N
Nascar24rainbow
Guest
New Hampshire International Speedway has made a five year agreement with Sylvania to sponsor the fall race at New Hampshire. The race will now be know as the Sylvania 300 and will be on Sept. 14, 2003.
J
j ozzman 5000
Guest
i wonder if they'll get lights installed then
Sounds like the plan to me.
N
Nascar24rainbow
Guest
The last I heard New Hampshire International Speedway made a deal to limit racing to only daylight hours because of noise concerns.
P
PettyBenson
Guest
Thats cool. I like the logo kinda old fashioned!
M
Mopardh9
Guest
I think they will quickly change the day time rule and have lights installed soon, especially due to the fact that they could be in danger of losing a date.
B
boB
Guest
First thing: In order to build NHIS, Bob Bahre made an agreement with the town of Loudon that there would be NO night racing at the facility. So far, he has not approached the town officials with any plans of installing lights or running night races at his track.
Perhaps at some future time, but not right away.
Second item: As long as NHIS has a waiting list for tickets to both of its events, I don't believe there's much danger of them losing a date.
There are too many other tracks with two dates which are not sell-outs and are located within a limited geographical and marketing area for NASCAR to pull a date from NHIS.
I think you'll see SMI losing dates before it happens to Bob and his track.
Much has been made about the lawsuit re: a second date for TMS and NASCAR being a monopoly.
NASCAR has only once in its entire history promised a date to a track before it was constructed and that was to Penske and the track in Fontana. They agreed to grant a date because they wanted desperately to return to that market area.
How can a SMI stockholder go into court claiming NASCAR is a monopoly when they already host other events at the track; in fact they have signed an agreement to host two TRAC events at each of the SMI tracks as soon as that sanction becomes a reality.
Sort of blew their argument right out of the water with that deal.
That and the fact that there are several other stockcar series running all around the country which are not affiliated with NASCAR.
As the head of a publicly held company, it is Mr. Smith's obligation to his stockholders to move dates from tracks which are not sell-out events to tracks which not only sell out, but which sell out to twice the number of fans; i.e. Atlanta sells 60,000 seats, TMS sells 160,000 plus.
As the head of SMI it is completely irresponsible for Smith to NOT move a date from the Atlanta track to Texas. Or the fall show from Charlotte, which is never a sell out, to Las Vegas, which wants second date, see if that track will sell out.
While tradition should be considered, it should not be allowed to override plain old fashioned common business sense. But then again....
And in the end, the object of all this madness is merely to make as much money as feasible in as short a period of time as possible.
Who knows? The end of the world may occur tomorrow and everyone knows that the richest man wins.
I guess I don't have to worry about that.
Perhaps at some future time, but not right away.
Second item: As long as NHIS has a waiting list for tickets to both of its events, I don't believe there's much danger of them losing a date.
There are too many other tracks with two dates which are not sell-outs and are located within a limited geographical and marketing area for NASCAR to pull a date from NHIS.
I think you'll see SMI losing dates before it happens to Bob and his track.
Much has been made about the lawsuit re: a second date for TMS and NASCAR being a monopoly.
NASCAR has only once in its entire history promised a date to a track before it was constructed and that was to Penske and the track in Fontana. They agreed to grant a date because they wanted desperately to return to that market area.
How can a SMI stockholder go into court claiming NASCAR is a monopoly when they already host other events at the track; in fact they have signed an agreement to host two TRAC events at each of the SMI tracks as soon as that sanction becomes a reality.
Sort of blew their argument right out of the water with that deal.
That and the fact that there are several other stockcar series running all around the country which are not affiliated with NASCAR.
As the head of a publicly held company, it is Mr. Smith's obligation to his stockholders to move dates from tracks which are not sell-out events to tracks which not only sell out, but which sell out to twice the number of fans; i.e. Atlanta sells 60,000 seats, TMS sells 160,000 plus.
As the head of SMI it is completely irresponsible for Smith to NOT move a date from the Atlanta track to Texas. Or the fall show from Charlotte, which is never a sell out, to Las Vegas, which wants second date, see if that track will sell out.
While tradition should be considered, it should not be allowed to override plain old fashioned common business sense. But then again....
And in the end, the object of all this madness is merely to make as much money as feasible in as short a period of time as possible.
Who knows? The end of the world may occur tomorrow and everyone knows that the richest man wins.
I guess I don't have to worry about that.