• Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    You need to read the article. Congress is asking if FOM is being anticompetitive by not allowing GM to compete. It has very little to do with Andretti.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’ve read the article. It’s a few congress people sabre-rattling about a matter they don’t understand.

      Andretti lobbied a few congress people, it’s semantics. It doesn’t change anything about my comment or the situation. FOM is not under US jurisdiction and the US can’t tell them what to do or find them guilty of anything.

      This can only be challenged in UK courts.

      Do you think that the NFL can be challenged in UK courts for not allowing British teams in the league? Could you explain your reasoning behind that logic?

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Again.

        The lead congressman is from Michigan, home of GM.

        FOM is a US company and very much under US law. Even if it wasn’t it could still be charged with US antitrust laws.

        The same thing happened to FIFA

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          No. FOM is a British company and is under British law. The Concorde Agreement is under British law. You are wrong. Please do your research.

          Stop dodging the damn question. How many times do you need to be asked? Answer it.

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 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.

              • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 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.

                  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 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.