The Rock has been bought

Snappy D said:
Also I am very surprised since I don’t know much about the business side of racing the property only sold for 2.9 Million. Wouldn’t you be able to make money on the investment pretty easily if you could get a Cup race back as well as maybe two Xfinity, a truck race and ARCA? Is the place in that bad a shape? Sorry I don’t know how the process works, I can’t speak intelligently on it
Click to expand...
You would make a hell of a lot more if you built houses or condos on the property.
 
TexasRaceLady said:
I don't live in the past. I miss racing at the The Rock simply because it required a whole different sets of skills and was a unique track.
Click to expand...
Yep. It was a great run while it lasted. The racing itself didn't play a part in the Rock going under; it was purely economics.

As to a revival, call me when they're accepting orders for tickets. Until then, I've breathed in, breathed out, and moved on.
 
Formerjackman said:
I don't disagree with you about the Rock, but I have always found a certain value in repeatedly telling someone what a huge mistake they made until they are forced to come to terms with it. Also, if I'm doing something that worked very well and then suddenly it doesn't, the first thing I do is go back and look at what I was doing when it DID work. thus, talking about Rockingham serves two purposes in my mind.
Click to expand...
Do you think anyone who could benefit from those lessons browses this forum? If they are, you still can't fix stupid.
 
Towmater said:
Nobody here can effect the changing/retirement of drivers. Yet, the discussions rage on and on when it happens. I don't think Joe Gibbs cares who doesn't like or like what he's currently rumored to be doing. Yet, the discussions rage on. I'm at a loss why we should balk at a subject because we, as fans, can't affect it or why that should be a consideration. The forum would be pretty dead if that was the case.
Click to expand...
I come to this forum for the purpose of reading posters (not all) views on different matters concerning Nascar. I haven't really enjoyed the events as much in the past as I thought drivers were not racing until the end. Now with the Stages IMO it has improved. I still would like to see more shorter tracks being used AND limit the cars to the extent that the teams need not spend as much for the cars. This would allow for less sponsor money needed and more security for small team owners.
 
Spotter22 said:
I'd love to hear how NASCAR is too blame.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd like to hear how NASCAR is responsible too. Looked to me like an ISC deal made possible by poor attendance (prime among reasons Penske sold the track), with the attendance problems made possible mostly by the questionable 'traditional' race dates and an isolated location.
 
lisa said:
Well ****.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of misconceptions of why Rockingham was taken off the schedule. Reality is, the family that owned it screwed things up. When it was too run down and attendance had dropped enough, they sold it to Penske, (I think). When ISC bought out Penske tracks, they needed to add dates to those tracks, because one Cup date basically pays the bills and the second is sweet profit. When ISC sold the Rock to SMI (peas in a pod), SMI signed an agreement not to host NASCAR races at the track as long as they owned it.

The Rock never was coming back because adding tracks means single dates, and that cuts into track profits,. Lesa ain't having that.
 
FenderBumper said:
When it was too run down and attendance had dropped enough, they sold it to Penske, (I think).
Click to expand...
Yes, Penske. I remember hoping that would be a good thing, that Penske wasn't a chicken outfit and that they'd upgrade the facilities. They put up that monster grandstand on the back and not long after, for whatever reasons, the boom ... busted.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Yeah, I'd like to hear how NASCAR is responsible too. Looked to me like an ISC deal made possible by poor attendance (prime among reasons Penske sold the track), with the attendance problems made possible mostly by the questionable 'traditional' race dates and an isolated location.
Click to expand...
NASCAR could of saved it, they chose to let it die, an unique track will get torn down soon just like NW....same scenario.
 
BobbyFord said:
Get ready for a mini mall.
FWIW pet rocks are still available online.
Click to expand...

Yup, the property will generate more $ as a mall for the developer / mall owner and more tax $ for the local city/town. Riverside park was a great track, it's the property 6 Flags in Mass is on. I anticipate when the matriarch of the clan running Seekonk goes the track will go soon after.
I hope Waterford's problems are all behind them as that's a great track.
 
Bobw said:
Yup, the property will generate more $ as a mall for the developer / mall owner and more tax $ for the local city/town. Riverside park was a great track, it's the property 6 Flags in Mass is on. I anticipate when the matriarch of the clan running Seekonk goes the track will go soon after.
I hope Waterford's problems are all behind them as that's a great track.
Click to expand...
I heard Waterford is getting their NASCAR sanction back for next season, agreed that is a good track.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Yes, Penske. I remember hoping that would be a good thing, that Penske wasn't a chicken outfit and that they'd upgrade the facilities. They put up that monster grandstand on the back and not long after, for whatever reasons, the boom ... busted.
Click to expand...

Seems like ISC wouldn't give Roger many race dates at his tracks. Once ISC bought those tracks, they started getting more Cup races.
 
FenderBumper said:
Seems like ISC wouldn't give Roger many race dates at his tracks. Once ISC bought those tracks, they started getting more Cup races.
Click to expand...
I recall Penske only having three tracks (Cali, Michigan, Rock), and at the time they all had two dates. I could be incorrect again; I'm used to it.
 
FenderBumper said:
There are a lot of misconceptions of why Rockingham was taken off the schedule. Reality is, the family that owned it screwed things up. When it was too run down and attendance had dropped enough, they sold it to Penske, (I think). When ISC bought out Penske tracks, they needed to add dates to those tracks, because one Cup date basically pays the bills and the second is sweet profit. When ISC sold the Rock to SMI (peas in a pod), SMI signed an agreement not to host NASCAR races at the track as long as they owned it.

The Rock never was coming back because adding tracks means single dates, and that cuts into track profits,. Lesa ain't having that.
Click to expand...

I always thought The Rock's problem was that it was out in the middle of nowhere and the logistics of hosting a NASCAR weekend in the nearest town (a small town at that) would've been a nightmare.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
NASCAR didn't own it, so I'm not sure how it could have saved it. Moving the race dates wasn't its choice to make; it can't force track owners to apply for race dates.
Click to expand...

ISC and NASCAR are owned and run by the France family. ISC bought the track in '99, and they moved the dates to other ISC tracks.

(Gee, I hope I'm right this time. :) )
 
SpeedPagan said:
I always thought The Rock's problem was that it was out in the middle of nowhere and the logistics of hosting a NASCAR weekend in the nearest town (a small town at that) would've been a nightmare.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the prevailing opinion as to why attendance dropped, but the track was in the same spot while it was selling more tickets in previous years.

This is the era where nascar tracks were adding seats. Perhaps they felt the Rock would never draw as big a crowd as a 1.5 in a better location.
 
StandOnIt said:
well the guys that bought the property aren't saying hey we are going to revive the track. That usually isn't good news when they don't say squat.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I've seen a number of local tracks be for sale and the ones that get demolished are the ones where new owners don't say much or say anything at all.
 
FenderBumper said:
ISC and NASCAR are owned and run by the France family.
Click to expand...
You're correct, but that doesn't mean the organizations are one and the same. ISC certainly could have taken more actions to save Rockingham (assuming it was interested in doing so), but ISC and NASCAR aren't interchangeable terms.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
You're correct, but that doesn't mean the organizations are one and the same. ISC certainly could have taken more actions to save Rockingham (assuming it was interested in doing so), but ISC and NASCAR aren't interchangeable terms.
Click to expand...

The France family have played that separate/together act forever depending which answer suits their desires at any given time. The company I work for does the exact same thing with their various subsidiaries and frankly, it's all a bunch of BS for the people gullible enough to swallow it. If you can tell me the last time "NASCAR" wanted something and "ISC" said no, then I'll change my tune. The only difference now is that since ISC is a publically traded company, they have to be a LOT more transparent in their business dealings than NASCAR has to be, which was a fatal mistake on their part in my opinion. Absolute control is always better than getting the absolute last dollar in my book.
 
Formerjackman said:
The France family have played that separate/together act forever depending which answer suits their desires at any given time. The company I work for does the exact same thing with their various subsidiaries and frankly, it's all a bunch of BS for the people gullible enough to swallow it. If you can tell me the last time "NASCAR" wanted something and "ISC" said no, then I'll change my tune. The only difference now is that since ISC is a publically traded company, they have to be a LOT more transparent in their business dealings than NASCAR has to be, which was a fatal mistake on their part in my opinion. Absolute control is always better than getting the absolute last dollar in my book.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can be a stickler for accuracy. On the other hand, it's just as easy to point the finger at ISC, where it more accurately belongs; easier, actually, since it's fewer letters to type :D
 
Formerjackman said:
The France family have played that separate/together act forever depending which answer suits their desires at any given time. The company I work for does the exact same thing with their various subsidiaries and frankly, it's all a bunch of BS for the people gullible enough to swallow it. If you can tell me the last time "NASCAR" wanted something and "ISC" said no, then I'll change my tune. The only difference now is that since ISC is a publically traded company, they have to be a LOT more transparent in their business dealings than NASCAR has to be, which was a fatal mistake on their part in my opinion. Absolute control is always better than getting the absolute last dollar in my book.
Click to expand...

The anti-trust dance.
 
Formerjackman said:
I've thought for years that either the France family should own ALL of the tracks, or NONE of the tracks. It would simplify some of this dancing around the fire we get now.
Click to expand...

I think they run into anti-trust problems if they own all the tracks and the series under a single corporation, while forbidding owners and drivers from participating in a competing stock car series. Kez mentioned how this situation (ISC interests vs NASCAR interests) hinders nascars ability to adjust the schedule. He mentioned it once, and Lesa threw a fit and it was silence after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom