Comments on: Race Track Blues and Lawsuits

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:55:09 +0000

I thought Sherman was to provide anti-trust protection for competing busineses.

That’s exactly right and the best example is Microsofts many lawsuits with competitors.

I’m working on an update to this post that should be posted within the next two hours os so.

By: George

George — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:26:04 +0000

RE: Connecticut. The developer who happens to be my former client, allegedly has won a preliminary local zoning approval. Where the money’s coming from is still somewhat unclear, and there are a ton of additional approvals, local and state they need to clear.

RE: Kentucky. I heard/saw the attorney leading the Kentucky suit on Wind Tunnel tonite. He didn’t have much to say other than Sherman anti-trust and that Mother NASCAR is unfair and doing business with lead pipe cruelty. I thought Sherman was to provide anti-trust protection for competing busineses. When Kentucky starts their own competing SERIES they may have a chance with Sherman. Nobody owes a track owner a race.

By: Marc

Marc — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:35:13 +0000

The pound of flesh will only be the appetizer, the main course will come later in the form of cash kickbacks.

BTW George, I haven’t heard anything from the nut case up in Connecticut, Guess I’ll have to do some Googleing and see if there is any new word.

By: George

George — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:05:42 +0000

Kentucky: When did having a NASCAR race date become an inalienable right?And accessible to whoever owns a track, without the consent of the owners? Maybe that’s part of the strategy this knuckle head in Connecticut will use to secure a race if he gets his domed track built. I own a facility, you “owe” me a race date!

And as far as NYC goes, the politico’s will be looking for way more than a pound of flesh my friends, way more!

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:22:21 +0000

I couldn’t agree more Jon W.

Politics and racing make for strange bedfellows and there is little doubt Borough politics are front and center in Lanza’s thinking. Staten Island, and Brooklyn for that matter, have always been frowned upon by the oh so “polite society” of Manhattan.

This is just their chance to extract a pound of flesh.

By: Jon W. Hastings

Jon W. Hastings — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:27:23 +0000

This is just standard NYC politics: Lanza will make a big fuss so NASCAR will fork over more cash. Also, the fact that the idea started with Bloomberg may have more to do with why these councilpeople are so opposed to it. Lanza is a Republican, but this might all be about inter-borough, and not party, politics.

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:33:14 +0000

First of all why so touchy Jon? No blogs were mentioned by name, IP, or address. Feeling guilty by proxy?

If you feel it’s an attack on fellow bloggers so be it, your choice. Since when are bloggers immune from criticism, but we both know why in this case don’t we?

Truth be told, not that you care, its a comment on those behind the scenes, not the bloggers (although I have issues with one of those as well). It speaks to those who fail to respond to legitmate complaints after promising to do so. I waited six weeks for that response, what I got in return, in part, was this: “As we grow our site I believe very strongly that yours is a voice that oughta be heard more often and with a tad more volume.” Not one word in response to the prior correspondence. It’s as if it never happened. Not very “customer friendly” to say the least.

Needless to say I turned him down. To completly ignore my concerns and requesting his input, then being totally ignored, and having him offer a spot in his train wreck is beyond being two-faced. He was told flatout my standards are above what has been shown under his “guidence.”

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:25:53 +0000

Wow, you are getting pretty worked up over this. Enough to attack other fellow bloggers that you have disagreements with.