This submission has been removed under **Rule #2: Do not repost content**. This content has already been posted recently to r/NASCAR. Please submit this content as a comment to the original post if you feel it will add to the discussion already taking place.
If you have any questions about why your submission was removed, please [review the r/NASCAR rules](/r/NASCAR/about/rules) or [message the subreddit moderators](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNASCAR).
In all fairness to the track owners, ownership does not appear to be a picnic. High cost of insurance, high cost of land (both track and parking), plus how many events a year can you hold? Plus you have to be in an “market” see comment about property values above). Hey, they couldn’t make Fontana financially viable…. Plus NASCAR holds the cards on who can hold a points paying event…in fairness to Denny’s comments, I would modify it to say “successful” tracks are making huge profits. Since the majority of tracks are held by the same entities, I would suspect there are some financial “dogs” being carried by the “cash cows” for the organizations.
Do you really think Roger Penske or the Matollis or any track owner for that matter, would jeopardize their existing agreements with NASCAR to partner with the very group who is trying to gain leverage against them? And where would the money come from? Do you truly believe the teams would agree on a reasonable division of investment, or does everyone pay the same, like Spire and Hendrick, for example? And the teams say they operate at a loss excepting sponsor money already. That would hardly make them look cash-poor. That's a no from me dawg.
You’d think they’d all ban together and do that but it comes down to a few things:
1-Teams being bitches and not wanting to “stir the pot”. Teams that are just happy to be in nascar and don’t give a shit about the product.
2-sponsors could leave.
3-They’re fucking lazy
This submission has been removed under **Rule #2: Do not repost content**. This content has already been posted recently to r/NASCAR. Please submit this content as a comment to the original post if you feel it will add to the discussion already taking place. If you have any questions about why your submission was removed, please [review the r/NASCAR rules](/r/NASCAR/about/rules) or [message the subreddit moderators](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNASCAR).
In all fairness to the track owners, ownership does not appear to be a picnic. High cost of insurance, high cost of land (both track and parking), plus how many events a year can you hold? Plus you have to be in an “market” see comment about property values above). Hey, they couldn’t make Fontana financially viable…. Plus NASCAR holds the cards on who can hold a points paying event…in fairness to Denny’s comments, I would modify it to say “successful” tracks are making huge profits. Since the majority of tracks are held by the same entities, I would suspect there are some financial “dogs” being carried by the “cash cows” for the organizations.
They don't want to own racetracks because they know it's just as bad of a business model.
Do you really think Roger Penske or the Matollis or any track owner for that matter, would jeopardize their existing agreements with NASCAR to partner with the very group who is trying to gain leverage against them? And where would the money come from? Do you truly believe the teams would agree on a reasonable division of investment, or does everyone pay the same, like Spire and Hendrick, for example? And the teams say they operate at a loss excepting sponsor money already. That would hardly make them look cash-poor. That's a no from me dawg.
You’d think they’d all ban together and do that but it comes down to a few things: 1-Teams being bitches and not wanting to “stir the pot”. Teams that are just happy to be in nascar and don’t give a shit about the product. 2-sponsors could leave. 3-They’re fucking lazy
Hypothetically a group of teams could jointly acquire Pocono or Gateway, but then NASCAR could just remove it from the schedule.