Race Team Alliance Appreciation Thread

virtualbalboa said:
OK, well, let me know when someone from the RTA goes out to say "Hamlin is wrong" since if he is, then he's torpedoing their negotiations.
Click to expand...
Thanks @virtualbalboa for citing those sources. I believe everything is in okay with these negotiations. Reportedly team owners want 50% of the new tv deal revenue. That’s a huge reshuffle and major cut for track owners. Anyone think NASCAR is willing to do something like that AND leave charters as solely owned by the race teams? I don’t.

Perhaps they can find a way to move toward other models to increase revenue sharing but allowing NASCAR to retain a significant percentage of the value of a charter. With charters valued at $40M +, nobody is going to throw them away. NASCAR is the governing body. They made a mistake by not establishing rules and compensation back to them for charter sales or leasing. They were granted with no fee. Is it fair for owners to have 100% ownership, or should there be a 50-50 split? Perhaps these are some of the internal discussions going on, or maybe not, since NASCAR isn’t having meetings with the RTA now.
 
NASCAR is the only major sports sanctioning body that grants franchises where the franchise owners don't have any real say over leadership. In other sports, the owners basically employ a commissioner. The scales are tipped heavily in NASCAR's favor already. Even with a fairer revenue split, the owners still have no real power over the sanctioning body's decision making.

Let's not forget that NASCAR takes a lion's share of the revenue (since they own a lot of the tracks) AND they poach sponsors from the teams. It should be a rule that you have to be a team's major sponsor in order to be an official partner of NASCAR.
 
The Nature Boy said:
NASCAR is the only major sports sanctioning body that grants franchises where the franchise owners don't have any real say over leadership. In other sports, the owners basically employ a commissioner. The scales are tipped heavily in NASCAR's favor already. Even with a fairer revenue split, the owners still have no real power over the sanctioning body's decision making.

Let's not forget that NASCAR takes a lion's share of the revenue (since they own a lot of the tracks) AND they poach sponsors from the teams. It should be a rule that you have to be a team's major sponsor in order to be an official partner of NASCAR.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges comparing to stick and ball.
 
RayinTX said:
Sure is...go ahead and answer the question...because the answer is none...are you ever correct about anything?
Click to expand...
This is reading above a 6th grade level, move your lips to sound out the words. From wick-ah-pedia:

The NFL forbids corporations, religious groups, governments, and non-profit organizations from owning stakes in teams.[38] The NFL requires a controlling owner to hold at minimum a 30% stake in the team and forbids ownership groups of over 24 people, or any publicly traded corporations from purchasing NFL teams; one team, the Green Bay Packers, is exempt from this under a grandfather clause and is owned by shareholders. The Houston Texans are also grandfathered in for their home county–the Harris County, Texas government–which owns 5% of the team, as the rule forbidding governments from owning a team became effective in 2007. The NFL's constitution also forbids its owners from owning any other professional football teams, although an exception was made for teams from the now-defunct Arena Football League located in the NFL team's home market. In addition, the controlling owners of NFL teams were previously only permitted to own major league baseball, basketball and hockey teams if they were in the NFL team's home market, or were not located in other NFL cities.[39]
 
StandOnIt said:
Google is your friend.
Click to expand...
Teams being publicly owned is literally forbidden for basically every league, and the leagues themselves are collaboratively operated by the teams. The Green Bay Packers are the sole exception and they got grandfathered in. The only publicly owned league I can think of anywhere in the entire world is Euroleague (Basketball) and that's spurious.
 
StandOnIt said:
This is reading above a 6th grade level, move your lips to sound out the words. From wick-ah-pedia:

The NFL forbids corporations, religious groups, governments, and non-profit organizations from owning stakes in teams.[38] The NFL requires a controlling owner to hold at minimum a 30% stake in the team and forbids ownership groups of over 24 people, or any publicly traded corporations from purchasing NFL teams; one team, the Green Bay Packers, is exempt from this under a grandfather clause and is owned by shareholders. The Houston Texans are also grandfathered in for their home county–the Harris County, Texas government–which owns 5% of the team, as the rule forbidding governments from owning a team became effective in 2007. The NFL's constitution also forbids its owners from owning any other professional football teams, although an exception was made for teams from the now-defunct Arena Football League located in the NFL team's home market. In addition, the controlling owners of NFL teams were previously only permitted to own major league baseball, basketball and hockey teams if they were in the NFL team's home market, or were not located in other NFL cities.[39]
Click to expand...
You said leagues, not teams...but go ahead , keep moving the goal posts. ZERO LEAGUES ARE BEHOLDEN TO STOCKHOLDERS. You are such a dumbass its kinda sad. And just like the other clown, to ignore you go. I should have stuck with that weeks ago.
 
RayinTX said:
You said leagues, not teams...but go ahead , keep moving the goal posts. ZERO LEAGUES ARE BEHOLDEN TO STOCKHOLDERS. You are such a dumbass its kinda sad.
Click to expand...
You can't read aparently. I said stockholders. Do you know what those are? Again Google is your friend.

The point is that you missed is that Nascar (France Family) can make any changes they want. When you have others to consider, and you do in pro sports, it isn't that easy.

Apples and oranges.
 
StandOnIt said:
You can't read aparently. I said stockholders. Do you know what those are? Again Google is your friend.

The point is that you missed is that Nascar (France Family) can make any changes they want. When you have others to consider, and you do in pro sports, it isn't that easy.
Click to expand...
NASCAR/ISC/whatever almost certainly has stock too as a corporation, except it is all privately held.
 
StandOnIt said:
Brian probably still has some.
Click to expand...
Right. So in other words, there isn't anything practically different in terms of "stock holders" between NASCAR and team owners in any stick and ball league from a legal perspective.
 
RayinTX said:
NASCAR is a privately owned company. Zero stock, zero stockholders. ISC is owned by NASCAR, not stockholders.
Click to expand...
eh, it is common practice to have stock in a privately held company. Easier to book keep and divvy up profits and losses. Who knos for sure if that is so though. They could use percentages. So in so gets this much percentage. One of my X's family companies did it that way. They had shares $$ of the company and they added by percentage. :idunno:
 
StandOnIt said:
Except they have a higher power. ;)
Click to expand...
The higher power in a stick and ball league is a higher power the teams themselves appoint. That's why it is a "league".

Regardless, the intention of the teams is clearly to make it more like a "league" with NASCAR acting as a promoter in concert with them for decision making. I get that NASCAR doesn't like that or want that. What they (NASCAR) want or even what they have managed to keep in the past (blahblah1969blahblah) doesn't change the equation for either side.
 
virtualbalboa said:
The higher power in a stick and ball league is a higher power the teams themselves appoint. That's why it is a "league".

Regardless, the intention of the teams is clearly to make it more like a "league" with NASCAR acting as a promoter in concert with them for decision making. I get that NASCAR doesn't like that or want that. What they (NASCAR) want or even what they have managed to keep in the past (blahblah1969blahblah) doesn't change the equation for either side.
Click to expand...
Doesn't appear to be similar to me.
 
StandOnIt said:
Doesn't appear to be similar to me.
Click to expand...
As far as structure? No, at present it is not. What the present arrangement is also happens to be something that the teams want to change, and they have significantly more leverage today than ever before. It's why the RTA even exists in the first place when it didn't previously in recent memory.
 
virtualbalboa said:
As far as structure? No, at present it is not. What the present arrangement is also happens to be something that the teams want to change, and they have significantly more leverage today than ever before. It's why the RTA even exists in the first place when it didn't previously in recent memory.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion. They aren't electing anybody to rule over the series....Hamlin? lol.
 
StandOnIt said:
That is your opinion. They aren't electing anybody to rule over the series....Hamlin? lol.
Click to expand...
That isn't an opinion. The development and establishment of the RTA being recent is incontrovertible fact. The purpose it represents is also. They aren't electing anyone to rule over the series nor are they expecting to. What do you think the RTA exists to do if not stand for the team owners in negotiations with NASCAR?
 
To me the team owners position is almost comical. They want to make a profit and instead of spending less money they want more money to be awarded to them. The way franchises work in every other major sport is because teams have a spending cap. If they want to make a profit then quit spending $20 million plus a year to run a team. It doesn't matter how much more money they are given in this next deal they will still spend it all and complain they're not making any profit.

If they didn't have a war room full of engineers and spend tons on Sim and CFD teams would easily turn a profit. Nascar has saved them money with short weekends and limited practice and all they've done is taken the money they saved from that and pour it into something else......
 
wi_racefan said:
To me the team owners position is almost comical. They want to make a profit and instead of spending less money they want more money to be awarded to them. The way franchises work in every other major sport is because teams have a spending cap. If they want to make a profit then quit spending $20 million plus a year to run a team. It doesn't matter how much more money they are given in this next deal they will still spend it all and complain they're not making any profit.

If they didn't have a war room full of engineers and spend tons on Sim and CFD teams would easily turn a profit. Nascar has saved them money with short weekends and limited practice and all they've done is taken the money they saved from that and pour it into something else......
Click to expand...
There's no salary cap in MLB; the NBA has a luxury tax for teams that exceed the salary cap. And most leagues make a profit because they have revenue sharing of media rights, not because they cap their salary expenses. NASCAR basically gets the benefits of being a team owner (tax breaks on their physical plant + media revenue) without needing to do any of the sharing other sports do. Their ideal, as reported in the past, was to not have revenue sharing at all beyond purse money.
 
popcorn.png
 
wi_racefan said:
To me the team owners position is almost comical. They want to make a profit and instead of spending less money they want more money to be awarded to them. The way franchises work in every other major sport is because teams have a spending cap. If they want to make a profit then quit spending $20 million plus a year to run a team. It doesn't matter how much more money they are given in this next deal they will still spend it all and complain they're not making any profit.

If they didn't have a war room full of engineers and spend tons on Sim and CFD teams would easily turn a profit. Nascar has saved them money with short weekends and limited practice and all they've done is taken the money they saved from that and pour it into something else......
Click to expand...
Yep, I have no sympathy either.
 
Everyone knows owning a race team is a great way to lose money. At least the charter gives them some assurance of recouping some of their losses on the backend. If NASCAR pulls the charters, the game is over. Not even Bill France Sr. would have had the balls to do that.
 
JimmyJ4UK said:
Everyone knows owning a race team is a great way to lose money. At least the charter gives them some assurance of recouping some of their losses on the backend. If NASCAR pulls the charters, the game is over. Not even Bill France Sr. would have had the balls to do that.
Click to expand...
In fairness, again, NASCAR has clearly come back to the negotiating table with what they perceive as a move towards reconciliation based on the links I posted earlier in thread (that the charters would be extended through the new media deal). That's not a sufficient response for the teams based on the obvious fact that there is no signed agreement between RTA and NASCAR and they're publicly discussing the fact that they need more.
 
Was listening to good ol Dennis on action detrimental and he said the RTA is pushing for enough of the share that it would cover all their expenses without the need for sponsorship. Give me the moon!

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
wi_racefan said:
Was listening to good ol Dennis on action detrimental and he said the RTA is pushing for enough of the share that it would cover all their expenses without the need for sponsorship. Give me the moon!

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
When shut up Hambone can pull in 12 million or more ratings a race they will talk lol.
 
The problem with spending less money is that no team wants to be the first to do so as it could possibly mean the end of them being competitive. Let's say Penske decides to cut spending by 20% and no one else does. What do they end up sacrificing that no other team is?
 
Hendrick4ever said:
The problem with spending less money is that no team wants to be the first to do so as it could possibly mean the end of them being competitive. Let's say Penske decides to cut spending by 20% and no one else does. What do they end up sacrificing that no other team is?
Click to expand...
Maybe the RTA, which was organized by the owners themselves, should address this themselves.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
wi_racefan said:
Was listening to good ol Dennis on action detrimental and he said the RTA is pushing for enough of the share that it would cover all their expenses without the need for sponsorship. Give me the moon!

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If he actually meant that, which we are told Denny can’t NOT spit out his actual stream of consciousness, then he’s a bigger idiot than I suspected. Complete narcissist.
 
wi_racefan said:
Maybe the RTA, which was organized by the owners themselves, should address this themselves.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Nascar has more than done it's part to reduce expenses. They spent a lot of money and time doing that and working with RTA to do it.
 
wi_racefan said:
Was listening to good ol Dennis on action detrimental and he said the RTA is pushing for enough of the share that it would cover all their expenses without the need for sponsorship. Give me the moon!
Click to expand...
And a goose that lays golden eggs, and an Oompa-Loompa, and a chocolate river! Now, Daddy, NOŴ!
 
wi_racefan said:
Maybe the RTA, which was organized by the owners themselves, should address this themselves.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The easier thing from their perspective is to increase the percentage of the TV rights they receive. Which, honestly, I don't see why they shouldn't seek that. They get a very low percentage. There's nothing morally correct about NASCAR and SMI getting to keep the majority of the money.
 
virtualbalboa said:
The easier thing from their perspective is to increase the percentage of the TV rights they receive. Which, honestly, I don't see why they shouldn't seek that. They get a very low percentage. There's nothing morally correct about NASCAR and SMI getting to keep the majority of the money.
Click to expand...
Turns out racetracks are very expensive to own and operate......

If tracks are such a cash cow then why do no current team owners operate any cup level tracks? Except RP, which is a completely different situation

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom