![]() |
| ||||
| NASCAR should consider franchising? If you want to talk seriously about the future financial structure of stock-car racing, you have to talk about franchising. But how do you set it up? What about giving one franchise to each of the 20 or so team owners who are making the effort to put cars on the track every weekend? That gives an equal foundation in the sport to all the people who've committed to it. It also might help a Larry McClure or a Beth Ann Morganthau pick up a bigger sponsor who'd rather know its car will race every week than take a chance of being on the second or third or fourth car at a major team knowing it might miss races. You'd still have 23 spots for the multicar teams to fight for in qualifying. Isn't it better, long term, for the sport to have 20 owners with a firm footing than to have six or seven four-car teams and then a bunch of cars that are never going to be competitive? Sure, an owner who has been struggling in recent years might sell his franchise to a Rick Hendrick or a Jack Roush, but NASCAR could easily limit each car owner to two "franchised" cars. At least that way, an owner could go out of the sport on his own terms with a nice check in his pocket and, in the worst-case scenario, 10 two-car teams would provide a backbone of the sport's financial future. -- Charlotte Observer Charlotte Observer | 07/26/2007 | Inside Motorsports | David Poole |
| ||||
| Re: NASCAR should consider franchising? Quote:
__________________ Press One For English "I hate 2nd .. but it's good for points" - Carl Edwards “If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith" - Albert Einstein. |
| Sponsored Links |
| |||
| Re: NASCAR should consider franchising? Quote:
|
| ||||
| Re: NASCAR should consider franchising? Quote:
just 'cause you bought the Micky D's franchise doesn't mean you have a store. it just gives you the right to put up a sign (that you have to pay for) and build a building (that has to meet the franchise's requirements), etc. now, if you want to buy a turnkey deal, ya gotta put up lots more bucks 'cause there's cash value in brick and mortar, not to mention location and established cash flow. no, what I'm sayin is NA$CAR can charge anything they want for the "right" to start a cup team if they start franchising. how much they will charge will be closer to a McDonald's franchise than a Surface Specialist franchise (Press Release: Low-Cost Franchise Brings High Profits to Bathroom Remodeling - Interior/Deco/Restoration | PRZOOM) .. how much the market will bear to buy an existing team (with franchise) is another matter altogether. what do you reckon MLB would charge you to start a new team in, say OK City? it won't be $50M or even $10M. but it will be significant. doesn't mean you have a place to play or players or even a partial supply of jock straps or a bag full of worn out baseballs... that's all part of "developing" the franchise. "franchise" is only a piece of paper that gives you the legal right to use a "protected" name to (try to) generate income. ya still have to have a product to sell. I don't know if NA$CAR "sells" car numbers or not, but I do know they control who has what number. franchising will be akin to selling the car number to a team, but for more bucks 'cause it's called a "franchise". then with a franchising system NA$CAR could designate the minimum size of a team's shop space, make a requirement they have a "visitor viewing area" and a "NA$CAR store" at the shop. they could specify the minimum amount a sponsor would have to contribute in order to have "space" on the car as well as the specific healthcare a team had to carry for employees as well as payscales for non-critical (hourly) personnel. I'm not saying they will, but the could .. legally. something they can't do now. |
| |||
| Re: NASCAR should consider franchising? From Racer Duck post - "franchise" is only a piece of paper that gives you the legal right to use a "protected" name " Above fired off: One of the first thoughts had here regarding franchising is the realization that as a franchisee (the purchaser of the franchise), you are in many (most?) cases told specifically what you will cook (race), how exactly you will cook (prepare) it, from where/whom you will acquire your provisions (components), etc. It's an "enabler" for levels of control, right up to pretty much COMPLETE control of franchise operation. Prefer here the good 'ol free enterprise, capitalist approach that has a fair amount to do with the successes in the history of our country. Unfortunately a seemingly increasing number within our nation today have become less able to accept anything unless its' availability and presentation is completely controlled and provided to them by some "greater" worldly governing body. "Make mine vanilla please". Lemmings come to mind. I've invested in a snack shop/deli. PT Barnums is the envisioned name. Sits just before the edge of a cliff overlooking the sea. Drive through with credit or debit swipe payment only. Don't want to slow those little suckers down. |
| |||
| Re: NASCAR should consider franchising? NASCAR should consider franchising? I think you made a slight mistake in your thread title, Vince. It would be more accurate to write: NA$CAR WILL Consider Franchising Trust me, it's a done deal by... my guess is 2010 or 2011. There will be no more one-car teams. There will be eight or nine four-car teams and four or five two or three-car teams. There will be 43 or 44 franchises awarded and that'll be it, every week. Each team will have four or five sponsors which they will spread out over the season schedule. Same teams with the same numbers each week. Seldom will we see a change in drivers unless one of the teams has a kid in development but that'll be taken care of because Cup Lite will be a 50% mirror of Cup and the news kids will get their experience there. The learning progress might go something like this: (a) Kid is noticed by a "scout" in karting or running at a short track somewhere in mods, late models, or the like. (b) Kid signs agreement with franchise and takes a step up to NASCAR East or West, ARCA, or something similar. (c) Normal kid goes to CTS then cup lite. More talented kid might go directly to Cup Lite. (d) Kid then languishes in Cup Lite until an opening becomes available (Example: Cup driver turns 35 and is considered too old to be really competitive and is traded to one of the franchises which is toward the bottom of the standings) I see the possibility that the Independent Contractor" type of agreement NASCAR owner's now have with their drivers will drastically change. With the advent of franchisement, the owners would want to "own" their drivers. If that be the eventuality, then I see it very feasible for drivers and crew chiefs to be traded between franchises much like stick&ball players are now. However it plays out I honestly believe that the DEI-Ginn merger, the Yates-Newman/Haas deal and some other business dealing have made it absolutely evident that franchising will be a fact of life in NA$CAR before we get much older. It is my most sincere wish that one of you will convince me that I'm wrong. PLEASE!
__________________ Bob I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) |
| |||
| Re: NASCAR should consider franchising? NASCAR HAS ALREADYconsidered franchising. There's an "interview transcript" with France and Helton on Jayski where France indicates familiarity with SEC rules, regs, and mentioning franchise as it relates to multi-car teams. Now one must test ones "follower" tendencies here. Those with "chicken little" syndrome will be seeing the sky falling. Then there will be the lemmings - "forward fella's, over the cliff!". Oh shoot. 7:15 p.m. - gotta hit the road. Local track show starts in about an hour. Will get back to couch racin' later. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||