• @RapidcreekOP
    link
    07 months ago

    No, FWONK is a US company, but nevermind the facts. The Concord Agreement is a registered corporate document of a US company that used to be known as Liberty Media, and is now Formula One. As such, it is under the purview of of the SEC, DOJ among others. This is not a contract dispute. It is a potential antitrust suit.

    • @TheGrandNagus
      link
      English
      0
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      No. FOM is a British company, based in the UK, bound by UK law. It is headquartered in London. The Concorde Agreement is also under the purview of British law. You keep repeating that 2+2=5, but that does not make it so.

      Stop ignoring my question. Answer it.

      • @RapidcreekOP
        link
        17 months ago

        I really don’t know what your problem is. I’ve already told you that you’re wrong, but it doesn’t matter. FiFA is a Swiss company, and they have been successfully sued by the US government on antitrust. Also, the Concord Agreement contract doesn’t matter except to the point of F1 minding their own rules. Antitrust is not a contract dispute, as I said

        I’ve been patient. Be glad to answer your question if you state it plainly.

        • @TheGrandNagus
          link
          English
          07 months ago

          I’ve told you that you’re wrong. FOM is under UK jurisdiction, it’s a UK company. And the Concorde Agreement is answerable to UK law, not US law.

          If Andretti wants in, they’ll have to challenge it in UK courts, not American ones.

          I don’t think I can dumb this down any more for you, I’m sorry.

          And no, since you’ve been dodging the question, clearly you aren’t. Answer it. Do you think the UK has the right to tell the NFL that they must accept British teams? Yes or no.

          • @RapidcreekOP
            link
            17 months ago

            This is the last time I’ll say this.

            1. Liberty is a US company, and owns F1. It doesn’t matter what law their contracts construction contain because this is not a contract issue.

            2. This is not about Andretti, it’s about GM.

            3. That question is in reality useless, since the NFL would love to have a British team. If they did have a team complying with their rules, and the NFL was found to be breaking British antitrust laws; I’ve got no problem with them being sued.

            • @TheGrandNagus
              link
              English
              0
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Liberty is a US company, and owns F1.

              That’s not how this works. McDonald’s owns McDonald’s UK, but that doesn’t mean that McDonald’s UK follows US laws. It follows UK laws. The same applies to FOM, which is a British business, based in the UK, and complies with UK law. US laws don’t apply to them, nor is there any mechanisms to apply them.

              How is that hard to understand? How many more times do I need to explain it to you? If you set up a lemonade stand in the US then another in Spain, they’ll follow the laws of where they’re based respectively. They wouldn’t bother be under the guise of US law.

              this is not a contract issue.

              Yes it is.

              This is not about Andretti

              Yes it is.

              That question is in reality useless, since the NFL would love to have a British team.

              Stop dodging the question.

              and the NFL was found to be breaking British antitrust laws; I’ve got no problem with them being sued.

              Interesting… So you think any country should be able to sue any company or sporting organisation for their business elsewhere. Cool. I’ll be awaiting, say, Germany suing USPS and you cheering for it.

              • @RapidcreekOP
                link
                17 months ago

                There are US laws for business. Most countries have them. Antitrust laws are not contingent on internal contracts. It’s a law not a contract dispute. If you can acknowledge that it might be worthwhile to go further.

                • @TheGrandNagus
                  link
                  English
                  07 months ago

                  US laws don’t apply outside of the US.

                  I get that you’re really into your nationalism and American exceptionalism over there, but surely you understand that.

                  US law is as relevant here as Japanese law.

                  • @RapidcreekOP
                    link
                    07 months ago

                    Sigh.

                    US laws apply to anybody or anything on US Ground. That includes people, business, and things like money and banking.

                    If you want to practice monopolistic business practices in other parts of the world and exclude the US and U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement countries, that is up to you and the antitrust laws of the EU and Britain.

                    If this is your way of saying you understand this is not a contract matter, say so.