Jump to content


Photo

Penske To Buy Indianapolis Motor Speedway


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 04 November 2019 - 14:09

Just saw this on the news. Not sure includes Indycar itself. To be confirmed at upcoming press conference.



Advertisement

#2 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 04 November 2019 - 14:12

Pardon the spelling. Should be "Indianapolis".



#3 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 4,796 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 November 2019 - 14:19

But... but... haven't they owned it already over the last fifty years???

#4 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,476 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 November 2019 - 14:34

Propose to merge with this thread.



#5 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 04 November 2019 - 14:44

Michael,

 

Penke has only won the 500 18 times in the 51 years since 1969. That's a paltry 35.3%. :lol:

 

lustigson,

 

Don't follow that forum so I didn't see that thread. Thought the news would be of great interest in this forum.



#6 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 21,968 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 04 November 2019 - 15:49

Lustigson, thanks for posting the link to the Racing Comments thread. However, as this thread is in a different forum it wouldn’t be logical to merge it with the RC thread.

#7 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,476 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 November 2019 - 17:44

Lustigson, thanks for posting the link to the Racing Comments thread. However, as this thread is in a different forum it wouldn’t be logical to merge it with the RC thread.

 

I hadn’t seen that. Good point!  :up:



#8 Jack-the-Lad

Jack-the-Lad
  • Member

  • 2,161 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 04 November 2019 - 18:13

Congratulations to the Penske organization. I can’t think of a better steward for IMS and the series.

#9 Dave Ware

Dave Ware
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 05 November 2019 - 00:34

This can only be a good thing for the 500 and for the series. 



#10 absinthedude

absinthedude
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 05 November 2019 - 12:34

Unlike many of the hand-wringers in the RC forum, I think this is positive. The Hulman family has wanted to rid themselves if IMS and IndyCar for a while. What better organisation than Roger Penske's to take over? The Penske subsidiary will probably have the track and series best interests at heart and will likely steer them in the right direction.



#11 Dave Ware

Dave Ware
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 05 November 2019 - 17:52

Michael,

 

Penke has only won the 500 18 times in the 51 years since 1969. That's a paltry 35.3%. :lol:

 

lustigson,

 

Don't follow that forum so I didn't see that thread. Thought the news would be of great interest in this forum.

 

I visit that forum occasionally, whenever I think my blood pressure is too low. 



#12 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,059 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 05 November 2019 - 19:35

It is a massive conflict of interest.  It's only because Penske is so well respected that there hasn't been a flood of criticism.  Imagine if Bernie had bought F1, and Spa-Francorchamps, AND was still running Brabham.  Everyone and his dog would have cried FOUL!  But when it is Roger, it is seen as beneficial. 

 

I don't agree.  Roger is getting on in years and when he is gone, what then?  WIll his heirs be so trustworthy?  Better to keep race team ownership, race track ownership and race series ownership all completely separate.



#13 Jack-the-Lad

Jack-the-Lad
  • Member

  • 2,161 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 November 2019 - 19:45

Unlike many of the hand-wringers in the RC forum, I think this is positive. The Hulman family has wanted to rid themselves if IMS and IndyCar for a while. What better organisation than Roger Penske's to take over? The Penske subsidiary will probably have the track and series best interests at heart and will likely steer them in the right direction.


We have our own hand-wringers.....:rolleyes:

#14 Dave Ware

Dave Ware
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 05 November 2019 - 23:23

It is a massive conflict of interest.  It's only because Penske is so well respected that there hasn't been a flood of criticism.  Imagine if Bernie had bought F1, and Spa-Francorchamps, AND was still running Brabham.  Everyone and his dog would have cried FOUL!  But when it is Roger, it is seen as beneficial. 

 

I don't agree.  Roger is getting on in years and when he is gone, what then?  WIll his heirs be so trustworthy?  Better to keep race team ownership, race track ownership and race series ownership all completely separate.

 

Bernie is a different type of man than Roger Penske.  People like A.J. and Mario, who know RP and who love Indy, are happy about this. I'm confident that any conflict of interest issues will be dealt with to everyone's satisfaction.  I have no doubts about Roger Penske's integrity. 

 

Yes, he's getting on in years.  He can, however, afford the best medical care.  Some people go well into their nineties and retain their cognitive abilities.  Regardless, we can be sure that RP has put plans in place to take care of his businesses, including IMS and IndyCar, in the event of his abrupt departure or slow decline, whichever the case may be.  He is too smart to neglect such a thing.

 

One of his talents is choosing the right people.  I'm sure he'll do that for IMS and IndyCar as well. 



#15 Jack-the-Lad

Jack-the-Lad
  • Member

  • 2,161 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 November 2019 - 23:32

Bernie is a different type of man than Roger Penske.  People like A.J. and Mario, who know RP and who love Indy, are happy about this. I'm confident that any conflict of interest issues will be dealt with to everyone's satisfaction.  I have no doubts about Roger Penske's integrity. 
 
Yes, he's getting on in years.  He can, however, afford the best medical care.  Some people go well into their nineties and retain their cognitive abilities.  Regardless, we can be sure that RP has put plans in place to take care of his businesses, including IMS and IndyCar, in the event of his abrupt departure or slow decline, whichever the case may be.  He is too smart to neglect such a thing.
 
One of his talents is choosing the right people.  I'm sure he'll do that for IMS and IndyCar as well.


According to Autoweek Penske has already taken steps to define the business structure and his roles so as to avoid potential conflicts, and “rival team owners have universally praised his appointment as next owner of the series and track.”

#16 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 66,135 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 November 2019 - 07:42

An old friend of ours was delighted on hearing this news...

He didn't want to post on here for fear of getting into bunfights with those who want to discredit him, but he told me I could post that he's really happy about this.

"I don't particularly like Penske," he said, "but he's a thousand times better than the one who was there and I think this is a good move."

How badly did he feel about the previous management? From one of his old posts:

I may have been a driver but I am also an MBA in business and under that perspective he took a successful business and made it unsuccessful because he alienated the paying customers and replaced quality with a cheap knockoff nobody wanted to see. That is on the record fact. Did he have a right to be a total moron and complete failure? Yes under the lucky sperm rule he did. But did his actions make the sport better in any way? The vast vast majority of the all time record fan base of 1995 say no and they are the ultimate jury. They left the sport and no longer watch on TV or attend. Without TG there would be nothing at all? Why? He ran off 90% of the customers by producing crap - the marketplace has judged him. Lots of clueless people who rejected the IRL huh? Why can't they think like a lemming... ain't it a shame? He made nothing out of something and its somebody else's fault it was a total failure in the marketplace? Before Tony George - success. After Tony George - turmoil and steady deterioration to a point arguably the worst of all time.



#17 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 34,283 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 06 November 2019 - 09:17

It is a massive conflict of interest.  It's only because Penske is so well respected that there hasn't been a flood of criticism.  Imagine if Bernie had bought F1, and Spa-Francorchamps, AND was still running Brabham.  Everyone and his dog would have cried FOUL!  But when it is Roger, it is seen as beneficial. 

 

I don't agree.  Roger is getting on in years and when he is gone, what then?  WIll his heirs be so trustworthy?  Better to keep race team ownership, race track ownership and race series ownership all completely separate.

In early 1945 there had been a potentially similar conflict of interest. Robert M Bowes, founder of Bowes Seal-Fast - a regular pre-WW2 sponsor - announced a plan to buy the Speedway from Eddie Rickenbacker. The deal would have gone through except for one thing - Bowes died in June of that year. So the 'Hulman dynasty' at Indy actually came about more by accident than design - as most of you probably know, the driving force behind the post-war revival of the track was Wilbur Shaw, but his original plans had been made with Bowes as the track's owner.

 

One of those 'accidents of history'. One wonders what might have happened if Bowes had completed the deal ...



#18 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 06 November 2019 - 14:08

Penske has already owned and operated three major tracks at which his teams raced and participated in the operation of a major series in which he competed, all without controversy. What's the big deal?



#19 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,059 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 06 November 2019 - 16:45

I see that the respect people have for Roger Penske is blinding them to the fact that he is a hugely successful businessman.  And therefore is hugely ruthless in pursuit of his own interests.

 

Remember all those dotcom companies and their founders who were so public spirited and different from the bad old capitalists of yore.  They turned out to be just as predatory. "Don't be evil" as Google has it, before getting away with paying £2.55 tax in the UK on their £255 billion turnover.  Or Amazon driving its workers like field slaves.

 

But we shall see.  I just think it is a bad model.



Advertisement

#20 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 06 November 2019 - 22:09

BRG

 

I have followed Penske's involvement in racing for over fifty years and have met him in person twice in the course of my engineering career. The man stands for excellence, integrity and professionalism in every endeavor he undertakes. He is an extremely successful businessman for sure but what makes him most qualified to assume control of the Speedway, the 500 and the Indycar series is that he has lived and breathed racing almost his entire life while building successful business empires both inside and outside of the sport.

 

To compare him to "dotcom companies", "bad old capitalists of yore" and companies that pay no taxes while driving their workers "like field slaves" is absurd, insulting and displays a complete ignorance of the man.

 

Bottom line here is that the Hulman family wanted out. Penske has the money, the organization, the experience and the drive to not only succeed financially but also to further the interests of the sport of Indycar racing.

 

I can't think of anyone else who could pull this off but perhaps you have someone else in mind.



#21 Jack-the-Lad

Jack-the-Lad
  • Member

  • 2,161 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 06 November 2019 - 23:42

I see that the respect people have for Roger Penske is blinding them to the fact that he is a hugely successful businessman.  And therefore is hugely ruthless in pursuit of his own interests.
 
Remember all those dotcom companies and their founders who were so public spirited and different from the bad old capitalists of yore.  They turned out to be just as predatory. "Don't be evil" as Google has it, before getting away with paying £2.55 tax in the UK on their £255 billion turnover.  Or Amazon driving its workers like field slaves.
 
But we shall see.  I just think it is a bad model.

You’re right. It’ll be a disaster.
:rolleyes:

#22 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 22,157 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 07 November 2019 - 16:16

In concept, the conflict-of-interest idea has real merit if in the wrong hands. Roger's aren't.

But the idea that no big businessman can have integrity is just depressing.

With this news, my only wish is that the man could be 50 again and have forty years at this. I think we're about to see the best era in IndyCar since the formation of CART.

#23 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 07 November 2019 - 17:51

The man stands for excellence, integrity and professionalism in every endeavor he undertakes.

That may be true, but whether or not a conflict of interest exists has nothing to do with someone's personal qualities. It exists if one owes loyalty to two parties, whose best interests may not always be compatible. If that situation exists, then there's a conflict of interest, regardless of the perceived integrity of the person in the middle of it.



#24 Bikr7549

Bikr7549
  • Member

  • 109 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 07 November 2019 - 17:52

In concept, the conflict-of-interest idea has real merit if in the wrong hands. Roger's aren't.

But the idea that no big businessman can have integrity is just depressing.

With this news, my only wish is that the man could be 50 again and have forty years at this. I think we're about to see the best era in IndyCar since the formation of CART.

 

Agree. I have never met the man but as seen from a distance he does not appear to be the typical greed fueled business man. Could be wrong on this but I think there are better times ahead in Indy Car.



#25 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 07 November 2019 - 18:19

That may be true, but whether or not a conflict of interest exists has nothing to do with someone's personal qualities. It exists if one owes loyalty to two parties, whose best interests may not always be compatible. If that situation exists, then there's a conflict of interest, regardless of the perceived integrity of the person in the middle of it.

 

PCC,

 

I am not aware of any racing circuit or racing series in the world where the owner is not allowed to enter his own car. Any favoritism or unfair advantage given the owner would be immediately apparent.

 

To repeat my previous post:

 

"Penske has already owned and operated three major tracks at which his teams raced and participated in the operation of a major series in which he competed, all without controversy. What's the big deal?"

 

I further repeat:

 

"I can't think of anyone else who could pull this off but perhaps you have someone else in mind."



#26 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,059 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 07 November 2019 - 18:48

You’re right. It’ll be a disaster.
:rolleyes:

How you spin 'But we shall see' into 'It'll be a disaster' is a mystery.  Are you perhaps a politician?

 

But the idea that no big businessman can have integrity is just depressing.

It is, isn't it. Sadly though, all the evidence seems to support it.  

 

But the love for Roger Penske is clearly strong here.  Let's hope he lives up to it, which is really all I was saying.  



#27 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 07 November 2019 - 19:16

PCC,

 

I am not aware of any racing circuit or racing series in the world where the owner is not allowed to enter his own car. Any favoritism or unfair advantage given the owner would be immediately apparent.

 

To repeat my previous post:

 

"Penske has already owned and operated three major tracks at which his teams raced and participated in the operation of a major series in which he competed, all without controversy. What's the big deal?"

 

I further repeat:

 

"I can't think of anyone else who could pull this off but perhaps you have someone else in mind."

I'm not in a position to judge whether or not a conflict of interest exists. My point was that whether it exists or not has nothing to do with the 'integrity' of the person involved. It was in response to those who claimed that, because he is such a virtuous character, there's no conflict of interest.



#28 Jack-the-Lad

Jack-the-Lad
  • Member

  • 2,161 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 07 November 2019 - 19:26

In concept, the conflict-of-interest idea has real merit if in the wrong hands. Roger's aren't. But the idea that no big businessman can have integrity is just depressing.
With this news, my only wish is that the man could be 50 again and have forty years at this. I think we're about to see the best era in IndyCar since the formation of CART.


I never understood the inherent resentment some have for the successful. As far as I can tell, and I’ve followed Roger’s career across six decades, his wealth has been earned entirely on his own, by his own work ethic and effort. He has rewarded his employees, partners and those in his orbit. I have never heard a bad word spoken about him. As far as I know he has never been accused of any criminal or unethical behavior, or done anything that would indicate that he’ll do anything other than being a fine steward for the facility and the series. Now he has likely saved an American institution as well as a racing series that is poised to come into its own. I really don’t get the negativity. For every crooked “businessman” there are thousands who achieve success, to whatever degree, in the same way that Penske has.

#29 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 07 November 2019 - 19:59

BRG and PCC,

 

You are ignoring my implied question. I repeat:

 

"Bottom line here is that the Hulman family wanted out. Penske has the money, the organization, the experience and the drive to not only succeed financially but also to further the interests of the sport of Indycar racing.

 

I can't think of anyone else who could pull this off but perhaps you have someone else in mind."

 

I shall ask more explicitly. The Hulmans clearly want out. Who do you feel would be a better choice to purchase and operate their racing interests and assets?

 

Please answer or quit your bitching.



#30 Nigel Beresford

Nigel Beresford
  • Member

  • 812 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 07 November 2019 - 22:24

As a general rule I try to restrict my activity on TNF to providing facts and corrections regarding racing history about which I have first hand knowledge. I’m breaking that rule. I worked for RP on and off for a nearly two decades. Spent a lot of time in one to one situations with him. I flew across the Atlantic with him a few times on one of his jets, once where apart from the crew we were the only passengers. I went through the Indy pushrod engine project, the Porsche RS Spyder project, the ‘94 dominance, several ‘500’ wins and on and on directly working with him.To those who seek to question his integrity, I say don’t waste your time. This is a guy who used to take his time to go to the Detroit Diesel factory at four in the morning and spend time talking to the men on factory floor on the night shift. He knew all of their names, he remembered stories of close relatives who had been unwell and knew to enquire if they were better. I have heard him speak with concern in private about the school dropout rates among young black men In his adopted hometown of Detroit. The point is, he is not some fat cat billionaire lining his pockets with the fruits of the labour of an oppressed workforce. You can try to tar him with some nasty brush to satisfy your own petty jealousies or dislike of (self made, hard earned) success, but there isn’t anyone among the tens of thousands of current or former employees of his who doesn’t know that there is nobody who works harder for the collective benefit of all of his employees than RP. As I say, don’t waste your time knocking him, because all you are doing is showing your ignorance. The guy has all the integrity he needs to separate running the Speedway and running his team.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 07 November 2019 - 22:43.


#31 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 07 November 2019 - 22:38

BRG and PCC,

 

Please answer or quit your bitching.

I wasn't bitching, nor was I giving an opinion of RP's integrity. I was just trying to make a simple point, and I still stand buy it:

 

Some people stated the view that for a team owner to own the track was a conflict of interest. Others countered by pointing out RP's unquestioned integrity. I pointed out that a conflict of interest was a situation, not a character trait. That's all.



#32 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 8,385 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 07 November 2019 - 23:58

It is a massive conflict of interest.  It's only because Penske is so well respected that there hasn't been a flood of criticism.  Imagine if Bernie had bought F1, and Spa-Francorchamps, AND was still running Brabham.  Everyone and his dog would have cried FOUL!  But when it is Roger, it is seen as beneficial. 

 

I don't agree.  Roger is getting on in years and when he is gone, what then?  WIll his heirs be so trustworthy?  Better to keep race team ownership, race track ownership and race series ownership all completely separate.

 

Ed Carpenter



#33 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 08 November 2019 - 01:45

I wasn't bitching, nor was I giving an opinion of RP's integrity. I was just trying to make a simple point, and I still stand buy it:

 

Some people stated the view that for a team owner to own the track was a conflict of interest. Others countered by pointing out RP's unquestioned integrity. I pointed out that a conflict of interest was a situation, not a character trait. That's all.

 

PCC,

 

You are correct. A conflict of interest is a situation. It is the sort of situation we all have to deal with every day. But it isn't harmful in itself. It is a situation with the potential for harm (or unfair benefit). It is how we handle these daily conflicts which define our personal integrity. Some conflicts of interests have the potential for such great harm (or unfair benefit) that these situations have been made unlawful. I do no believe that this is the situation here.

 

If the ownership of the Speedway and the Indycar series by one of its most successful entrants is a conflict of interest, then it is a self-regulating situation. This is because if that owner does anything to gain advantage for his team at the expense of his competitors, he risks the long-term success of the track and series for short-term gain. Ultimately the competition, the fans and the sponsors will leave for other forms of racing and never come back.

 

This has nothing to do with integrity. This is purely self-interest. Screw the teams, sponsors and fans and you loose the fortune you invested just to win a few races.

 

Quite the contrary. By investing in the track and the series, Penske now has a stake in its success exponentially greater than the stake he has in his own racing operation. And the only way to ensure that success is to produce the quality of racing that keeps the teams, sponsors and fans coming back for more.

 

Am I missing something here? I can't for the life of me think of any scenario that would actually create harm or unfair benefit from this new arrangement.

 

Even if Roger Penske was one of the "bad old capitalists of yore" (which he is not) and even if this was "a massive conflict of interest" (which it is not), I still have to ask, who else could possibly ensure the survival and future success of Indycar racing if not him?

 

Oh, and if Penske had to divest himself of his Indy racing operation as a result of this acquisition just to keep some people from complaining, the series would lose its top team and everyone would suffer, the teams, the sponsors, the fans, the series itself and, of course Penske as the new owner of the series.


Edited by R.W. Mackenzie, 08 November 2019 - 02:16.


#34 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 08 November 2019 - 02:41

PCC,

 

You are correct. A conflict of interest is a situation. It is the sort of situation we all have to deal with every day. But it isn't harmful in itself. It is a situation with the potential for harm (or unfair benefit). It is how we handle these daily conflicts which define our personal integrity. Some conflicts of interests have the potential for such great harm (or unfair benefit) that these situations have been made unlawful. I do no believe that this is the situation here.

 

If the ownership of the Speedway and the Indycar series by one of its most successful entrants is a conflict of interest, then it is a self-regulating situation. This is because if that owner does anything to gain advantage for his team at the expense of his competitors, he risks the long-term success of the track and series for short-term gain. Ultimately the competition, the fans and the sponsors will leave for other forms of racing and never come back.

 

This has nothing to do with integrity. This is purely self-interest. Screw the teams, sponsors and fans and you loose the fortune you invested just to win a few races.

 

Quite the contrary. By investing in the track and the series, Penske now has a stake in its success exponentially greater than the stake he has in his own racing operation. And the only way to ensure that success is to produce the quality of racing that keeps the teams, sponsors and fans coming back for more.

 

Am I missing something here? I can't for the life of me think of any scenario that would actually create harm or unfair benefit from this new arrangement.

 

Even if Roger Penske was one of the "bad old capitalists of yore" (which he is not) and even if this was "a massive conflict of interest" (which it is not), I still have to ask, who else could possibly ensure the survival and future success of Indycar racing if not him?

 

Oh, and if Penske had to divest himself of his Indy racing operation as a result of this acquisition just to keep some people from complaining, the series would lose its top team and everyone would suffer, the teams, the sponsors, the fans, the series itself and, of course Penske as the new owner of the series.

Thank you, I appreciate your points, although I do think that in professional settings, most people make an effort to avoid conflicts of interest rather than accepting them as everyday occurrences. That said, it is fair to ask whether ownership of IMS actually represents a worrying conflict of interest. I believe that Red Bull owns the formerly majestic former Österreichring, but no other teams seem to have any concerns about going there.



#35 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 08 November 2019 - 06:30

PCC,

 

It boils down to three potential scenarios given that the Hulman family wanted out:

 

1. Someone other than Penske takes over the track, series and other assets. (Who? The Hulmans approached Penske and no one else was in the running. Apparently they cared enough not to throw it open to the highest bidder.)

 

2. Penske takes over the track, series and other assets and continues to compete as an entrant.

 

3. Penske takes over the track, series and other assets but divests himself of his Indycar racing operation. (As I stated earlier, everybody loses if the top team disappears.)

 

The first and third scenarios seem to eliminate any possibility of a conflict of interest but the first is a huge unknown and the third has a significant downside. The second scenario may result in a conflict of interest but has a more certain outcome, likely to be positive, without the significant downside.

 

There is nothing illegal or immoral about the second scenario but if it does result in a conflict of interest (I'm not sure it is that clear cut) then there is a potential for harm and/or unfair benefit. As you say, In a professional setting you would not accept a conflict of interest as an everyday occurrence. What you would do is ask several questions such as:

 

1. What harm and/or unfair benefit could result from the conflict of interest?

 

2. What is the risk of that harm and/or unfair benefit if the conflict of interest is not eliminated?

 

3. Does the potential benefit of the second scenario outweigh that risk?

 

4. Can that risk be managed?

 

I believe that, in this case, such an analysis would result in a decision in favor of the second scenario.

 

Of course the decision has already been made and we have absolutely no control over it. I just hope this makes you feel a little better regarding the issue of conflict of interest.



#36 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 November 2019 - 15:21

I must admit i was worried about the potential conflict of interest with RP owning the series while competing in it, but the moment i read about comments made by the likes of Chip Ganassi, Michael and Mario Andretti, AJ Foyt and other ICS team owners saying that RP is the right man for the job i was fine with it. If they have no problems with this, and they have much more skin in this game than a mere spectator like me, then why should i worry about it?



#37 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,059 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 08 November 2019 - 15:51

BRG and PCC,

 

Please answer or quit your bitching.

AS PCC has already said, I was not bitching and nor was he.  There is a clear conflict of interest, as anyone can see.  Roger Penske may be a popular figure but that is beside the point.  

 

We are not obliged to provide an alternative buyer, anymore than the Monopolies & Competition Commission is obliged to if it rules that a merger or buyout is deemed anti-competitive.  That is the Hulmans problem, not ours.  



#38 Jack-the-Lad

Jack-the-Lad
  • Member

  • 2,161 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 09 November 2019 - 02:03

As a general rule I try to restrict my activity on TNF to providing facts and corrections regarding racing history about which I have first hand knowledge. I’m breaking that rule. I worked for RP on and off for a nearly two decades. Spent a lot of time in one to one situations with him. I flew across the Atlantic with him a few times on one of his jets, once where apart from the crew we were the only passengers. I went through the Indy pushrod engine project, the Porsche RS Spyder project, the ‘94 dominance, several ‘500’ wins and on and on directly working with him.To those who seek to question his integrity, I say don’t waste your time. This is a guy who used to take his time to go to the Detroit Diesel factory at four in the morning and spend time talking to the men on factory floor on the night shift. He knew all of their names, he remembered stories of close relatives who had been unwell and knew to enquire if they were better. I have heard him speak with concern in private about the school dropout rates among young black men In his adopted hometown of Detroit. The point is, he is not some fat cat billionaire lining his pockets with the fruits of the labour of an oppressed workforce. You can try to tar him with some nasty brush to satisfy your own petty jealousies or dislike of (self made, hard earned) success, but there isn’t anyone among the tens of thousands of current or former employees of his who doesn’t know that there is nobody who works harder for the collective benefit of all of his employees than RP. As I say, don’t waste your time knocking him, because all you are doing is showing your ignorance. The guy has all the integrity he needs to separate running the Speedway and running his team.


Well said.

With respect to the Indy pushrod project, that was the only 500 I have been able to attend, but it was the right year, as I was there for Mario’s retirement dinner. Those cars were amazing, and the book “BEAST” really filled in the details for me. It certainly showed what Penske is capable of, and it demonstrated how he inspires others to work together toward a common, worthwhile goal.

#39 Jack-the-Lad

Jack-the-Lad
  • Member

  • 2,161 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 09 November 2019 - 02:19

All the hand wringing over “conflict of interest” is pointless if one bothers to think about it. Why would Roger Penske risk his investment....and more importantly his reputation and his legacy....by taking um, “unfair advantage” of his roles of team owner and series owner? Does anyone think that teams like Ganassi and Andretti would simply accept that? Of course not. The series would be ruined in short order...no Indycar, no Indy 500, at least not in any significant form. I think all the concern trolling over integrity and conflicts of interest and the good of the sport is mostly just petty resentment. The team owners have already expressed their support. That should be enough for anybody.

Edited by Jack-the-Lad, 09 November 2019 - 02:20.


Advertisement

#40 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 09 November 2019 - 04:07

AS PCC has already said, I was not bitching and nor was he.  There is a clear conflict of interest, as anyone can see.  Roger Penske may be a popular figure but that is beside the point.  

 

We are not obliged to provide an alternative buyer, anymore than the Monopolies & Competition Commission is obliged to if it rules that a merger or buyout is deemed anti-competitive.  That is the Hulmans problem, not ours.  

 

BRG,

 

Sorry. If all you do is complain without offering constructive alternatives, that is just bitching. It is the very definition of bitching.

 

You are right that it is the Hulmans' problem. But you are criticizing the solution they have chosen because you don't like Roger Penske and you insist there is a conflict of interest.The obvious question then is, "Okay, what would you think was a more satisfactory solution?". I do not understand why you will not answer that fairly simple question.

 

You have accused the rest of us of being biased in favor of Penske but you have offered nothing substantive to justify your obvious animosity towards him. And you insist that "there is a clear conflict of interest, as anyone can see" but you have given no specifics to support that assertion. You have not even stated what interests you think are in conflict.

 

You are entitled to your opinion and are under no obligation to agree with mine or anyone else's. But when you espouse a viewpoint that is critical of others, including members of the forum, and that labels the actions under discussion as unethical and/or illegal, a little more detail is expected and appropriate.

 

(PS I don't know whether or not this will be of comfort to you, but the announcement of the sale on the Indycar website stated, "The transaction will close following receipt of applicable government approvals and other standard conditions.")



#41 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,059 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 09 November 2019 - 20:13

BRG,

 

Sorry. If all you do is complain without offering constructive alternatives, that is just bitching. It is the very definition of bitching.

 

You are right that it is the Hulmans' problem. But you are criticizing the solution they have chosen because you don't like Roger Penske and you insist there is a conflict of interest.The obvious question then is, "Okay, what would you think was a more satisfactory solution?". I do not understand why you will not answer that fairly simple question.

 

You have accused the rest of us of being biased in favor of Penske but you have offered nothing substantive to justify your obvious animosity towards him. And you insist that "there is a clear conflict of interest, as anyone can see" but you have given no specifics to support that assertion. You have not even stated what interests you think are in conflict.

 

You are entitled to your opinion and are under no obligation to agree with mine or anyone else's. But when you espouse a viewpoint that is critical of others, including members of the forum, and that labels the actions under discussion as unethical and/or illegal, a little more detail is expected and appropriate.

 

(PS I don't know whether or not this will be of comfort to you, but the announcement of the sale on the Indycar website stated, "The transaction will close following receipt of applicable government approvals and other standard conditions.")

Good Lord, where to start?  :rolleyes:

 

If commenting that there is a clear conflict of interest in someone owning  (a) a race team, (b) the series it races in & © the most important venue that it races at constitutes complaining and bitching then so be it.  It doesn't incidentally, that is just your frankly rather infantile response to something you didn't like hearing.

 

You have no grounds for stating that I don't like Roger Penske.  Because it isn't true.  I have a lot of respect for the man and what he has achieved.  That doesn't put him into some special category where he is untouchable.  You are simply equating any slightly adverse comment about him as 'dislike' or 'animosity'.  Sheer nonsense.  The sort of c**p you get in North korea, where nobody is allowed to do anything but praise the Great Leader.  

 

You keep demanding that I put forward an alternative solution.  As I have said, I don't have to, because it is not my problem.  But here goes.  They should find someone else to buy out the business, someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest.  Who, I can hear you asking?  I have no idea, but there must be someone in a country the size and with the wealth of the USA.  Or if there isn't, then either they keep it, or they cut the price until they find someone.  

 

You have the gall to say that I am entitled to my opinion, but you clearly don't believe that as you continue to attack me in a rather personal manner.

 

End of discussion.



#42 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,086 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 November 2019 - 20:26

Is there a parallel with Bernie Ecclestone and Brabham and FOCA?
1.  Did FOCA suffer because of Bernie's interest in Brabham?  I don't think so.
2.  Did Brabham suffer because of Bernie's involvement in FOCA?  A bit more difficult to answer.  Initially no.  But later Bernie divested himself of Brabham as much because he couldn't give it his full interest as because he perceived a conflict of [his] interest.



#43 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 22,157 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 09 November 2019 - 20:29

Good Lord, where to start?  :rolleyes:

 

If commenting that there is a clear conflict of interest in someone owning  (a) a race team, (b) the series it races in & © the most important venue that it races at constitutes complaining and bitching then so be it.  It doesn't incidentally, that is just your frankly rather infantile response to something you didn't like hearing.

 

You have no grounds for stating that I don't like Roger Penske.  Because it isn't true.  I have a lot of respect for the man and what he has achieved.  That doesn't put him into some special category where he is untouchable.  You are simply equating any slightly adverse comment about him as 'dislike' or 'animosity'.  Sheer nonsense.  The sort of c**p you get in North korea, where nobody is allowed to do anything but praise the Great Leader.  

 

You keep demanding that I put forward an alternative solution.  As I have said, I don't have to, because it is not my problem.  But here goes.  They should find someone else to buy out the business, someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest.  Who, I can hear you asking?  I have no idea, but there must be someone in a country the size and with the wealth of the USA.  Or if there isn't, then either they keep it, or they cut the price until they find someone.  

 

You have the gall to say that I am entitled to my opinion, but you clearly don't believe that as you continue to attack me in a rather personal manner.

 

End of discussion.

I actually agree with you that on its face this is a case that can go badly.

 

But I see no personal attacks by RW here. IMHO, this is just another example of our prior posting histories affecting our current ones. And for the benefit of TNF, several of us need to improve in this regard — myself included, and you know what I mean.

 

Considering our two nations began as brothers, I think we might all do better by not constantly posting as if we're on two sides of what should be a common fence.

 

This post is solely meant as constructive.   :up:



#44 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 09 November 2019 - 21:35

BRG,

 

I could respond in kind but his has gone on way too long already. I will only repeat the following points that I have already written:

 

1. I am not aware of any racing circuit or racing series in the world where the owner is not allowed to enter his own car. Any favoritism or unfair advantage given the owner would be immediately apparent.

 

2. Penske has already owned and operated three major tracks at which his teams raced and participated in the operation of a major series in which he competed, all without controversy. What's the big deal?

 

3. Bottom line here is that the Hulman family wanted out. Penske has the money, the organization, the experience and the drive to not only succeed financially but also to further the interests of the sport of Indycar racing.

 

4. By investing in the track and the series, Penske now has a stake in its success exponentially greater than the stake he has in his own racing operation. And the only way to ensure that success is to produce the quality of racing that keeps the teams, sponsors and fans coming back for more.

 

5. If Penske had to divest himself of his Indy racing operation as a result of this acquisition just to keep some people from complaining, the series would lose its top team and everyone would suffer, the teams, the sponsors, the fans, the series itself and, of course Penske as the new owner of the series.

 

6. The announcement of the sale on the Indycar website stated, "The transaction will close following receipt of applicable government approvals and other standard conditions."

 

Having restated my position, I agree that this should be the end of the discussion.



#45 GMACKIE

GMACKIE
  • Member

  • 7,429 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 09 November 2019 - 22:38

I, like many others, am sitting on E1's "common fence"...  ;)



#46 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 22,157 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 09 November 2019 - 22:49

Don't hurt your undercarriage.  :wave:



#47 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 10,382 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 10 November 2019 - 12:47

My first thoughts on the news were "Good".

 

It's a magnificent facility, run indifferently for many years & is in danger of dying unless some drastic happens.

 

I see absolutely no reason why owning the track & one series need cause problems.

 

The possibilities for the future are now in the hands of people with some sense of sports business & are not locked in 'tradition'. (Although the tradition elements of he 500 should be broadly maintained.)

 

 

 

....and it's about time E1pix paid a visit there....



#48 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 10 November 2019 - 15:22

The "common fence" is not a bad place to sit. (Although it doesn't sound very comfortable!)

 

I assume that we are all racing fans here and that we want the 500 and the Indycar series to continue and to prosper. But the very survival of Indycar as a viable, top line series is not a given, So I, for one, am truly excited by Penske's acquisition of the track, the race and the series. It is the best scenario that I can imagine to ensure survival in the short term and prosperity in the long term.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether Penske is the best person to take the helm. (I share the concern about his age.) And it is perfectly reasonable  to ask whether or not this new arrangement creates a conflict of interest.

 

In my opinion, neither question has a straight yes or no answer. I have tried to explain the reasons that I believe the answers are yes and no respectively. And I have tried to understand the reasons that others believe the answers are the opposite.

 

Before the announcement I was pessimistic about the future of Indycar. Now I am excited to see what will unfold. Only time will tell. 



#49 B Squared

B Squared
  • Member

  • 5,698 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 November 2019 - 15:41

The Indianapolis Business Journal takes a look at the acquisition and the challenges faced. I'll put my lot in with the people of the Penske group in strengthening IndyCar. I met Mr. Hulman more than a few times, and am thankful for the Hulman family and their 74 years of ownership.

https://www.ibj.com/...teep-challenges

#50 hlfuzzball

hlfuzzball
  • Member

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 10 November 2019 - 15:58

Similar to this controversy:
On another forum I commented that this year,Tony Stewart of NASCAR fame won an All-Star Sprint series race paying $26,000.It happens that Stewart owns that series and occasionally competes in it's races. The standard winners share is $5000 in this working man's dirt oval series.For the multi-millionaire owner to take the largest purse of the year away from his regulars who struggle to get by, I noted was questionable.I also noted that I didn't know what he did with that $26thou.(reditributed? Who knows)
The first comment to my post was:
"must be a Stewart hater".
I didn't bother to reply in order to avoid a "war".