no plans to work with the PDA on anything. Petty and the PDA members also thought that newly built Talladega Speedway was unsafe for racing conditions and forced a meeting with France to discuss it. They requested that the race be postponed, France said no. The PDA members decided that they would not enter the race. Richard Petty called a newsconference later in the day to make the PDA's stance public. Bill France then ordered the drivers who refused to race to leave. Richard Petty was the first to leave, followed by 32 others drivers. Richard Petty was clearly a leader amongst his peers. The PDA was eventually defeated by Big Bill France, but each of the drivers made their point, thanks to Petty."

Let's not turn this into a pub v dem discussion, Ok?

But Na$car shares none of it's TV revenue, unlike other major sports. They have no provision should you get injured on a Na$car track. They have no pension plan. The insurance policy that's issued when you obtain a Na$car license isn't worth the paper it's printed on. You are a 1099 and responsible for all taxes. In other words, you're on your own kid.

How many racers from the early days who made the sport what it is today live in near poverty? How many times have we heard about benefits being held for X driver to help with medical expenses? Hey, OJ Simpson is in jail and still collecting his pension from football plus med insurance!

Na$car rules with a iron fist. They have to approve your sponsor, the paint scheme on your car, your uniforms, they take a cut of your souvenir sales by imposing licensing fees, you name it, Na$car gets a cut. Gawd they're worse than the mafia!!!

Let's imagine one of the new young guys gets hurt in the 500, he can't work anymore due to the injuries. What's Na$car going to give him? Nothing.

That's why i think something must be in place, not neccessarily a union, to take care of these guys should misfortune befall them.

Junie Donlevy comes to mind, devoted his life to the sport. How many drivers owe their success to him? What's he get? Squat.
 
I still think a drivers' union is the way to go, get a bunch of expensive lawyers, union guys, and meet with the older drivers in Cup. Maybe as you said these guys are happy with their paychecks, but are they happy with the working conditions, the length of the season, the tracks, the owners? Nascar as a whole needs an overhaul , and has for some time. The drivers need a voice, if they had SR. around right now you can bet things would be different, but they don't. Some one has to take the bull by the horns, but I'm afraid that no one has the guts to do it. Too much complacancy leads to trouble, the sport has problems, they aren't always addressed in the best interest of the drivers. Most often the Honchos of Nascar take the power they have and use it to their advantage. Is this good for us, the fans who want better racing? I don't think so, but that is just my opinion, but I can tell you if I was in the position of a driver I'd damn well be looking into unification.
 
SST55 said:
Let's not turn this into a pub v dem discussion, Ok?
.
Click to expand...
Not bringing it into the debate, just stating some facts. Like it or not, most of those guys are Republicans or at the very least vote that way. I'm just trying to figure out why they don't unionize. You tell me.

As for the owners, I guess Ginn is poor these days and Mrs. Earnhardt is going to have to wait tables to make ends meet soon. You know that they don't want to use their own money to run the teams because then they would go broke. But if they can get those million dollar sponsors, they're going to make money and plenty of it.

Franchising has always been about those old guys and why they should have been taken care of. I can think of one of those old guys, a guy who grew up right here in Winston Salem, a man who as a boy sneak into Bowman Gray Stadium to watch the races. A man who had a small garage here and always wanted to be one of those men who raced in NASCAR. This man did race in those races but was never a real winner. What did he do? He decided that instead of racing himself, he should hire a young stud named Earnhardt to drive for him. That old guy now has a gazillion dollar new home just south of WS and will no doubt, make it into the HOF of NASCAR. Just as Junie struck out, Richard won the lottery. Who's fault is that? I'm sure you will say that it's NASCAR's fault and they owe Junie a life of luxury or something like that. But hey, let's not go back that far, how about Ernie Irvan? Shouldn't NASCAR do something for him? How about any of the drivers or owners? How about the lowly crew members? Or are you only wanting those that became famous to get the help? It sounds to me like you want NASCAR, or probably in actuality, the France family to act as an insurance policy for all those who participate in the sport. Many of those old, and for that matter, the new owners/drivers get into the sport on a local level for the fun of the sport. Some of the old guys were lucky enough to endure the sport and made millions while others weren't so lucky. Richard Childress had no idea that he would be as successful in NASCAR when he started. All he wanted to do was race. Now it's all about the money, but the itch is still the same.

Fact is, no one is forcing any of them to be a part of the sport, and in fact, there are plenty waiting to get in. I know, you'll say not the owners. Wrong, there are plenty of them waiting as well, but they can't afford it at the present cost, but would be able to gain entrance to the sport if the megabuck teams left.

Yes, NASCAR rules with an iron fist. Who am I to say this is wrong, afterall, they are working on 60 years of success, and though there are those who have continued to say that NASCAR is on it's way down, well, that is yet to be seen in a way that really affects the sport.
 
You're right, no one is forcing anyone to get into a car. I'd venture to say most of todays drivers started in the 'clunker street stock' class with the dream of someday winning the Daytona 500. I know I did.

Sr saw Steve Park and gave him a shot. Ol BP talked to Jack Roush about Kennseth (or was it Biffle?) and he got his chance. All depends on luck of the draw, who sees you. I'd also venture to say there are many,many drivers out there running local tracks with just as much, if not more, skill and raw talent than the current superstars but they never got the chance.

I'm not saying everyone who ran deserves to live like a millionaire. I'm saying those that built the sport into what it is today is, who ran for peanuts while Na$car reaped millions should be deserving of something.

Maybe Na$car could take 5 or 10% of the drivers share of the winnings (dificult I know as everyone has a different deal) and put it into a 401k type of deal.

Imagine if the drivers did have a union. After the 3rd, 4th, 5th pit stop after 10-15 laps at Indy last year they decided to park their cars. Declaring that the tires weren't safe. Do you think that would get Na$cars attention and maybe open the field up for other tire manufacturers along with listening to other concerns?

With tickets sales down, TV viewership down, difficulty in getting sponsors for the 3 series is Na$car really doing all that well?
 
SST55 said:
You're right, no one is forcing anyone to get into a car. I'd venture to say most of todays drivers started in the 'clunker street stock' class with the dream of someday winning the Daytona 500. I know I did.

Sr saw Steve Park and gave him a shot. Ol BP talked to Jack Roush about Kennseth (or was it Biffle?) and he got his chance. All depends on luck of the draw, who sees you. I'd also venture to say there are many,many drivers out there running local tracks with just as much, if not more, skill and raw talent than the current superstars but they never got the chance.

I'm not saying everyone who ran deserves to live like a millionaire. I'm saying those that built the sport into what it is today is, who ran for peanuts while Na$car reaped millions should be deserving of something.

Maybe Na$car could take 5 or 10% of the drivers share of the winnings (dificult I know as everyone has a different deal) and put it into a 401k type of deal.

Imagine if the drivers did have a union. After the 3rd, 4th, 5th pit stop after 10-15 laps at Indy last year they decided to park their cars. Declaring that the tires weren't safe. Do you think that would get Na$cars attention and maybe open the field up for other tire manufacturers along with listening to other concerns?
With tickets sales down, TV viewership down, difficulty in getting sponsors for the 3 series is Na$car really doing all that well?
Click to expand...

Happened before, Talladega. Nascar went with others and ran the race anyway. Maybe it would be different nowadays with TV and corporate sponsorship invloved, but that's probably the very scenario that Nascar is avoiding by not allowing unionization.
 
SST55 said:
You're right, no one is forcing anyone to get into a car. I'd venture to say most of todays drivers started in the 'clunker street stock' class with the dream of someday winning the Daytona 500. I know I did.

Sr saw Steve Park and gave him a shot. Ol BP talked to Jack Roush about Kennseth (or was it Biffle?) and he got his chance. All depends on luck of the draw, who sees you. I'd also venture to say there are many,many drivers out there running local tracks with just as much, if not more, skill and raw talent than the current superstars but they never got the chance.

I'm not saying everyone who ran deserves to live like a millionaire. I'm saying those that built the sport into what it is today is, who ran for peanuts while Na$car reaped millions should be deserving of something.

Maybe Na$car could take 5 or 10% of the drivers share of the winnings (dificult I know as everyone has a different deal) and put it into a 401k type of deal.

Imagine if the drivers did have a union. After the 3rd, 4th, 5th pit stop after 10-15 laps at Indy last year they decided to park their cars. Declaring that the tires weren't safe. Do you think that would get Na$cars attention and maybe open the field up for other tire manufacturers along with listening to other concerns?

With tickets sales down, TV viewership down, difficulty in getting sponsors for the 3 series is Na$car really doing all that well?
Click to expand...
And I think Jeff found Jimmie out in the desert series didn't he? As upposed to Jimmie's short stint in the rental busch car?
 
Do you mean the Winter Heat series? Truthfully I don't know where he came from. Hornaday came from Winter heat IIRC. I miss that series.
 
Unions?

So since unions have ruint vehicle construction, now they want to ruin vehicle racing?
Most here live in NON-union states! Why are or states non-union? Because we are smart enough to KNOW unions slow production and raise costs.
It is so evident that all here should be able to see what happens in a union shop versus a non-union shop.
In certain instances in our state, when a job is started for the government, union wages MUST be paid to the workers. When our NON-union workers get to work on these jobs the work is done in 1/2 the time it is accomplished in a strict union state. That alone tells me how unremarkable unions are.
Betsy :rolleyes:
 
When I got out of the service I went to work for a airline that was hmmmm, experencing labor difficulties. Yep I was a SCAB. But I was a 22 yo scab making 12 bucks an hour in 1969 and living in Miami. WOO HOOO good times. Even though we were overhauling aircraft in less than half the time the union won and we were gone. 2 years later the airline folded.

My dad was a union printer, he got sick from years of exposure to molten lead. He could no longer work yet he was paid 80% of his pay until the day he died. Then my Mom recieved a reduced benefit.

So being union or not can cut both ways. For me not so good, for my dad great.

Personally I don't care for them as I think some of the demands they make are outrageous. Especially the teachers union but lets not go there!:D

I hate to use a name but just suppose white bread is hurt in the 500 and can never work again. True, he chose to get in the car but doesn't Na$car hold some responsibilty should he become injured? Not neccessarily a union but a fund of sorts to take care of those who can't do for themselves.
 
SST55 said:
I hate to use a name but just suppose white bread is hurt in the 500 and can never work again. True, he chose to get in the car but doesn't Na$car hold some responsibilty should he become injured? Not neccessarily a union but a fund of sorts to take care of those who can't do for themselves.
Click to expand...


They haven't helped Sam Ard and he's in a pretty bad spot right now.The only help he's recieved from the NASCAR way is personally from Kyle Busch and Harvick.
 
Union, non-union...makes no difference to me. I've been a union member for 36 plus years and though I'm opposed to most of what they stand for, they have their uses. Also, if the drivers or owners or crew members decide they want to unite, more power to them. If they get what they want, again, that will be great. If they don't, then what they will have done will be for nothing.

The old gang in NASCAR will forever be honored in my mind. They are the ones who were grease monkeys who did what they loved before it was profitable. Should those that have profited from what they accomplished pay them back? I'm divided about that. But as has been mentioned, no one made them get into the sport and no one made them get out. The strong survive and that is true in NASCAR. Unfortunately, strong doesn't necessarily mean better, but mostly means money.

I'd venture to say that if Dale Earnhardt, the sone of Ralph Dale Earnhardt, father of the man we know as Dale Earnhardt Jr. were to begin his carreer today, he probably wouldn't have been anywhere near successful that he was. For that matter, Richard Petty, known as the King of NASCAR, probably wouldn't have made it either. Those guys were and for that matter, are the best at what they did. Today being the best isn't what counts...it's how do you look in front of the camera that elevates a driver in to stardom.

Should those modern day stars then give to those who did what they did to make the sport what it is today, even though those old guys never knew what would become of the sport? Jeff Gordon was groomed to be the superstar that he is. Tony Stewart showed what he had to become a superstar. Jimmie Johnson lucked into his niche. Twenty years ago, who would have given Jimmie a shot if they had a chance to have Kenny Schrader drive for them?
 
buckaroo said:
Union, non-union...makes no difference to me. I've been a union member for 36 plus years and though I'm opposed to most of what they stand for, they have their uses. Also, if the drivers or owners or crew members decide they want to unite, more power to them. If they get what they want, again, that will be great. If they don't, then what they will have done will be for nothing.

The old gang in NASCAR will forever be honored in my mind. They are the ones who were grease monkeys who did what they loved before it was profitable. Should those that have profited from what they accomplished pay them back? I'm divided about that. But as has been mentioned, no one made them get into the sport and no one made them get out. The strong survive and that is true in NASCAR. Unfortunately, strong doesn't necessarily mean better, but mostly means money.

I'd venture to say that if Dale Earnhardt, the sone of Ralph Dale Earnhardt, father of the man we know as Dale Earnhardt Jr. were to begin his carreer today, he probably wouldn't have been anywhere near successful that he was. For that matter, Richard Petty, known as the King of NASCAR, probably wouldn't have made it either. Those guys were and for that matter, are the best at what they did. Today being the best isn't what counts...it's how do you look in front of the camera that elevates a driver in to stardom.
Should those modern day stars then give to those who did what they did to make the sport what it is today, even though those old guys never knew what would become of the sport? Jeff Gordon was groomed to be the superstar that he is. Tony Stewart showed what he had to become a superstar. Jimmie Johnson lucked into his niche. Twenty years ago, who would have given Jimmie a shot if they had a chance to have Kenny Schrader drive for them?
Click to expand...

Explain, why wouldn't they have made it today.
 
muggle not said:
Explain, why wouldn't they have made it today.
Click to expand...

Notice anything different from Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt the senior? If you can't, then you won't understand. Today the sport is wired around marketability, something that Ironhead just wasn't. Why isn't Jimmie Spencer driving instead of jawing on Speed? How come Jack Daniels wanted Casey Mears to drive their car instead of the man who pretty much made the car famous? Then again, why is Cheerios on the car of Clint instead of Casey? To the end, why do the sponsors have more and more say-so as to who drives the cars? Marketability and not ability. Yesteryear, good, great drivers made the series. When the owners went looking for money from sponsors to fund the teams, those sponsors gained more and more say-so with the more money they poured into the team. Who's more marketable, Dale Earnhardt Junior or Tim Brown? You don't know who Tim Brown is do you, but he could very well be better than Junior in ability, but no one in the country has heard of Tim Brown unless you are from a certain area. Okay, let's go with someone a little more well known. Who's more marketable, Jamie McMurray or Frank Kimmel? You should know who Frank is, but if you don't, the rest of the thread won't mean a thing to you. But if you do know who Frank is, do you think that Jamie is a better driver than Frank? As someone said earlier, it's a crapshoot and the lucky driver gets the prize and it doesn't hurt if you're related to a superstar. How on Earth did Kyle Petty continue to drive in the top NASCAR series? Because he is the son of the King and has made a wonderful name for himself. If his name had been Alexander, he would have been out of the sport many years ago. Why is Kenny Wallace still able to find a ride? Certainly not because he is a winner, but because he is marketable. Why has Mike Waltrip been able to continue to have a ride? You get the idea. Curtis Turner would have been thrown out of the sport years ago had it been as popular as it is now when he was driving.

Having said all that, just know that I don't approve of marketablity. But then again, I'm not giving a team gazillions of dollars to fund a team. If I were, you'd damn sure know that I would have plenty of imput as to who was driving MY car.
 
Ironhead isn't marketable???????He still sells the most collectables,apparel and stuff and he's been gone now for 8 years.
 
I think it is just a case of some people like to see there words in print. It is pure BS that a Dale Earnhardt or Richard Petty would not make it in today's racing.
 
muggle not said:
I think it is just a case of some people like to see there words in print. It is pure BS that a Dale Earnhardt or Richard Petty would not make it in today's racing.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you are writing about me and that's fine. It's clear that you and I have differing opinions and you can dump on me all you like. Your opinions are far from mine it's clear to see. What I said was, in case you didn't catch it, was that I don't believe that either of them would have had a chance to show how good they are/were in today's market.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the word that is bold above be spelled their? Or could it have been they're? Or you might have meant there, in which case the sentence didn't make a bit of sense...but that's just me wanting to see my words in print. :rolleyes:
 
buckaroo said:
Muggle, yer right, I know nothing of women's basketball. Is it still six on six? :rolleyes:

One thing about women's basketball is that it makes lots of money. Oh wait, the WNBA is about to fold isn't it? The fact is that in college, it wouldn't even be in many schools had the government not made it more or less manditory. I'm not going to ridicule those fans of the game like some would those who don't, all I'm saying is that Pat Summit had a leg up over the rest of the coaches because she was smarter and led the way. And, you aren't going to see anyone surpass her achievements because they are all now playing on an even plate.
Click to expand...
buckaroo said:
I'd venture to say that if Dale Earnhardt, the sone of Ralph Dale Earnhardt, father of the man we know as Dale Earnhardt Jr. were to begin his carreer today, he probably wouldn't have been anywhere near successful that he was. For that matter, Richard Petty, known as the King of NASCAR, probably wouldn't have made it either. ?
Click to expand...


People that live in glass houses..............LMAO
Shouldn't that word be "mandatory". :D
And shouldn't that word be son. :)
 
VaDirt said:
Happened before, Talladega. Nascar went with others and ran the race anyway. Maybe it would be different nowadays with TV and corporate sponsorship invloved, but that's probably the very scenario that Nascar is avoiding by not allowing unionization.
Click to expand...

Imagine if the drivers did have a union. After the 3rd, 4th, 5th pit stop after 10-15 laps at Indy last year they decided to park their cars. Declaring that the tires weren't safe. Do you think that would get Na$cars attention and maybe open the field up for other tire manufacturers along with listening to other concerns?

I find this interesting to say the least, a very good point to ponder, what if? Safety is always supposed to be the prime concern...correct? When you really sit down and examine the entire scope of Nascar, is safety the number one concern or is making money the real reason Nascar does what they do?
 
Betsy said:
So since unions have ruint vehicle construction, now they want to ruin vehicle racing?
Most here live in NON-union states! Why are or states non-union? Because we are smart enough to KNOW unions slow production and raise costs.
It is so evident that all here should be able to see what happens in a union shop versus a non-union shop.
In certain instances in our state, when a job is started for the government, union wages MUST be paid to the workers. When our NON-union workers get to work on these jobs the work is done in 1/2 the time it is accomplished in a strict union state. That alone tells me how unremarkable unions are.
Betsy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I disagree, i have worked in two union shops, one a food store another an egg carton factory when I was going to college. Both stood up for the worker, that is the main reason the unions were formed in the first place. It is the abuse of power by the Union reps and big bosses that has screwed up the wages, time factor , and what not. It is not the pure concept of a Union itself that is bad , just the people running them. If a union is run correctly it can be very beneficial for both sides.
 
SST55 said:
When I got out of the service I went to work for a airline that was hmmmm, experencing labor difficulties. Yep I was a SCAB. But I was a 22 yo scab making 12 bucks an hour in 1969 and living in Miami. WOO HOOO good times. Even though we were overhauling aircraft in less than half the time the union won and we were gone. 2 years later the airline folded.

My dad was a union printer, he got sick from years of exposure to molten lead. He could no longer work yet he was paid 80% of his pay until the day he died. Then my Mom recieved a reduced benefit.

So being union or not can cut both ways. For me not so good, for my dad great.

Personally I don't care for them as I think some of the demands they make are outrageous. Especially the teachers union but lets not go there!:D

I hate to use a name but just suppose white bread is hurt in the 500 and can never work again. True, he chose to get in the car but doesn't Na$car hold some responsibilty should he become injured? Not neccessarily a union but a fund of sorts to take care of those who can't do for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yep it is high time that something like this was created, should have been done 25 years ago.
 
buckaroo said:
Notice anything different from Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt the senior? If you can't, then you won't understand. Today the sport is wired around marketability, something that Ironhead just wasn't. Why isn't Jimmie Spencer driving instead of jawing on Speed? How come Jack Daniels wanted Casey Mears to drive their car instead of the man who pretty much made the car famous? Then again, why is Cheerios on the car of Clint instead of Casey? To the end, why do the sponsors have more and more say-so as to who drives the cars? Marketability and not ability. Yesteryear, good, great drivers made the series. When the owners went looking for money from sponsors to fund the teams, those sponsors gained more and more say-so with the more money they poured into the team. Who's more marketable, Dale Earnhardt Junior or Tim Brown? You don't know who Tim Brown is do you, but he could very well be better than Junior in ability, but no one in the country has heard of Tim Brown unless you are from a certain area. Okay, let's go with someone a little more well known. Who's more marketable, Jamie McMurray or Frank Kimmel? You should know who Frank is, but if you don't, the rest of the thread won't mean a thing to you. But if you do know who Frank is, do you think that Jamie is a better driver than Frank? As someone said earlier, it's a crapshoot and the lucky driver gets the prize and it doesn't hurt if you're related to a superstar. How on Earth did Kyle Petty continue to drive in the top NASCAR series? Because he is the son of the King and has made a wonderful name for himself. If his name had been Alexander, he would have been out of the sport many years ago. Why is Kenny Wallace still able to find a ride? Certainly not because he is a winner, but because he is marketable. Why has Mike Waltrip been able to continue to have a ride? You get the idea. Curtis Turner would have been thrown out of the sport years ago had it been as popular as it is now when he was driving.

Having said all that, just know that I don't approve of marketablity. But then again, I'm not giving a team gazillions of dollars to fund a team. If I were, you'd damn sure know that I would have plenty of imput as to who was driving MY car.
Click to expand...

Ahh ...but this works both ways. Sr being the Ironhead he was, built a very luckrative business AROUND HIS SO CALLED LACK OF MARKETABILITY. His souvenior business lauched an entire segment of Nascar, the licensing, and all that goes with that territory. His marketability was that he is- was a hard ass driver that didn't take no for an answer when it came to winning. That worked very well for him, so how could it not work today? I disagree , it would work today and probably even better. That "i love to hate him thing" is good for a sport any sport, why do you think he had a black car?
 
Sr got his reputation by being a hard azz driver that asked no questions and took no prisoners. He did not tolerate fools very well. Bump him once you better be prepared because he's going to bump you twice. But he was well respected and some say feared by his peers. I sometimes wonder what he would have done with the antics of the shrub boys though.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he the first to copywrite his name and likeness? He might not have finished high school but he was a very smart businessman.

Sponsors today want 'good looking pretty boys' (kinda leaves me out,,, :eek:)as their spokesman. I crack up over the Gillette youngs guns ads,,half of them don't appear to have any whiskers to shave!!
 
muggle not said:
People that live in glass houses..............LMAO
Shouldn't that word be "mandatory". :D
And shouldn't that word be son. :)
Click to expand...
Isn't it funny when someone correcting you about bad spelling goes and misspells words themselves? :p
 
Mopardh9 said:
Ahh ...but this works both ways. Sr being the Ironhead he was, built a very luckrative business AROUND HIS SO CALLED LACK OF MARKETABILITY. His souvenior business lauched an entire segment of Nascar, the licensing, and all that goes with that territory. His marketability was that he is- was a hard ass driver that didn't take no for an answer when it came to winning. That worked very well for him, so how could it not work today? I disagree , it would work today and probably even better. That "i love to hate him thing" is good for a sport any sport, why do you think he had a black car?
Click to expand...
You are missing the whole crux of my argument. DE was part of NASCAR before it was nearly as hot as it is today. The guys today have to be shills for their sponsors and if they don't look good in front of the camera, they'll find someone else. Once DE made a name for himself, the rest was history, but again, he did so in the early years before NASCAR became such a hit.

Fer cryin' out loud folks, I'm not saying anything about DE's ability to drive. All I'm saying is that had he started his carreer 20 years later, he probably wouldn't have been given a chance to show how good he was. One of the things that is so different today than was 20, 30 years ago is that a driver now has to show immediate progress or he will be out the door for another youngster. In the older days, the driver had to earn his way into a good car and many of those drivers started out in their own cars. Also, the good cars were many fewer than they are today.

Sheesh, try to understand my argument. If you think that DE would still be able to make it today, fine, but don't talk about his marketability after he became famous. I'm just asking if he would even be given a chance today.
 
And Buck you are missing my point: I'm saying he would have been just as marketable and would be given the chance to prove it in todays' Nascar.

Fer cryin' out loud folks, I'm not saying anything about DE's ability to drive. All I'm saying is that had he started his carreer 20 years later, he probably wouldn't have been given a chance to show how good he was. One of the things that is so different today than was 20, 30 years ago is that a driver now has to show immediate progress or he will be out the door for another youngster. In the older days, the driver had to earn his way into a good car and many of those drivers started out in their own cars. Also, the good cars were many fewer than they are today.

DEsr would be just as much a money maker today probably more so, than the young guys coming up. He had ability, hard nose, hated type, just what Nascar is looking for. They try to do this with Shrub , but he doesn't even come close to pulling it off....LMAO.
 
I understand what you're saying but Sr was Rookie of the year in '79 followed by the championship in '80. No other driver has done that to my knowledge. He did have raw talent.

If he was to start today he wouldn't fit the mold the Madision Ave ad agency's wants as spokesman for a sponsor.

I don't care if it's a one eyed hunchback web footed orge driving my car as long as he runs up front and wins. But he wouldn't fit the "image" required.

In the past very few got a cup ride until their late 20's, after they had proven themselves. Now we have 18 yo's who ran go karts etc when they were 6 in a cup car.

I said it before and I'll say it again, there's a lot of guys running short tracks with just as much if not more talent than those in cup but just haven't had the right break.
 
If he was to start today he wouldn't fit the mold the Madision Ave ad agency's wants as spokesman for a sponsor.

And I say this is just exactly why he would! Because he is opposite of what all the other "goody two shoes " types are that are coming up today.
 
You may very well be right. We'll never know.

But I still think the nod will go to the Lagano types over my one eyed hunch back web feetses orge.;):D:p
 
He was a heck of a driver I tell ya.:D

If Steve reads this I'm dead,,,,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom