The Negativism of the Older NASCAR Fans

[Steve Scott]

Interesting article

http://insiderracingnews.com/MH/052304.html

[Robert R Kircher, Jr.]

Post by Steve Scott
Interesting article
http://insiderracingnews.com/MH/052304.html

Mr. Hines doesn't have a clue as to how old time fans feel.

[Dave Casey]

Post by Robert R Kircher, Jr.

Post by Steve Scott
Interesting article
http://insiderracingnews.com/MH/052304.html

Mr. Hines doesn't have a clue as to how old time fans feel.

I would tend to agree with that statement. Though Mr. Hines has a few
valid points, he misses the mark on a few of the others. Namely the
inference that multi-lane highways getting into the tracks is not
necessary. When it takes longer for me to get in and out of the track
than it does for 43 wild and crazy guys to race 500 miles, something is
wrong and needs to be fixed. And yes, I know that Vegas is one of the
prime examples of this problem. I can look at the layout and see where
they screwed up and could have made it much better for the fans getting
to the track and going home but, they didn't ask me.

He also fails when it comes to talking about the money it costs to go to
a race. Maybe the new fans have money to burn and couldn't care less
about the price on the ticket. I am not one of them. When a ticket
costs upwards of $180 for one day's worth of racing, I'm sorry but,
that's just getting a little too rich for my blood. I have already made
the decision that I have most likely been to my last Cup race at the Las
Vegas Motor Speedway. I can find better things to spend my money on, I
don't have to fight the traffic, I can get a much better view of the
entire race on my big screen television and if I feel the desire to buy
my favorite driver's jacket or t-shirt or hat, there is always eBay.

Yes, I agree with some of the points Mr. Hines make but, as an American
with the God given right to an opinion, I am of the opinion he is off
base with most of his article. I think he should seriously consider
covering sports that he would more qualified to handle such as Pro Beach
Volleyball and Green Jello Wrestling down at BBB&G&BS. That's Billy
Bob's Bar & Grill & Bait Shop.

------
Dave Casey - Realtor
www.LasVegasHomesDirect.com
***@SPAMnetzero.net

[Steve Scott]

I think you missed what seems to me to be his points. First, that the
old time fans are generally complaining that NASCAR is destroying its
roots and not paying attention to the fans when they take races from
tracks such as Rockingham. He wrote, "And only if the weather is
nice, the track is nearby, and we can get in and out easily. Change
the schedule so Rockingham has better weather. Change the weather.
Build a huge multilane highway in and out of Rockingham so fans can
get to the race much easier. Put in Lazy Boy recliners instead of
aluminum bleachers so real fans can enjoy real racing. Build new
tracks according to our specs. Oh, and while you boys from NASCAR are
up; bring me a beer."

The main thrust seems to be that tracks are losing races because the
demand isn't there. "Old time fans" complain about it but the
handwriting was on the wall. If the seats aren't filled the racing is
going elsewhere.

He wasn't implying that LV didn't need multi-lane highways. His
references was to The Rock. The Rock only seats about 60,000 and they
couldn't fill those seats.

I wouldn't say he accurately portrays most older fans but there is a
very vocal segment he does seem to have identified fairly well.


On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:56:12 CST, Dave Casey

Post by Dave Casey

Post by Robert R Kircher, Jr.

Post by Steve Scott
Interesting article
http://insiderracingnews.com/MH/052304.html

Mr. Hines doesn't have a clue as to how old time fans feel.

I would tend to agree with that statement. Though Mr. Hines has a few
valid points, he misses the mark on a few of the others. Namely the
inference that multi-lane highways getting into the tracks is not
necessary. When it takes longer for me to get in and out of the track
than it does for 43 wild and crazy guys to race 500 miles, something is
wrong and needs to be fixed. And yes, I know that Vegas is one of the
prime examples of this problem. I can look at the layout and see where
they screwed up and could have made it much better for the fans getting
to the track and going home but, they didn't ask me.
He also fails when it comes to talking about the money it costs to go to
a race. Maybe the new fans have money to burn and couldn't care less
about the price on the ticket. I am not one of them. When a ticket
costs upwards of $180 for one day's worth of racing, I'm sorry but,
that's just getting a little too rich for my blood. I have already made
the decision that I have most likely been to my last Cup race at the Las
Vegas Motor Speedway. I can find better things to spend my money on, I
don't have to fight the traffic, I can get a much better view of the
entire race on my big screen television and if I feel the desire to buy
my favorite driver's jacket or t-shirt or hat, there is always eBay.
Yes, I agree with some of the points Mr. Hines make but, as an American
with the God given right to an opinion, I am of the opinion he is off
base with most of his article. I think he should seriously consider
covering sports that he would more qualified to handle such as Pro Beach
Volleyball and Green Jello Wrestling down at BBB&G&BS. That's Billy
Bob's Bar & Grill & Bait Shop.
------
Dave Casey - Realtor
www.LasVegasHomesDirect.com

[Cindy Murray]

Steve Scott wrote:

<snipped>

Post by Steve Scott
The main thrust seems to be that tracks are losing races because the
demand isn't there. "Old time fans" complain about it but the
handwriting was on the wall. If the seats aren't filled the racing is
going elsewhere.

Do you think Home Depot pays millions of dollars because 60,000-200,000
fans in the stands will see that orange #20 going around the track 500
times? NO. They pay because they know several MILLION fans will be
watching that car go around from the comfort of their own home. It's
not just the fans that go to races in the deep south who are complaining
- it's the fans who sit at home every Sunday and watch week after week.
It's the fans who spend their money buying sponsors products without
ever having attended a race. Loyal NASCAR fans in California, Las
Vegas, or Canada will still continue to be loyal NASCAR fans and will
watch the sport and buy the products as long as THE RACE IS EXCITING.
When the race becomes boring (like at California or Homestead, etc.),
the fans tune out and the sponsors don't get their money's worth. It
doesn't matter how big the track is or whether it sells out - what
matters is whether people at home are watching, and that's the point
that Mr. Hines just doesn't seem to get. So what if California can sell
out twice a year - it's probably the same 200,000+ people going to both
races. Isn't it better to market your product to MILLIONS?

Post by Steve Scott
He wasn't implying that LV didn't need multi-lane highways. His
references was to The Rock. The Rock only seats about 60,000 and they
couldn't fill those seats.

I didn't see what the ratings were for that race, so I don't know if
they were up or down, but I do know that if they marketed it half as
hard as they market Daytona, Talladega or some of the other high-profile
races, it would more than make up for the lack of revenue due to seating
capacity. And then there's the issue of so many races being stuck on FX
and TNT. Are they even vaguely aware that A LOT of cable companies do
not carry FX (not sure about TNT) except on premium packages?! Even in
large urban areas like Dallas where there are millions of potential viewers!

Post by Steve Scott
I wouldn't say he accurately portrays most older fans but there is a
very vocal segment he does seem to have identified fairly well.

I can't disagree more. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone ask for a
Lazy-Boy instead of an aluminum bleacher! But I'll sit in one if
Bruton's willing to install them! ;)

[REW]

While you are right that the big bang from sponsorship comes from TV, don't
discount the fact that the marketing midway at every Cup race is a big
reason the sponsors pay those bucks. If you're going to send haulers,
simulators, show cars, samples and reps to peddle your wares, would you
rather have a potential audience of 150,000 or 60,000 for a raceday? Any
company that can afford to sponsor a Cup team will pick larger attendance
any day. If they average just over 100,000 per week at all events plus the
all star race and speed weeks, thats 4 million potential live contacts in an
exclusive trade show atmosphere, and that's just for the big show. Throw in
qualifying, Busch, Trucks and you're probably over 7 million people walking
by your display. That's marketing gold. Moving the races to more populous,
affluent markets only gives them better qualified prospects. That's
marketing 101, and it is driving our sport.

Post by Cindy Murray
<snipped>

Post by Steve Scott
The main thrust seems to be that tracks are losing races because the
demand isn't there. "Old time fans" complain about it but the
handwriting was on the wall. If the seats aren't filled the racing is
going elsewhere.

Do you think Home Depot pays millions of dollars because 60,000-200,000
fans in the stands will see that orange #20 going around the track 500
times? NO. They pay because they know several MILLION fans will be
watching that car go around from the comfort of their own home. It's
not just the fans that go to races in the deep south who are complaining
- it's the fans who sit at home every Sunday and watch week after week.
It's the fans who spend their money buying sponsors products without
ever having attended a race. Loyal NASCAR fans in California, Las
Vegas, or Canada will still continue to be loyal NASCAR fans and will
watch the sport and buy the products as long as THE RACE IS EXCITING.
When the race becomes boring (like at California or Homestead, etc.),
the fans tune out and the sponsors don't get their money's worth. It
doesn't matter how big the track is or whether it sells out - what
matters is whether people at home are watching, and that's the point
that Mr. Hines just doesn't seem to get. So what if California can sell
out twice a year - it's probably the same 200,000+ people going to both
races. Isn't it better to market your product to MILLIONS?

Post by Steve Scott
He wasn't implying that LV didn't need multi-lane highways. His
references was to The Rock. The Rock only seats about 60,000 and they
couldn't fill those seats.

I didn't see what the ratings were for that race, so I don't know if
they were up or down, but I do know that if they marketed it half as
hard as they market Daytona, Talladega or some of the other high-profile
races, it would more than make up for the lack of revenue due to seating
capacity. And then there's the issue of so many races being stuck on FX
and TNT. Are they even vaguely aware that A LOT of cable companies do
not carry FX (not sure about TNT) except on premium packages?! Even in
large urban areas like Dallas where there are millions of potential viewers!

Post by Steve Scott
I wouldn't say he accurately portrays most older fans but there is a
very vocal segment he does seem to have identified fairly well.

I can't disagree more. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone ask for a
Lazy-Boy instead of an aluminum bleacher! But I'll sit in one if
Bruton's willing to install them! ;)

[Steve Scott]

Post by Cindy Murray
<snipped>

Post by Steve Scott
The main thrust seems to be that tracks are losing races because the
demand isn't there. "Old time fans" complain about it but the
handwriting was on the wall. If the seats aren't filled the racing is
going elsewhere.

Do you think Home Depot pays millions of dollars because 60,000-200,000
fans in the stands will see that orange #20 going around the track 500
times? NO. They pay because they know several MILLION fans will be
watching that car go around from the comfort of their own home. It's
not just the fans that go to races in the deep south who are complaining
- it's the fans who sit at home every Sunday and watch week after week.
It's the fans who spend their money buying sponsors products without
ever having attended a race. Loyal NASCAR fans in California, Las
Vegas, or Canada will still continue to be loyal NASCAR fans and will
watch the sport and buy the products as long as THE RACE IS EXCITING.
When the race becomes boring (like at California or Homestead, etc.),
the fans tune out and the sponsors don't get their money's worth. It
doesn't matter how big the track is or whether it sells out - what
matters is whether people at home are watching, and that's the point
that Mr. Hines just doesn't seem to get. So what if California can sell
out twice a year - it's probably the same 200,000+ people going to both
races. Isn't it better to market your product to MILLIONS?

Hey, the ng was dead for a couple of days since no one was beating up
on Tony. We had to get some action going. :)

I think you're wrong on both points here. Or at least wrong on one
and ignoring another. More fannies in the seats translates into more
dollars. Period. 100,000 more people at $80 each is another $8
million. Do that for a dozen races and that's $100 million. And
that's just ticket sales. What about beer, sodas, hot dogs, t-shirts,
etc. I'm guessing it's another $50-$100 per person average for
another $5-$10 million per race.

Second, check out NASCAR's TV ratings at
http://jayski.thatsracin.com/pages/tvratings2004.htm You might be
surprised to find out California viewers increased by 15% over last
year. Darlington as down 5% from the year before. Both were shown on
FOX both years. Apparently TV viewers found California a better watch
than Darlington. I don't happen to agree with them either but them's
the numbers.

Post by Cindy Murray

Post by Steve Scott
He wasn't implying that LV didn't need multi-lane highways. His
references was to The Rock. The Rock only seats about 60,000 and they
couldn't fill those seats.

I didn't see what the ratings were for that race, so I don't know if
they were up or down, but I do know that if they marketed it half as
hard as they market Daytona, Talladega or some of the other high-profile
races, it would more than make up for the lack of revenue due to seating
capacity. And then there's the issue of so many races being stuck on FX
and TNT. Are they even vaguely aware that A LOT of cable companies do
not carry FX (not sure about TNT) except on premium packages?! Even in
large urban areas like Dallas where there are millions of potential viewers!

Of course, races on FX are going to be available to fewer people, but
Darlington and The Rock were both on FOX. Richmond was on FX and
that, to me, is always a great race.

Post by Cindy Murray

Post by Steve Scott
I wouldn't say he accurately portrays most older fans but there is a
very vocal segment he does seem to have identified fairly well.

I can't disagree more. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone ask for a
Lazy-Boy instead of an aluminum bleacher! But I'll sit in one if
Bruton's willing to install them! ;)

hehehe I thought that was pretty funny. I'll take the Lazy-boy too.
:)

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Post by Steve Scott
Hey, the ng was dead for a couple of days since no one was beating up
on Tony.

No, it was dead for technical reasons (none of which I understand).
Bill was reorganizing the mail system to insert some spam filters,
I think. We live for free off his generosit at carracing.com.

Post by Steve Scott
We had to get some action going. :)

True. What good is a newsgroup that no one uses? :o(

Post by Steve Scott
I think you're wrong on both points here. Or at least wrong on one
and ignoring another. More fannies in the seats translates into more
dollars. Period. 100,000 more people at $80 each is another $8
million. Do that for a dozen races and that's $100 million. And
that's just ticket sales. What about beer, sodas, hot dogs, t-shirts,
etc. I'm guessing it's another $50-$100 per person average for
another $5-$10 million per race.

Yeeehaaaw! Money talks.

And money makes the cars go 'round.

And money brings the show to my TV and radio stations.

It's not all bad.

I do hope that the new tracks have some character, FWIW.

Marty

[John McCoy]

Post by Cindy Murray
I didn't see what the ratings were for that race, so I don't know if
they were up or down,

For whatever it's worth, the race at the Rock had the highest TV
viewership of any race so far this year. Martinsville was second.

John

[d***@wildwizards.net]

Post by Cindy Murray
When the race becomes boring (like at California or Homestead, etc.),

Homestead got a LOT more interesting last year because of the
progressive banking.

Nazareth, now.. Except for the last lap - THAT was a snoozer..

Post by Cindy Murray
I didn't see what the ratings were for that race, so I don't know if
they were up or down, but I do know that if they marketed it half as
hard as they market Daytona, Talladega or some of the other high-profile
races, it would more than make up for the lack of revenue due to seating

Home Depot is going to get the same number of eyeballs whether a race
is run at The Rock or California. However, the gate from a 150,000
strong crowd is 2 1/2 times that of a 60,000 crowd. Multiply that by
an average $50 ticket - that's $450,000 right there (plus concessions
and souvenirs). Very important numbers for the track owner.


+----/|-------------------------------------+-------------------+
| | | ***@wildwizards.net \ |
| / | \ |
| ( ) http://www.wildwizards.net \ ICQ# 8976662 |
+--`--' ----------------------------------------+---------------+

[Robert R Kircher, Jr.]

Post by d***@wildwizards.net
Home Depot is going to get the same number of eyeballs whether a race
is run at The Rock or California. However, the gate from a 150,000
strong crowd is 2 1/2 times that of a 60,000 crowd. Multiply that by
an average $50 ticket - that's $450,000 right there (plus concessions
and souvenirs). Very important numbers for the track owner.

Ding Ding Ding... Someone who finally gets it.

Any fan old or new who understands this cold hard business fact clearly sees
that tracks that don't fill the seats or can't provide the modern
accommodations that fans have come to expect will loose their dates to more
modern facilities regardless of how good the racing is. It's happened in
every major league sport. As the current stadium ages the desire for a
larger modern stadium grows regardless of the tradition or location. The
change inevitably alienates certain fan segments, however, owners are
willing to take that chance understanding that in the long run the alienated
fans will be replaced with new fans. And don't tell me a football stadium
or a ball park isn't the same as a track. All you need to do is ask folks
who grew up going to RFK Stadium to see the Redskins about the new stadium
and you'll hear many of the same bitches that you hear about the loss of
Rockingham.

As one of those old fans referred to in this article, I'm disappointed that
we are losing short tracks. I can't stand the same old cookie cuter tracks
(although they all have their unique characteristics). I hope the next new
track will be a mix of Bristol and Richmond but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm pissed at what it cost me to go to Atlanta this year, but alas what am I
to do? Quit watching? The reality is there is some one right there to
replace me so what good does that do.

The cold hard fact is the sport is changing whether us old fans like it or
not. The choice is clear, change with the sport or quit watching. Does
this mean we shouldn't voice our opinions as fans? Of course not but its
time to channel those complaints in the right direction and with the right
understanding of the issues. It's pointless to bitch about the loss of
Rockingham if the stands aren't full. It's also pointless to bitch about
"NASCAR doesn't care about the fans" if most major tracks continue to fill
the stands and the TV revenue continues to grow. Register you concerns and
complaints with NASCAR Daytona (Corporate) and NewYork (Marketing), NBC,
Fox, and all the sponsors, and then move on.

Lastly, for this old fan the venue is the least of my issues. The rule
changes and frankly the TV coverage piss me off more then anything going on
in the sport. I absolutely hate the MTV style camera coverage. (has anyone
noticed that we've lost the front stretch camera in favor of the Pocono
style turn one camera?) Stick to maybe 3 main cameras and use the rest for
replays. And STOP mucking with the rules. This latest round reminds me of
someone who's fallen into a quicksand trap, the more they struggle to make
the rules work the more they sink into the trap.

[John McCoy]

Post by Robert R Kircher, Jr.

Post by d***@wildwizards.net
Home Depot is going to get the same number of eyeballs whether a race
is run at The Rock or California. However, the gate from a 150,000
strong crowd is 2 1/2 times that of a 60,000 crowd. Multiply that by
an average $50 ticket - that's $450,000 right there (plus concessions
and souvenirs). Very important numbers for the track owner.

Ding Ding Ding... Someone who finally gets it.

Actually, no, he doesn't get it. Home Depot does not get the same
number of eyeballs regardless of where a race is run (taking the
numbers for the Rock & Fontana, since that's the example given,
Home Depot got about 100,000 more TV viewers at the Rock(*),
notwithstanding that this Fontana race got unusually high ratings).

You're right that from the track owner's perspective, the track that
sells more tickets is the better. From the sponsors (and by extension
the TV network's, and the team owner's) perspective, the track with
the highest TV viewership is the better.

Post by Robert R Kircher, Jr.
From NASCAR's perspective? Well, logically it should match the TV

network & team owners - NASCAR's money comes from the TV folk, and
even more importantly, they're dependant on the teams to have a
show to put on. But NASCAR's decision makers are the folk running
ISC - in other words track owners - and all the evidence is that
NASCAR makes it's decisions solely with it's ISC hat on.

John

(* I think - I can't find the actual viewer numbers, just the
rating/share numbers, and I'm fuzzy on the conversions...in any
event, the Rock had higher viewership)

[Robert R Kircher, Jr.]

Post by John McCoy

Post by Robert R Kircher, Jr.

Post by d***@wildwizards.net
Home Depot is going to get the same number of eyeballs whether a race
is run at The Rock or California. However, the gate from a 150,000
strong crowd is 2 1/2 times that of a 60,000 crowd. Multiply that by
an average $50 ticket - that's $450,000 right there (plus concessions
and souvenirs). Very important numbers for the track owner.

Ding Ding Ding... Someone who finally gets it.

Actually, no, he doesn't get it. Home Depot does not get the same
number of eyeballs regardless of where a race is run (taking the
numbers for the Rock & Fontana, since that's the example given,
Home Depot got about 100,000 more TV viewers at the Rock(*),
notwithstanding that this Fontana race got unusually high ratings).

A good portion of those viewers are folks who didn't buy tickets at the
track.

You see if you look at this in the long run and with the grand scheme of the
TV contracts in mind and remeber that ISC (France Family) owns the tracks
you'll quickly see that after the Rock is gone your comparison is mute.
The "growing pain" will be there but next season it will all be forgotten
about.

More importantly, keep in mind that ICS has a responsibility to it's share
holders regardless of NASCAR's TV contracts. If the Rock isn't bringing in
the expected money it has to go.

Post by John McCoy
You're right that from the track owner's perspective, the track that
sells more tickets is the better. From the sponsors (and by extension
the TV network's, and the team owner's) perspective, the track with
the highest TV viewership is the better.

Yes but once the track is gone it no longer matters. Next years numbers
will be next years numbers. NASCAR is banking on the numbers being there.
Maybe they won't but it's obviously a risk both NASCAR and the networks are
willing to take.

Also remember that the markets NASCAR is trying to get into, NY for example,
are BIG time TV markets.

Post by John McCoy

Post by Robert R Kircher, Jr.
From NASCAR's perspective? Well, logically it should match the TV

network & team owners - NASCAR's money comes from the TV folk, and
even more importantly, they're dependant on the teams to have a
show to put on. But NASCAR's decision makers are the folk running
ISC - in other words track owners - and all the evidence is that
NASCAR makes it's decisions solely with it's ISC hat on.

Again I don't thing you seeing this for what it really is. ISC has decided
to close the Rock in favor of a date at one of their more profitable
locations. NASCAR has agreed that this is best for one of its track owners.
It's of course very helpful that ISC and NASCAR are run by the France family
but don't forget that ISC is a public company with share holders to answer
too. If I were a share holder I'd be pissed if ISC didn't maximize it's
products profitability by replacing less profitable tracks with more
profitable ones.

I think that in the grand scheme of things NASCAR is willing to take the
initial hit in order to do what it thinks will maximize the profitability of
all parties involved from the TV people to the track owners, to the sponsors
and teams. The first thing it has to do is prove that the sport can fill
the stands outside of the south east. They're well on their way to doing
just that. Once the track in NY is opened if California can't sell out both
dates it will lose one to NY. Maybe it will be a Martinsville date. My
thought is eventually all tracks will only have one date.

Mind you I'm not defending ISC/NASCAR's decision making process or logic but
as we've seen with North Wilks, there's nothing fans can do about it but
bitch, and IMO it's the least detrimental change NASCAR is making. The rule
changes are what's going to kill NASCAR on any track, old, new, cookie
cutter, short or superspeedway.

[John McCoy]

Post by Robert R Kircher, Jr.
I think that in the grand scheme of things NASCAR is willing to take
the initial hit in order to do what it thinks will maximize the
profitability of all parties involved

It's certainly fair for you to think this. Many people (myself
included, altho I'm far from the most knowledgeable or insightful)
beleive that NASCAR is not thinking of what will maximize the
profits for all parties, but merely that which maximizes the profits
of the ISC. There's some evidence to support that view, but only
time will tell for sure.

BTW, for future reference, the word you were looking for is
"moot", not "mute" - they sound alike but have a very different
etemology.

John

[AugtheKRZ]

Post by John McCoy
(* I think - I can't find the actual viewer numbers, just the
rating/share numbers, and I'm fuzzy on the conversions...in any
event, the Rock had higher viewership)

I don't get it, if the Rock draws better then Fontana, why would Fox put it on
FX which as far as I know does not reach as many viewers as Fox? How do the
networks decide what to put on the main or secondary station? I thought it was
the amount of viewers. Is Fox and NBC screwing itself by trying to turn
NASCAR into something other than a southern sport?
Augie

[Steve Scott]

The Rock was on FOX not FX.

Post by AugtheKRZ
I don't get it, if the Rock draws better then Fontana, why would Fox put it on
FX which as far as I know does not reach as many viewers as Fox?

[Tyler]

The growth of the sport has put NASCAR in a weird position.
Traditionally the focus of the race on Sundays has been on the fans in
the seats. How many are there? Are the fans having a great time? Did
they sell out the track? With the addition of a national TV contract,
NASCAR is forced to consider TV viewership. Fox and NBC have got to
sell more advertising so they have to reach more eyeballs. (I think
both currently loose money on NASCAR) This is the reason for expanding
into new markets -- additional TV audience means higher ad rates. But
if you think about why people tune in, it's to watch good racing. The
Rock and Darlington were not only good, --they were phenomenal. So
NASCAR is betting that it can sacrifice good racing for more eyeballs
in the long run. They also believe they can get side by side racing at
the new cookie cutter tracks by changing rubber and downforce. So
we'll see Rock style racing at Chicago or Phoenix. We'll see. A good
solution could be a few Wednesday night races instead of costly
testing. You could put the Wednesday races at tracks near current
races. So you go from Richmond on Sunday to The Rock on Wednesday to
Martinsville on Sunday. The teams test on Wednesday anyway, why not
make it a race at the Rock?

T

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

... all the evidence is that
NASCAR makes its decisions solely with its ISC hat on.

Has anybody got a FAQ on ISC and Smith's group?

I never can keep who's who straight in these discussions.
It's not something the TV announcers ever go into.

The competition between track ownership groups is
something buried deep behind the scenes (for me,
anyway).

Marty

[John McCoy]

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
Has anybody got a FAQ on ISC and Smith's group?
I never can keep who's who straight in these discussions.
It's not something the TV announcers ever go into.

To the best of my recollection -

ISC: Daytona, Talladega, Darlington, Homestead, Watkins Glen,
KC, Fontana, Michigan, Martinsville, Richmond, Phoenix. (And
part of Joliet, effectively - it's part-owned by the France
family directly).

SMI (Bruton Smith): Atlanta, Bristol, Charlotte, Texas, Vegas,
Sears Point (and Rockingham and half of N Wilks).

Dover Downs: Dover (and Nashville, Memphis, and Gateway, altho
those aren't Cup tracks).

Mattioli family: Pocono (and somewhere else that's not Cup).

Barhe: Loudon (and half of N Wilks).

George: Indy. And part of Joliet.


John

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Post by John McCoy
To the best of my recollection -
ISC: Daytona, Talladega, Darlington, Homestead, Watkins Glen,
KC, Fontana, Michigan, Martinsville, Richmond, Phoenix. (And
part of Joliet, effectively - it's part-owned by the France
family directly).
SMI (Bruton Smith): Atlanta, Bristol, Charlotte, Texas, Vegas,
Sears Point (and Rockingham and half of N Wilks).
Dover Downs: Dover (and Nashville, Memphis, and Gateway, altho
those aren't Cup tracks).
Mattioli family: Pocono (and somewhere else that's not Cup).
Barhe: Loudon (and half of N Wilks).
George: Indy. And part of Joliet.

Thanks, John.

And ISC is the France family?

Is it fair to say that Bruton killed the Rockingham race?
Or was that an ISC decision?

Marty

[John McCoy]

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
And ISC is the France family?

ISC is a publicly traded company (so is SMI). The France family,
combined, own about 2/3rds of ISC shares, and act as Chairman of
the Board, CEO, and President (*).

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
Is it fair to say that Bruton killed the Rockingham race?
Or was that an ISC decision?

I would say it was an ISC/NASCAR decision. Clearly, NASCAR wanted
to resolve the second date for Texas issue and the Ferko suit (that
was a NASCAR problem). It would seem the solution NASCAR arrived
at was to arrange for Texas to receive Rockingham's date. The most
direct means for that to happen was for SMI to buy Rockingham, which
after all would be useless to ISC once it lost it's date anyway.

Obviously there were other solutions available to NASCAR (fight the
Ferko suit, add a race to the schedule, etc), which could have been
pursued had ISC's management opposed giving up the date & selling
the track. Of course, since ISC's mgmt and NASCAR's mgmt are the
same people, it would be a very bad sign if they didn't agree and
would probably require the services of a psychiatrist.

John

(* disclosure - I, indirectly, have an ownership interest in ISC
shares. Don't take my advice on your investments...)

[Crusader]

Post by John McCoy

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
And ISC is the France family?

ISC is a publicly traded company (so is SMI). The France family,
combined, own about 2/3rds of ISC shares, and act as Chairman of
the Board, CEO, and President (*).

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
Is it fair to say that Bruton killed the Rockingham race?
Or was that an ISC decision?

I would say it was an ISC/NASCAR decision. Clearly, NASCAR wanted
to resolve the second date for Texas issue and the Ferko suit (that
was a NASCAR problem). It would seem the solution NASCAR arrived
at was to arrange for Texas to receive Rockingham's date. The most
direct means for that to happen was for SMI to buy Rockingham, which
after all would be useless to ISC once it lost it's date anyway.
Obviously there were other solutions available to NASCAR (fight the
Ferko suit, add a race to the schedule, etc), which could have been
pursued had ISC's management opposed giving up the date & selling
the track. Of course, since ISC's mgmt and NASCAR's mgmt are the
same people, it would be a very bad sign if they didn't agree and
would probably require the services of a psychiatrist.
John
(* disclosure - I, indirectly, have an ownership interest in ISC
shares. Don't take my advice on your investments...)

Yes but...I still can't figure Bruton paying more than he needed to
for the deal. Why on earth would he agree to buy the Rock without
a Cup race? Couldn't he have gotten his TX2 much cheaper?

As a sidenote, i think it was Mulhern who questioned Where is Bruton
during Charlotte Speedweeks? Conspicuous by his absence when he is
usually on top of his P.R. Game?
CRU

[John McCoy]

Post by Crusader
Yes but...I still can't figure Bruton paying more than he needed to
for the deal. Why on earth would he agree to buy the Rock without
a Cup race? Couldn't he have gotten his TX2 much cheaper?

I would guess it's because buying now garauntees him a race at TX
in 2005. Doing something else might cost less, but it also might
mean waiting till 2006 to start. The amount of profit he'll make
from the 2005 race will be more than what he might save by holding
out for a different deal.

John

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Post by John McCoy

Post by Crusader
Yes but...I still can't figure Bruton paying more than he needed to
for the deal. Why on earth would he agree to buy the Rock without
a Cup race? Couldn't he have gotten his TX2 much cheaper?

I would guess it's because buying now garauntees him a race at TX
in 2005. ...

Is there any value investing in the Rock in and of itself?

Can the track be profitable without a Cup race?

Is the land worthwhile for development?

Marty

[John McCoy]

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
Is there any value investing in the Rock in and of itself?
Can the track be profitable without a Cup race?

I rather doubt it. Kentucky, Nashville, Gateway, and Pikes Peak all
seem to stay solvent without one, but the Rock would be in competition
with Charlotte whereas the others are more or less close to major
population centers without another track to compete with.

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
Is the land worthwhile for development?

Rockingham is rather in the middle of nowhere, there's not much to
develop onto the land.

John

[tjmc]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:26:04 CST, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
The competition between track ownership groups is
something buried deep behind the scenes (for me,
anyway).

And is almost always the reason for the inevitable turf wars that spring
up within the sport no matter what sanctioning bodies are involved.

Looking at John's reply above we can see NASCAR, via IMS, does just
about the best job on vertical integration. This makes it very
difficult to push NASCAR around and is mostly responsible for the long
term health of its various series.

[scottscottscott]

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
Has anybody got a FAQ on ISC and Smith's group?

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=6765

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Post by scottscottscott

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
Has anybody got a FAQ on ISC and Smith's group?

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=6765

Awesome article.

That definitely hits the spot.

I guess I oughta subscribe to some NASCAR magazine if I want
to keep up with this level of competition in the sport.

A lot of the big developments happened in the last ten years:
lights, condos, public offerings, acquisitions, upgrades,
track construction, insults, and last, but not least, the Ferko case.

If I understand it correctly, Smith has outlived France Sr. and
has outlasted FranceJr. as well--Smith is still CEO while Jr.
has turned the ISC & NASCAR over to his son.

Marty

[Al]

Post by Robert R Kircher, Jr.

Post by Steve Scott
Interesting article
http://insiderracingnews.com/MH/052304.html

Mr. Hines doesn't have a clue as to how old time fans feel.

Mr. Hines apparently doesn't have a clue as to much of anything on this
subject. It would be even money to see if he could find his backside
with both hands and a flashlight. His sweeping generalzations would get
him a D at best on a high school assignment.

Bottom line is - beyond tradition and abandoning the places that made
NASCAR what it is, moving races from tracks with exciting races to
tracks with mediocre parade style racing dimishes the sport even if it
does temporarily pad pocketbooks. To say nothing about the
distinctiveness that venues such as Rockingham and Darlington added to
the sport, or how they connect the NASCAR of today with the NASCAR of
years gone by.

NASCAR lately seems to be thinking only about markets, but the problem
is races are run on a track not a market.

- Al

[JustANascarFan]

Post by Al
Mr. Hines apparently doesn't have a clue as to much of anything on this
subject. It would be even money to see if he could find his backside
with both hands and a flashlight. His sweeping generalzations would get
him a D at best on a high school assignment.
Bottom line is - beyond tradition and abandoning the places that made
NASCAR what it is, moving races from tracks with exciting races to
tracks with mediocre parade style racing dimishes the sport even if it
does temporarily pad pocketbooks. To say nothing about the
distinctiveness that venues such as Rockingham and Darlington added to
the sport, or how they connect the NASCAR of today with the NASCAR of
years gone by.
NASCAR lately seems to be thinking only about markets, but the problem
is races are run on a track not a market.
- Al

I sure agree with you there !!