[Team Yates]

What's up with Roush's five teams? Roush Fenway Racing President Geoff Smith on the team cutting from five teams to four after this season (as mandated by NASCAR to meet its four-car limit): “We’re still messing with the sponsorship pieces,’’ Smith said. “We’re still not sure how it’s going to lay out. We thought we’d be done by now but we’re not.’’ One of the teams will move to Yates next year, Smith said. Smith also was asked about the status of signing Jamie McMurray to a contract extension: “Jamie wants to stay. We’d like him to stay. We’re hoping we can have sponsorship around Jamie before he has to decide how much longer he can wait. We’ve been working together. Hopefully we’ll have that worked out pretty quickly before he has to turn his attention to the marketplace.’’(Virginia Pilot)(6-22-2009)

[nascaraddict]

I thought it was crazy that the Cat in the Hat tried to go to five in the first place. The old guy can't juggle that many teams, and cheat too. Doesn't he know that? Who does he think he is? Rick Hendrick? Only he has the deep pockets, and the cahonnes to stand up to Brian France and say that he's going to bend the rules left and right.

Jack, Jack, Jack. You should know better.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Team Yates

[font=Arial][size=-1]What's up with Roush's five teams? Roush Fenway Racing President Geoff Smith on the team cutting from five teams to four after this season (as mandated by NASCAR to meet its four-car limit): “We’re still messing with the sponsorship pieces,’’ Smith said. “We’re still not sure how it’s going to lay out. We thought we’d be done by now but we’re not.’’ One of the teams will move to Yates next year, Smith said. ]

Surely what Smith said is a misquote? A team owner can have only four teams next season, as per Brian's decree. How, exactly, does one "move" a team to another owner without selling it outright? Is Jack Roush that philanthropic that he just "gives: away teams to needy team owners? (I most seriously doubt that!)

NA__AR's rationale on this matter just boggles my imagination! They must believe that we fans are a bunch of illiterate dummies who believe everything NA__AR puts out? It's just plain BS!

[Team Yates]

Latest on Roush Fenway Racing having to trim a team: The five-car stable of Roush Fenway Racing (#16-Greg Biffle, #99-Carl Edwards, #17-Matt Kenseth, #6-David Ragan, #26-Jamie McMurray) must be trimmed to four vehicles for the 2010 season. According to Brian Corcoran, executive vice president of Fenway Sports Group, a decision should take place by August because of sponsorship obligations. An alternative is for one of the drivers (most likely Ragan or McMurray) to switch to Yates Racing, the current home of #96-Bobby Labonte and #98-Paul Menard. Roush has an existing partnership with Yates. “Should be an interesting 45 days,’’ Corcoran said. Corcoran also noted that Roush is still in discussions with DeWalt, the primary sponsor of Kenseth’s #17 Ford. Currently, DeWalt may not have the funds to continue primary sponsorship of the #17 next season.(Boston Globe)(6-29-2009)

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Team Yates

Latest on Roush Fenway Racing having to trim a team: The five-car stable of Roush Fenway Racing (#16-Greg Biffle, #99-Carl Edwards, #17-Matt Kenseth, #6-David Ragan, #26-Jamie McMurray) must be trimmed to four vehicles for the 2010 season. According to Brian Corcoran, executive vice president of Fenway Sports Group, a decision should take place by August because of sponsorship obligations. An alternative is for one of the drivers (most likely Ragan or McMurray) to switch to Yates Racing, the current home of #96-Bobby Labonte and #98-Paul Menard. Roush has an existing partnership with Yates. “Should be an interesting 45 days,’’ Corcoran said. Corcoran also noted that Roush is still in discussions with DeWalt, the primary sponsor of Kenseth’s #17 Ford. Currently, DeWalt may not have the funds to continue primary sponsorship of the #17 next season.(Boston Globe)(6-29-2009)

????????????????????????????? Sound like Yates and Roush are operatingas a single entity to me?

[bob101]

Rousch and his drivers/employees have already started politicing to keep the 5th team on the grounds no team with sponsorship should have to be removed/moved or whatever "in these times".

I say it's a crock becuase a team like say Hendrick lost it's opportunity to run a 5th team without fear of loosing it - which is why they didn't.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by bob101

Rousch and his drivers/employees have already started politicing to keep the 5th team on the grounds no team with sponsorship should have to be removed/moved or whatever "in these times".

I say it's a crock becuase a team like say Hendrick lost it's opportunity to run a 5th team without fear of loosing it - which is why they didn't.

Au contraire.

Can you say SHR? Even Jimmy Johnson, early in the season and before he was advised to carefully choose his words, referred to Tony and Ryan as "team mates."

I believe that Hendrick and Roush are doing the same thing Hendrick did in 1987, lie, skirt the rules which apply to others and finaggle through a lobbied loop hole.

[bob101]

But that's a satellite team exactly like Yates. If Hendrick knew he could run a 100% Hendrick team and got to keep it without it being taken away I'm pretty sure he would have done it by now...especially considering Brad is on a limited schedule as a 5th development driver and has a limited number of times he can run on the the 5th team.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by bob101

But that's a satellite team exactly like Yates. If Hendrick knew he could run a 100% Hendrick team and got to keep it without it being taken away I'm pretty sure he would have done it by now...especially considering Brad is on a limited schedule as a 5th development driver and has a limited number of times he can run on the the 5th team.

Hendrick had only four teams when Brian can out with the [supposed] four teams per own edict. It was effective at that time but Roush was given special dispensation because he already had the fifth team up and running. I honestly believe that Rick was caught flat footed by the new rule but if he could have had a fifth team up running, sponsored and in place he would have been where Roush is now, in a nanosecond.

But, in all fairness this mega team deal has been a sore point with me for over a decade. I thought it was a shyster deal back in 1987 when Hendrick and Bill Jr. conspired to get the mega team thing going. It's only gotten worse and tore the heart out of the competitive small team concept, like the Wood Brothers, ever since. So, every thing I put forward on the subject is coloured by that bias. I thought it smelled in 1987; I thought it was awful in 1996 and continued to escalate in 1999. The odor of the mega team has only gotten worse.

But, we can always agree to disagree.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Hendrick had only four teams when Brian can out with the [supposed] four teams per own edict. It was effective at that time but Roush was given special dispensation because he already had the fifth team up and running. I honestly believe that Rick was caught flat footed by the new rule but if he could have had a fifth team up running, sponsored and in place he would have been where Roush is now, in a nanosecond.

But, in all fairness this mega team deal has been a sore point with me for over a decade. I thought it was a shyster deal back in 1987 when Hendrick and Bill Jr. conspired to get the mega team thing going. It's only gotten worse and tore the heart out of the competitive small team concept, like the Wood Brothers, ever since. So, every thing I put forward on the subject is coloured by that bias. I thought it smelled in 1987; I thought it was awful in 1996 and continued to escalate in 1999. The odor of the mega team has only gotten worse.

But, we can always agree to disagree.

The thing is, the Wood brothers where not a small team in their hey day, not by the standards of those days.
They where a "blue chip" factory backed team.
So where the Pettys, ditto for Yunick (Pontiac Super Duty program), ditto Junior Johnson (Ford Total Performance program).

Cheating, lying and favoritism didn't start in 1987 in NASCAR.

Heck IMCA stock cars in the 30s made NASCAR look like organization of saints, and USAC made them look like the pinnacle of competence, while AAA even so far as to modify their official championship winners, and race winners on the fly in the 1920s by adding and removing championship races.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

The thing is, the Wood brothers where not a small team in their hey day, not by the standards of those days.
They where a "blue chip" factory backed team.
So where the Pettys, ditto for Yunick (Pontiac Super Duty program), ditto Junior Johnson (Ford Total Performance program).

Cheating, lying and favoritism didn't start in 1987 in NASCAR.

Heck IMCA stock cars in the 30s made NASCAR look like organization of saints, and USAC made them look like the pinnacle of competence, while AAA even so far as to modify their official championship winners, and race winners on the fly in the 1920s by adding and removing championship races.

To me, your Wood Brothers and factory examples are "Apples and oranges." But that's just me and once more, my opinion is coloured by Hendrick so it's moot.

But, THANK YOU very much for bring up something which grates on my nerves; this erroneous claim that Bill France and NASCAR and bootleggers started stock car racing. It's maybe the biggest myth that the NASCSAR community has been fed and have accepted as fact.

Stock car racing and stock car racing associations have been around far longer than NASCAR. IMCA (now ARCA) was in the Midwest and CRA was very big in California long before NASCAR was developed. Both without the benefit of bootleggers, I might add.

Thanks for bringing that up.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

To me, your Wood Brothers and factory examples are "Apples and oranges." But that's just me and once more, my opinion is coloured by Hendrick so it's moot.

But, THANK YOU very much for bring up something which grates on my nerves; this erroneous claim that Bill France and NASCAR and bootleggers started stock car racing. It's maybe the biggest myth that the NASCSAR community has been fed and have accepted as fact.

Stock car racing and stock car racing associations have been around far longer than NASCAR. IMCA (now ARCA) was in the Midwest and CRA was very big in California long before NASCAR was developed. Both without the benefit of bootleggers, I might add.

Thanks for bringing that up.

There was stock car racing even prior to WWI in the south, let alone the prohibition and post WWII periods.

IMCA are not ARCA and they are still around BTW.
From their web site:
"The IMCA Story
The International Motor Contest Association (IMCA), organized in 1915, is the oldest active automobile racing sanctioning body in the United States."
International Motor Contest Association :: Welcome to IMCA.com!


Motorsport was never a virgin Mary sport. There was always stuff going on in motorsport. (Of course the scale is different.)
But at least once upon of time it made car lovers/gearheads/blue-sky thinkers dream and for some even fulfill their dreams.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

There was stock car racing even prior to WWI in the south, let alone the prohibition and post WWII periods.

IMCA are not ARCA and they are still around BTW.
From their web site:
"The IMCA Story
The International Motor Contest Association (IMCA), organized in 1915, is the oldest active automobile racing sanctioning body in the United States."
International Motor Contest Association :: Welcome to IMCA.com!


Motorsport was never a virgin Mary sport. There was always stuff going on in motorsport. (Of course the scale is different.)
But at least once upon of time it made car lovers/gearheads/blue-sky thinkers dream and for some even fulfill their dreams.

About two hours after I posted that I realized I just made a boo-boo. Sorry. I was thinking MARC and wrote IMCA. But, now that I think about it, I don't know if MARC was around in 1949?

Oh well... That's why they put erasers on pencils, no?

You're right. Auto racing has never been a squeaky-clean sport. Someone was always looking for an edge but the biggest culprits were the promoters. I can think of several races where, after the night's racing and the drivers went to the pit office to get their money, they found out the promoter had disappeared a half hour before, with the gate receipts.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

About two hours after I posted that I realized I just made a boo-boo. Sorry. I was thinking MARC and wrote IMCA. But, now that I think about it, I don't know if MARC was around in 1949?

Oh well... That's why they put erasers on pencils, no?

You're right. Auto racing has never been a squeaky-clean sport. Someone was always looking for an edge but the biggest culprits were the promoters. I can think of several races where, after the night's racing and the drivers went to the pit office to get their money, they found out the promoter had disappeared a half hour before, with the gate receipts.

In Europe the used to say there's wasn't enough spectators, so they wouldn't pay.
It wasn't just one party that wasn't squeaky clean.
Neither the teams, nor track owners, nor sanctioning bodies where saints. The NASCAR subcontractor system was made in such a way that the teams would rat on each other, so cheater would be found out sooner or later. Or so they thought.

There was also a lot team-manufacturer whining/protesting/lobbying to ban/restrict the stuff that gave the opposition the/a supposed edge.


Besides the obvious safety and cost reasons, spec-ing evolved in motorsport in no small measure due to the teams constant blatant cheating and constant whining/lobbying with led the motorsport sanctioning bodies to exasperation and made most of them just give up.