It's Monster

I thought it was common knowledge from the moment the RTA was announced that it was just a giant farce.
 
cheesepuffs said:
What the heck is the RTA gonna do? Brian is the France family and the France family is NASCAR. Brian isn't stepping down for anybody.
Click to expand...
Not a damn thing.

I do concur , now way does he step down for anyone.
 
Acs said:
Yeah, they only unilaterally implemented a franchise system and re-structured the entire team payout structure to their liking. Complete farce.
Click to expand...
Yes, the RTA did do that, but till they do something about reducing lodging cost for their teams, they are 100% a total farce .

:D
 
kymartin6 said:
The RTA is just a farce..... they have no power at all..... these charters that were handed out by Brian was just a smoke and mirror deal to satisfy demands ..... they mean nothing....... Nascar controls everything and always will.....
Click to expand...

Rob Kauffman started the thing knowing he would not be a race team owner so the only thing that makes sense is that he formed the RTA so he could get 5 million each for his MWR charters. From a self serving and business point it makes sense for him but for everyone else it is a little bit of nothing.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Rob Kauffman started the thing knowing he would not be a race team owner so the only thing that makes sense is that he formed the RTA so he could get 5 million each for his MWR charters. From a self serving and business point it makes sense for him but for everyone else it is a little bit of nothing.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of all the other involved owners. Penske, Hendrick, Gibbs, etc wouldn't have gone along if they didn't have the numbers to show they would benefit.

Just me.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Rob Kauffman started the thing knowing he would not be a race team owner so the only thing that makes sense is that he formed the RTA so he could get 5 million each for his MWR charters. From a self serving and business point it makes sense for him but for everyone else it is a little bit of nothing.
Click to expand...
Give me one reason why the Charter deal isn't good for every owner?
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
IDK where the idea comes from that the RTA has any power because they don't. It is a case of the golden rule as in he who has the gold makes the rules and Nascar has the gold. The RTA can make some noise but at the end of the day it is just saber rattling.
Click to expand...

Lets get this straight, Brian is not Nascar, he is an employee and the acting CEO. The two owners of Nascar can remove him if they need to OR they can over rule him without the public ever knowing. I can't prove this but I am sure all contracts must have the signature of the two owners.
 
Allenbaba said:
Give me one reason why the Charter deal isn't good for every owner?
Click to expand...
Only if they can negotiate a deal that puts the non members in jeopardy. Currently ( according to Aunty) those non members get a reduced payout for any finishing position. I don't consider that fair when you take into consideration that the RTA members didn't pony up for their charters.
 
Team Penske said:
I don't consider that fair when you take into consideration that the RTA members didn't pony up for their charters.
Click to expand...

Fair and auto racing in the same sentence? LOL

Fair and multi-million dollar business in the same sentence? Same.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I find it hard to believe he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of all the other involved owners. Penske, Hendrick, Gibbs, etc wouldn't have gone along if they didn't have the numbers to show they would benefit.

Just me.
Click to expand...

It isn't that the charter system is bad just that it doesn't do much of anything. Think "Emperor & His New Suit"

dpkimmel2001 said:
Now that the fall season is here and all the leaves have fallen, it's a lot easier. :blink:
Click to expand...

It may be fall where you live but it is winter here!

Allenbaba said:
Give me one reason why the Charter deal isn't good for every owner?
Click to expand...

Anytime you get something for nothing it has to have some value but maybe a better question is how does it benefit someone like Rick Hendrick today? What did Rick Hendrick have this year as opposed to last year in practical terms.

Team Penske said:
Only if they can negotiate a deal that puts the non members in jeopardy. Currently ( according to Aunty) those non members get a reduced payout for any finishing position. I don't consider that fair when you take into consideration that the RTA members didn't pony up for their charters.
Click to expand...

IDK how much less a team like the Wood Bros received last year for not having a charter but I doubt the amount was considerable. The Wood's were smart as why pay millions for something you never really own when you can wait around for a year and purchase/lease one for a lot less.

Regarding fairness that word and Nascar not only can't be used in the same sentence but not even the same Province. Was Nascar fair in their treatment of Carl Long? Is it fair to give a driver back multiple laps back in a race? Is it fair to use the caution flag to manipulate a race? Most people don't care as they want to watch Nascar races each week so Nascar can pretty well do whatever they want with these folks as seeing a race trumps all else.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Anytime you get something for nothing it has to have some value but maybe a better question is how does it benefit someone like Rick Hendrick today? What did Rick Hendrick have this year as opposed to last year in practical terms.
Click to expand...
4 new assets on the balance sheet, each with whatever value was initially used in the journal entry.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Anytime you get something for nothing it has to have some value but maybe a better question is how does it benefit someone like Rick Hendrick today? What did Rick Hendrick have this year as opposed to last year in practical terms.
Click to expand...
Charters aren't necessarily about "today," especially for the bigger teams. They have always been about "some day." If Rick Hendrick woke up tomorrow and decided he no longer wanted to race, he now has something of value to sell. How is that not a net positive for each and every charter owner? Again...what's the downside?
 
aunty dive said:
4 new assets on the balance sheet, each with whatever value was initially used in the journal entry.
Click to expand...

That sort of thing is great if you want to baffle the bank with bullschitt in an attempt to get a loan but for all practical purposes it is thin air. I can make a balance sheet or a financial statement say anything you would like.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
That sort of thing is great if you want to baffle the bank with bullschitt in an attempt to get a loan but for all practical purposes it is thin air. I can make a balance sheet or a financial statement say anything you would like.
Click to expand...
It's a marketable asset (commodity?).
 
Allenbaba said:
Charters aren't necessarily about "today," especially for the bigger teams. They have always been about "some day." If Rick Hendrick woke up tomorrow and decided he no longer wanted to race, he now has something of value to sell. How is that not a net positive for each and every charter owner? Again...what's the downside?
Click to expand...
Allenbaba said:
Charters aren't necessarily about "today," especially for the bigger teams. They have always been about "some day." If Rick Hendrick woke up tomorrow and decided he no longer wanted to race, he now has something of value to sell. How is that not a net positive for each and every charter owner? Again...what's the downside?
Click to expand...

I think you are answering your own question by asking what the downside of owning a charter is as if they were truly worth much all the benefits would be touted. I never used the word downside as I feel the charters are worth something just not a whole lot. Some of the reasons I don't think they are worth much is that they are not owned but are lent to the owners until the current TV contract expires. If Rick Hendrick is experiencing a cash crunch he won't receive anything meaningful for selling his 4 charters and the Wood Bros showed last year that a mid pack team doesn't need one in order to make all the races.

If I own/am borrowing a charter from Nascar I receive a greater percentage of the purse each week although we don't know if that amount is meaningful or not. I am guaranteed to make each race and I have something to sell to another person provided there is a demand. While that does not represent a downside it doesn't represent great value to any teams other than the ones that are not competitive.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
It's a marketable asset (commodity?).
Click to expand...

I got out my old Dell D630 today to do some updates and see if it was still alive. It is a marketable commodity with Windows 10 and a 500 gig hard drive and I am sure I could get someone to give me 25 bucks for it. I can sell it but I am just not going to get much out of it so its ACV is negligible.
 
aunty dive said:
I would imagine Mr. Hendrick's CFO is aware of that.[/

Most business owners over value everything they own from real estate to inventory to receivables and often times exert and incredible amount of pressure over accountants and others to misstate things a little in order to look much better. Hopefully Rick's accountant is depreciating the value of his charters each year as the value of them should drop each day we get loser to the end of the TV contract.
Click to expand...
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
I got out my old Dell D630 today to do some updates and see if it was still alive. It is a marketable commodity with Windows 10 and a 500 gig hard drive and I am sure I could get someone to give me 25 bucks for it. I can sell it but I am just not going to get much out of it so its ACV is negligible.
Click to expand...
Actually, our test equipment department has a half-dozen D630 desktops they keep to run W2K and XP. They've been know to pay $100 plus S&H for them. Marketable, and $100 is hardly negligible to me.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Actually, our test equipment department has a half-dozen D630 desktops they keep to run W2K and XP. They've been know to pay $100 plus S&H for them. Marketable, and $100 is hardly negligible to me.
Click to expand...

I have 2 D630's both running Windows 10 and one of them some Dude who knows what he is doing did a bunch of stuff to it so he could stream and game on it. I figured they may be worth 25 bucks each as I don't think I paid $100 for either one of them way back when. I tried to give one of them away to a person that did not have a laptop or PC but she refused because the screen wasn't big enough. No millennial would be caught dead in the same room with them as if it ain't a Mac Book it is junk. I think I will keep them until they become vintage and start appreciating..........:D
 
aunty dive said:
I would imagine Mr. Hendrick's CFO is aware of that.
Click to expand...
Skoalbandit33 said:
Most business owners over value everything they own from real estate to inventory to receivables and often times exert and incredible amount of pressure over accountants and others to misstate things a little in order to look much better. Hopefully Rick's accountant is depreciating the value of his charters each year as the value of them should drop each day we get loser to the end of the TV contract.
Click to expand...
We have no idea what initial value was assigned. Presumably, the selling price of the 2 charters off-loaded by Mr. Kauffman played into that.

That's what I would have used. So would you.
 
The truth is usually somewhere in between. The establishment of the RTA was a smart step for the team owners to take, and their being able to negotiate collectively was long overdue. The charters have some value and bring a certain measure of short-term stability, but it is not a meaningful 'franchise' system without a lot more restructuring and initiatives that would actually stabilize these businesses. They need more than an asset (guaranteed spot in the field) that they can sell or occasionally lease when they can't afford to race anymore.

However we feel about it from a competition standpoint, it was smart of the owners to lobby for the points fund money to be more evenly dispersed, and if they are doing that with race purses, that's smart too.

I want to try to dispel the notion that teams are getting a meaningful boost in purse money because of the charters. The establishment of the charters didn't increase overall purse money. In fact, purses have been flat or down the past couple years, and the percentage of TV money that goes into the purses is set and unchanged. We don't know for sure because NASCAR stopped releasing the data, and when NASCAR does that, it's not because they are being modest about how great things are going.

The distribution of purse money has always been complex and uneven based on the team's history, contingencies, etc. Teams that have won championships and are higher in points have always been rewarded with more purse money for finishing in the same place, and new teams have always been penalized in this regard. Now they've added another layer in that chartered teams get a higher payout than non-chartered teams. In reality, I think it's much ado about very little. Before charters, we had 40 or 43 teams racing and receiving purse money every week. Now we have 40 teams racing, and 36 (90%) have charters. It acts more as a penalty to the four teams that don't have charters than a substantial reward to the chartered teams. Since the team owners effectively unionized, they needed that disincentive for not joining. The most significant step that would substantially increase purse money for individual teams is further consolidation of the field to 36, 32, etc. It's debatable how that would impact the sport's overall health.
 
gnomesayin said:
The truth is usually somewhere in between. The establishment of the RTA was a smart step for the team owners to take, and their being able to negotiate collectively was long overdue. The charters have some value and bring a certain measure of short-term stability, but it is not a meaningful 'franchise' system without a lot more restructuring and initiatives that would actually stabilize these businesses. They need more than an asset (guaranteed spot in the field) that they can sell or occasionally lease when they can't afford to race anymore.

However we feel about it from a competition standpoint, it was smart of the owners to lobby for the points fund money to be more evenly dispersed, and if they are doing that with race purses, that's smart too.

I want to try to dispel the notion that teams are getting a meaningful boost in purse money because of the charters. The establishment of the charters didn't increase overall purse money. In fact, purses have been flat or down the past couple years, and the percentage of TV money that goes into the purses is set and unchanged. We don't know for sure because NASCAR stopped releasing the data, and when NASCAR does that, it's not because they are being modest about how great things are going.

The distribution of purse money has always been complex and uneven based on the team's history, contingencies, etc. Teams that have won championships and are higher in points have always been rewarded with more purse money for finishing in the same place, and new teams have always been penalized in this regard. Now they've added another layer in that chartered teams get a higher payout than non-chartered teams. In reality, I think it's much ado about very little. Before charters, we had 40 or 43 teams racing and receiving purse money every week. Now we have 40 teams racing, and 36 (90%) have charters. It acts more as a penalty to the four teams that don't have charters than a substantial reward to the chartered teams. Since the team owners effectively unionized, they needed that disincentive for not joining. The most significant step that would substantially increase purse money for individual teams is further consolidation of the field to 36, 32, etc. It's debatable how that would impact the sport's overall health.
Click to expand...

Nascar is in a unique situation as it has a very good TV contract that will ensure its viability for several more years, it does its best to operate in the same manner it did during the halcyon days and it does all this in a market that has shown an unprecedented indifference toward it for the better part of 15 years. The demand for Nascar comes from its broadcasters but not its end users which is a rare occurrence and it has a new title sponsor that is going to attempt to inject some life into the series through the use of T&A amongst other things.

Hopefully Nascar will be able to come up with a product that has strong appeal to millennials because if it doesn't do so all its activities are akin to rearranging deck chairs in the Titanic.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Since the RTA seems to have taken over the topic..... Here's some info on some recent distribution of some of the funds.....

Sprint Cup champion's prize cut in half; money to be spread among 25

http://www.espn.com/racing/nascar/s...scar-cuts-prize-2016-sprint-cup-champion-half
Click to expand...

This is what I was referencing as a smart move for the owners collectively. They'll need to continue further down that path if they want to ensure the viability of mid- and lower-tier teams.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Hopefully Nascar will be able to come up with a product that has strong appeal to millennials because if it doesn't do so all its activities are akin to rearranging deck chairs in the Titanic.
Click to expand...

To some extent. Completely rearranging the points money the way they did is a major change that has real benefits for the bulk of the field. They'll need to even it out even more with current economics or we may be watching 28-car fields. Maybe that's fine, I don't know. Little procedural stuff is just rearranging deck chairs. For decades NASCAR and the team owners have always employed a method to ensure that the top 35 or so teams made every race no matter what, whether it was provisionals, points, etc.
 
gnomesayin said:
To some extent. Completely rearranging the points money the way they did is a major change that has real benefits for the bulk of the field. They'll need to even it out even more with current economics or we may be watching 28-car fields. Maybe that's fine, I don't know. Little procedural stuff is just rearranging deck chairs. For decades NASCAR and the team owners have always employed a method to ensure that the top 35 or so teams made every race no matter what, whether it was provisionals, points, etc.
Click to expand...

IMO fields of about 25 for Nascar races would be perfect as it would still give you all of the best, all of the mid packers and even some back markers and I believe something like that will become a fact of life at some point. Nascar is operating on the model of when it enjoyed unbridled success and demand for its product was high but it needs to become smaller in matters such as car counts and the number of series it operates.

Top teams have always had options in making races but the lesser lights could easily struggle due to higher car counts and no provisionals and the charter takes care of that for them. As Richard Petty and Jack Roush found out a charter is no substitute for sponsorship and I think the lack of sponsorship will end up culling the herd naturally.

When you rearrange chairs on the Titanic, the Hindenburg or the Kursk it doesn't matter what the reason is as the end result will be the same.
 
gnomesayin said:
The truth is usually somewhere in between. The establishment of the RTA was a smart step for the team owners to take, and their being able to negotiate collectively was long overdue. The charters have some value and bring a certain measure of short-term stability, but it is not a meaningful 'franchise' system without a lot more restructuring and initiatives that would actually stabilize these businesses. They need more than an asset (guaranteed spot in the field) that they can sell or occasionally lease when they can't afford to race anymore.

However we feel about it from a competition standpoint, it was smart of the owners to lobby for the points fund money to be more evenly dispersed, and if they are doing that with race purses, that's smart too.



I want to try to dispel the notion that teams are getting a meaningful boost in purse money because of the charters. The establishment of the charters didn't increase overall purse money. In fact, purses have been flat or down the past couple years, and the percentage of TV money that goes into the purses is set and unchanged. We don't know for sure because NASCAR stopped releasing the data, and when NASCAR does that, it's not because they are being modest about how great things are going.

The distribution of purse money has always been complex and uneven based on the team's history, contingencies, etc. Teams that have won championships and are higher in points have always been rewarded with more purse money for finishing in the same place, and new teams have always been penalized in this regard. Now they've added another layer in that chartered teams get a higher payout than non-chartered teams. In reality, I think it's much ado about very little. Before charters, we had 40 or 43 teams racing and receiving purse money every week. Now we have 40 teams racing, and 36 (90%) have charters. It acts more as a penalty to the four teams that don't have charters than a substantial reward to the chartered teams. Since the team owners effectively unionized, they needed that disincentive for not joining. The most significant step that would substantially increase purse money for individual teams is further consolidation of the field to 36, 32, etc. It's debatable how that would impact the sport's overall health.
Click to expand...

I am to lazy to go back and do the search but the number, 38% higher pay for a charter team over non-charter for the same finish position sticks in my head. I can't remember if that is right or not. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom