Question About Charter System

T

Tosu97

Guest
This charter system thing is in year 2 of the 9 year deal. My questions are as follows..

1. Why has this created short fields. Only 38 cars for one of the most popular tracks, close to home???? Wtf

2. How was this system meant to help NASCAR?

3. Who thought this was a good idea? I mean seriously Brian just go ahead and admit you are killing the sport on purpose.

4. Somewhat unrelated: why is it so hard for teams to find sponsors these days? I mean if ARCA/Xfinity/ Trucks can get sponsors... it makes no sense that cup guys can't
 
1) There are only 36 chartered teams that are guaranteed to start, not 40. (Which track are you referring to?)
2) It isn't meant to help NASCAR, it's meant to help the car owners. The goal is to provide a form of capital equity, something of value the owner can sell to recoup his investments when he leaves the sport. Whether the system accomplishes that is up for debate, but that's the intent.
3) The owners. BZF had minimal input on this one.
4) This goes back to your first question. One reason for short fields is the lack of sponsors. Cup sponsorship costs a lot more than the other series you mentioned. And If you'll notice, there are a lot of vehicles in those other series that are also running around with solid color unsponsored paint jobs, even at their lower sponsorship rates.
 
Thanks for the reply.

I wonder if the number of charters can be increased. I know myself and my friends who watch all miss the bigger fields. I know a lot say it doesn't matter... And 3-5 less cars isn't that big of deal but I'm worried for the days that are fast approaching of 36 car fields.

I know Penskee has said they want to increase to a 4 car team in the future, so do they have to buy another teams charter or can we make it 38 charters total with a maximum field of 42. (I'd much prefer this).

On the topic of scholarships... I know they are very expensive, but with the sharp ratings/audience decline... shouldn't sponserships get cheaper even a little? Obviously they don't hold the same value they did 10 years ago.
 
Nascar needs to put a cap on spending to keep out of control teams from buying their way into a championship. For example the ACT tour has a spending limit, so the field is kept more equal, which equates to better racing. This would also be better for more sponsors, as they wouldn't have to shell out as much money and would probably enable a few more teams to get in on the act.
 
Tosu97 said:
Thanks for the reply.

I wonder if the number of charters can be increased. I know myself and my friends who watch all miss the bigger fields. I know a lot say it doesn't matter... And 3-5 less cars isn't that big of deal but I'm worried for the days that are fast approaching of 36 car fields.

I know Penskee has said they want to increase to a 4 car team in the future, so do they have to buy another teams charter or can we make it 38 charters total with a maximum field of 42. (I'd much prefer this).

On the topic of scholarships... I know they are very expensive, but with the sharp ratings/audience decline... shouldn't sponserships get cheaper even a little? Obviously they don't hold the same value they did 10 years ago.
Click to expand...
My understanding is there are no plans to add new charters at this time. If Penske wants to expand AND have charters for the new teams, he'll have to buy one from an existing holder.

I think the field sizes are due mostly to fewer sponsors being interested, due to the economy and decline in the popularity of the sport. I don't think the charters have much to do with that. From a competitive side, I don't see the charters as any different from the old 'Top 35 in owner points guaranteed to start' or the preceding 'Top 35 drivers and former champions guaranteed'. There have long been mechanisms that ensure the majority of teams get in each week. There are fewer non-guaranteed slots now, but adding another 3 open slots back to the field doesn't mean cars will automatically appear to compete for them. Just one idjit's opinion, you understand.

Sponsorships are getting less expensive, but Cup sponsorships still cost a lot more than lower-tier series. The teams are already beginning to reduce their budgets, but that takes time when there are existing multi-year contracts in place. Some of the contract personnel (drivers, crew chiefs, etc.) are already seeing reduced offers when they renegotiate.
 
Tosu97 said:
4. Somewhat unrelated: why is it so hard for teams to find sponsors these days? I mean if ARCA/Xfinity/ Trucks can get sponsors... it makes no sense that cup guys can't
Click to expand...
That's like comparing KIA sales with Porsche sales. It's tough to apply any of the same rationals - it's apples and oranges, though more like apples and dishwashers. ARCA level costs, initiatives, motivations, goals and politics are almost completely different than Cup series stuff. Same is true with Truck, and even Xfinity to a lesser extent. So many Truck sponsorships come from team & manufacturer support/relationships/B to B initiatives as a way to appease (give back) to a rather large purchaser. Look at KBM's biggest sponsors: JBL Audio, Safelite Autoglass, Sirius XM, etc. What do all three of them have in common? HINT: walk into a Toyota dealership and look at some of the logos associated with the car you might be buying.
 
Lowering the costs would go a long way to help bring more teams to nascar but is that even possible?
 
I thought they lowered the field size so that the remaining teams will get a bigger share of the prize money.
 
Tosu97 said:
Lowering the costs would go a long way to help bring more teams to nascar but is that even possible?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's absolutely possible. Many teams are. There's no set cost, or rules on spending. It's whatever a team wants to spend vs whatever they want to charge to offset the spend. Since many teams have been forced to charge less, they're now spending less.
 
Mopardh9 said:
Nascar needs to put a cap on spending to keep out of control teams from buying their way into a championship. For example the ACT tour has a spending limit, so the field is kept more equal, which equates to better racing. This would also be better for more sponsors, as they wouldn't have to shell out as much money and would probably enable a few more teams to get in on the act.
Click to expand...
Allenbaba said:
That's like comparing KIA sales with Porsche sales. It's tough to apply any of the same rationals - it's apples and oranges, though more like apples and dishwashers. ARCA level costs, initiatives, motivations, goals and politics are almost completely different than Cup series stuff. Same is true with Truck, and even Xfinity to a lesser extent. So many Truck sponsorships come from team & manufacturer support/relationships/B to B initiatives as a way to appease (give back) to a rather large purchaser. Look at KBM's biggest sponsors: JBL Audio, Safelite Autoglass, Sirius XM, etc. What do all three of them have in common? HINT: walk into a Toyota dealership and look at some of the logos associated with the car you might be buying.
Click to expand...
Tosu97 said:
Lowering the costs would go a long way to help bring more teams to nascar but is that even possible?
Click to expand...
Allenbaba said:
Yes, it's absolutely possible. Many teams are. There's no set cost, or rules on spending. It's whatever a team wants to spend vs whatever they want to charge to offset the spend. Since many teams have been forced to charge less, they're now spending less.
Click to expand...

I always thought that instead of putting a cap on what teams could spend, that it would be a better idea to cap how much a team can take in from a sponsor. If you put everyone on the same playing field on sponsorship money then it could bring it more sponsors to the game. Knowing that a team could only accept say $10 to $15 million a year from sponsors per car then that might free up sponsors for other teams. Also potential sponsors now know what the asking price to enter the sport could be. You want to join Nascar? Well the price to sponsor team A is the exact same as team B or C. This will also put teams on the same playing field on what they could spend, that is unless the owner wants to kick in money from their end, they will have the same amount as other teams from their sponsors.
 
Jeffrey00 said:
I always thought that instead of putting a cap on what teams could spend, that it would be a better idea to cap how much a team can take in from a sponsor. If you put everyone on the same playing field on sponsorship money then it could bring it more sponsors to the game. Knowing that a team could only accept say $10 to $15 million a year from sponsors per car then that might free up sponsors for other teams. Also potential sponsors now know what the asking price to enter the sport could be. You want to join Nascar? Well the price to sponsor team A is the exact same as team B or C. This will also put teams on the same playing field on what they could spend, that is unless the owner wants to kick in money from their end, they will have the same amount as other teams from their sponsors.
Click to expand...
That would seem impossible to enforce. $$$ would still be coming in from all kinds of different directions. The "rich" would still be rich, I assure you. Manufacturers R&D would find loopholes as well. Plus, it's a free market, people able to get $$ get $$, and those that can't don't. That's the business model.

At that point, if you're going to cap sponsor $$, then why have any at all? Just level the playing field as a sanctioning body. Just have NASCAR prepare each and every car themselves so that they're all the same. Each driver shows up to the track, gets in their numbered car and hopes to God their car wasn't prepared by Clancy this week, since everyone knows he's the worst engineer in the NASCAR stable, and most likely on meth.
 
Allenbaba said:
That would seem impossible to enforce. $$$ would still be coming in from all kinds of different directions. The "rich" would still be rich, I assure you. Manufacturers R&D would find loopholes as well. Plus, it's a free market, people able to get $$ get $$, and those that can't don't. That's the business model.

At that point, if you're going to cap sponsor $$, then why have any at all? Just level the playing field as a sanctioning body. Just have NASCAR prepare each and every car themselves so that they're all the same. Each driver shows up to the track, gets in their numbered car and hopes to God their car wasn't prepared by Clancy this week, since everyone knows he's the worst engineer in the NASCAR stable, and most likely on meth.
Click to expand...


Not sure how capping sponsorship $$$ equals IROC. But hey let the teams to continue to price themselves out of the sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom