Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Race Team Alliance
16 views
Skip to first unread message
John McCoy
Jul 9, 2014, 10:30:02 AM7/9/14
to
So what do we think of this?
On the one hand, it seems a good idea - NASCAR currently makes
their decisions based almost entirely on what the track owners
want (i.e. what's good for France/ISC and Smith/SMI), and if
the team owners present a united front it could force NASCAR to
make decisions which benefit the teams.
On the other hand, team owner groups don't have a good history.
The association of Indycar owners that became CART took that
series down a wrong turn (which was then compounded by the
formation of the IRL as an attempt to fix things). And FOCA's
main accomplishment was to give Ecclestone a means to take
over F1, while FOTA never achieved anything. And it may be
noteworthy that Penske and Ganassi (two of the CART founders)
are rumored to be the real movers and shakers behind the RTA.
It does seem pretty clear that what the RTA has announced as
it's initial goals (getting better joint rates for insurance,
401k administration, etc, by negotiating as a group) is not
their main purpose.
John
On the one hand, it seems a good idea - NASCAR currently makes
their decisions based almost entirely on what the track owners
want (i.e. what's good for France/ISC and Smith/SMI), and if
the team owners present a united front it could force NASCAR to
make decisions which benefit the teams.
On the other hand, team owner groups don't have a good history.
The association of Indycar owners that became CART took that
series down a wrong turn (which was then compounded by the
formation of the IRL as an attempt to fix things). And FOCA's
main accomplishment was to give Ecclestone a means to take
over F1, while FOTA never achieved anything. And it may be
noteworthy that Penske and Ganassi (two of the CART founders)
are rumored to be the real movers and shakers behind the RTA.
It does seem pretty clear that what the RTA has announced as
it's initial goals (getting better joint rates for insurance,
401k administration, etc, by negotiating as a group) is not
their main purpose.
John
bob.p...@gmail.com
Jul 9, 2014, 4:10:02 PM7/9/14
to
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 10:30:02 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
> So what do we think of this?
>
>
> On the one hand, it seems a good idea - NASCAR currently makes
> their decisions based almost entirely on what the track owners
> want (i.e. what's good for France/ISC and Smith/SMI), and if
> the team owners present a united front it could force NASCAR to
> make decisions which benefit the teams.
I'm thinking that the teams obviously want something changed or there would
> So what do we think of this?
>
>
> On the one hand, it seems a good idea - NASCAR currently makes
> their decisions based almost entirely on what the track owners
> want (i.e. what's good for France/ISC and Smith/SMI), and if
> the team owners present a united front it could force NASCAR to
> make decisions which benefit the teams.
be no reason to in effect unionize. I'm also thinking that past efforts
along these lines weren't too successful. Trying to unionize the drivers
got Curtis Turner banned and Richard Petty's PDA didn't last long either.
The owners may have a bit more clout, but NASCAR has never shown much of a
willingness to bend for anybody. Let's just hope that everyone remembers the
lessons of the CART/IRL debacle and the stock car world doesn't repeat
those mistakes.
John McCoy
Jul 9, 2014, 9:10:03 PM7/9/14
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:ccce3676-d137-4d95...@googlegroups.com:
> Trying to unionize
> the drivers got Curtis Turner banned and Richard Petty's PDA didn't
> last long either.
>
> The owners may have a bit more clout, but NASCAR has never shown much
> of a willingness to bend for anybody.
What's different now is that there are very few owners. Turner
was trying back when NASCAR was starting 60 or 70 cars at some
tracks, and even when Petty tried the PDA it was easy to find
dozens of guys with NASCAR legal cars.
Today, the RTA owners represent 26 cars (Hendrick 4, Stewart 4,
Gibbs 3, Childress 3, Roush 3, Waltrip 3, Penske 2, Petty 2, and
Ganassi 2). You take those 26 cars away, and there simply aren't
another 26 cars available. Even if none of the other teams joined
the RTA, and even if NASCAR paid all the start-n-parkers from
the last couple of years to drag their cars out and stuff crate
motors(*) in them, NASCAR couldn't field as many as 30 cars.
> Let's just hope that everyone
> remembers the lessons of the CART/IRL debacle and the stock car world
> doesn't repeat those mistakes.
I don't think there's any risk of an IRL type situation - ISC
and SMI control all the tracks, so there won't be a parallel
series. The bigger risk is the owners getting all the power,
and then we've just switched one problem for a different one.
John
(* remember, essentially all Cup motors come from either HMS,
RCR, Roush-Yates, or JGR-TRD).
news:ccce3676-d137-4d95...@googlegroups.com:
> Trying to unionize
> the drivers got Curtis Turner banned and Richard Petty's PDA didn't
> last long either.
>
> The owners may have a bit more clout, but NASCAR has never shown much
> of a willingness to bend for anybody.
was trying back when NASCAR was starting 60 or 70 cars at some
tracks, and even when Petty tried the PDA it was easy to find
dozens of guys with NASCAR legal cars.
Today, the RTA owners represent 26 cars (Hendrick 4, Stewart 4,
Gibbs 3, Childress 3, Roush 3, Waltrip 3, Penske 2, Petty 2, and
Ganassi 2). You take those 26 cars away, and there simply aren't
another 26 cars available. Even if none of the other teams joined
the RTA, and even if NASCAR paid all the start-n-parkers from
the last couple of years to drag their cars out and stuff crate
motors(*) in them, NASCAR couldn't field as many as 30 cars.
> Let's just hope that everyone
> remembers the lessons of the CART/IRL debacle and the stock car world
> doesn't repeat those mistakes.
and SMI control all the tracks, so there won't be a parallel
series. The bigger risk is the owners getting all the power,
and then we've just switched one problem for a different one.
John
(* remember, essentially all Cup motors come from either HMS,
RCR, Roush-Yates, or JGR-TRD).
bob.p...@gmail.com
Jul 13, 2014, 9:40:02 AM7/13/14
to
I see that Bruton Smith sees absolutely nothing positive in the RTA. Guess
that's not a huge surprise since the teams seem to feel that NASCAR favors the
track owners over them. You'd think that track owners and team owners would
realize they need each other and not start drawing battle lines.....
that's not a huge surprise since the teams seem to feel that NASCAR favors the
track owners over them. You'd think that track owners and team owners would
realize they need each other and not start drawing battle lines.....
John McCoy
Jul 13, 2014, 11:20:02 AM7/13/14
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:e87dae8e-0383-4271...@googlegroups.com:
Yeah, I saw that too. I think the thing is, Smith and France
reached a detente years ago, and effectively decided to divide
the world of NASCAR tracks between them (you'll note that the
only tracks not controlled by either France or Smith are Dover,
Pocono, and Indy; and that whenever "lose a date" comes up in
NASCAR's discussions it's always Dover or Pocono that are
mentioned).
So the status quo is that France and Smith control everything,
and get almost all the money. They obviously have no incentive
to change anything, and every incentive to resist any efforts
to make changes.
The team owners, on the other hand, have essentially no control
of anything, have to foot the costs of any changes NASCAR decides
to make, and get a relatively small share of the money. So they
have many incentives for change, and only one disincentive, which
is the possibility of the sport substantially declining (ala the
eventual collapse of open wheel after CART's formation).
The current setup doesn't really lend itself to a "you need me,
and I need you, so let's both sacrifice for the common good"
sort of response.
John
news:e87dae8e-0383-4271...@googlegroups.com:
reached a detente years ago, and effectively decided to divide
the world of NASCAR tracks between them (you'll note that the
only tracks not controlled by either France or Smith are Dover,
Pocono, and Indy; and that whenever "lose a date" comes up in
NASCAR's discussions it's always Dover or Pocono that are
mentioned).
So the status quo is that France and Smith control everything,
and get almost all the money. They obviously have no incentive
to change anything, and every incentive to resist any efforts
to make changes.
The team owners, on the other hand, have essentially no control
of anything, have to foot the costs of any changes NASCAR decides
to make, and get a relatively small share of the money. So they
have many incentives for change, and only one disincentive, which
is the possibility of the sport substantially declining (ala the
eventual collapse of open wheel after CART's formation).
The current setup doesn't really lend itself to a "you need me,
and I need you, so let's both sacrifice for the common good"
sort of response.
John
bob.p...@gmail.com
Jul 22, 2014, 10:00:03 AM7/22/14
to
On Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:20:02 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
>
> The current setup doesn't really lend itself to a "you need me,
> and I need you, so let's both sacrifice for the common good"
> sort of response.
Looks like you're right. Brian France has basically given the RTA the middle
>
> The current setup doesn't really lend itself to a "you need me,
> and I need you, so let's both sacrifice for the common good"
> sort of response.
finger saying he's not going to talk to the teams as an organization. He's
going to continue to do "business as usual". Translation: I'm going to keep
on doing whatever the hell I want and if you don't like it, tough toenails.
0 new messages