On 2006-02-13 16:32:08 -0500, "SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> said:

do you have any evidence that supports your theory? If Dodge wasn't
living up to their end of the contract with Davis then they would have
been in breach of contract and Dodge would not only have lost their
suit, but Davis would have won his counter suit.... but neither one of
those things happened.


This is business, Sim. Dodge lived up to their contract with Smith.
They no longer wanted to stay with them ~ period. It was through
Dodges financial support that Smith was able to run at all ~ but it
isn't a life long commitment, they owe Smith nothing more than their
contractual obligation.

And I highly doubt Davis will be anymore successful in Toyota than he
was in Dodge... or any other make he has ever run.

I very well aware of all things Jeep ~ the "jpchick83" part of my email
addy comes from my being a "Jeep chick". I've had one since the day I
got my licesnse... my first was an '83 CJ which I drove until 2002
(when I wrecked it ~ still crying over that loss), I got a '98 Cherokee
Sport to drive my daughters around in when they were born, and I
currently am driving a 2003 Grand Cherokee Limited that I'm gonna be
trading in for a Grand Cherokee SRT-8 in the spring..... but I'm still
siding with business on this one. Jeep is a registered trademark of
Daimler-Chrysler, they have every right to protect their interest.
There are far too many people out there that are willing to earn a buck
of someone elses name. It's a smart move to have a zero tolerance
policy in order to keep the line very clear.

Again, the courts found Dodge kept their end of the bargain and Davis
did not. IMO, all contracts deserve to be respected ~ personal
opinions aside.


--
..."You don't need to prove a thing to me ~ just give me faith, make
me believe"... $1 to Dave Matthews ~ from "Save Me"

http://www.nancies.org/music/lyrics/saveme/

"SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote


What is looks like on the surface is... contract. Davis violated it and the
courts upheld that view. It does not matter a twit what Dodge is doing with
respect to withdrawing racing support - it's a contract issue. Not to
mention a bit of an ethics issue.

Now this is just senseless. Davis breached his contract long before any
Jimmy Smith issues happened.

What does off road Jeep stuff have to do with Bill Davis Racing, and Bill
Davis' actions?

No - the one liner was part of a more complete thought that had unfolded in
a few posts. It was a perfectly appropriate statement in light of what had
previously been posted.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net

"Julia" <nospam (AT) home (DOT) com> wrote

No, it was an opinion, "saw the writing on the wall" was the kicker that
implies that. Dodge wasn't giving him enough to have 2 cars, Toyota
apparently was willing to. Now, with Penske, Ganassi and especially Evernham
getting support hand over fist, I imagine that Davis felt left out, because
he was. I doubt that Dodge "breached" their contract with him, but they sure
weren't giving him the support that Evnerham and Ganassi in particular were
getting. Call me crazy, but treating people like red headed step-children is
not a good way to endear them to your cause.

Explain their withdrawl of support from (also a reigning champion) Bobby
Hamilton then too while you're at it. My point isn't based on Jimmy alone.
It's based on Dodge's recent history of pulling support from people not
named Evernham, Ganassi, or Penske. (And is/has become typical of Dodge.
They pulled their support from all the pro teams a few years ago in the
NHRA, saying they were done with drag racing. And granted, they were moving
into the Cup series in NASCAR the following year. But, and this is The
Kicker, they now sponsor gobs of Funny Cars and Pro Stock machines back over
in the NHRA today, after "leaving forever" to get into the CTS/NASCAR...)
So, you choose to listen to whichever side of Dodge's mouth that you care
to, I know what they are and simply call it like I see it.


That is an unfair blanket statement. BDR produces decent cars, and has
always struggled in the engine department (by and large). Given that Toyota
is going to build all the engines "their" teams use - just as TRD-USA does
now for their CTS teams - I can't see where you are basing this statement.
*True* factory support is a boon in this sport, and Davis will finally have
it with Yota. IMO, he never had it to begin with from Dodge. ASIDE: Unmunge
my email and we'll wager on BDR's Toyota performance if you'd like.

Zero tolerance policies are dangerous animals. Communisim comes to mind,
since it is the mother of all zero tolerance policies.

And I know the guy that ran 7slotgrille, and he was in no way infringing on
Jeep's brand name. And I must say, Nathan no longer owns any Jeeps, and I
can't blame him. Daimler shat on him pretty good, and he wasn't even
proftting from the site. It was a freebie site, that basically worshipped
Jeep, told people to buy them, and what "Jeep" parts to buy to make them
even nicer to off-road in. Shutting down his site made Daimler look no
better than the paranoid socialists they have become.

Dodge was shitting on Davis, in which case I say he had the moral right to
break his contract, personal opinions aside. I mean if you are so staunch of
a contract supporter, then it is safe to assume you condone no divorces, in
any case? Marriages are contracts too ya know. And what's your take on the
Jamie McMurray and Kurt Busch deals? Those were 2 broken contracts as well.

You made a "that's business" statement above, and I wonder if you really
understand "business" because contracts are written to be enforced until
they're either "not needed" or "no longer applicable" to the current status
of things IMO, and I am a business owner. Otherwise, that's why lawyers
exist. When a contract is no longer mutually beneficial to both parties (or
however many) then I say break it. And I do, all the time. Now that, is
business. Sticking to a contract that is reaming your pooper chute, is dumb,
not business. Unless you don't want to stay in business very much longer
anyway.

On 2006-02-14 17:22:52 -0500, "SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> said:

It doesn't matter how he "felt". He had a contract, and didn't live up
to it. Not only did he not live up to it, but he was found guilty of
passing technology on to the competition ~ how does that endear him to
you, or fit in to your sense of morals and business ethics?

I explain it as not renewing a contract that has run out ~ nothing
wrong with that. In a tight economy, they are trying to invest their
money in places they feel will produce the best results for them ~
again, nothing wrong with that.

It's not an unfair statement at all, it's the truth. Davis teams have
always struggled, there is no debating that fact. I see no reason to
believe it is going to be any different.

"7slotgrille" is an obvious Jeep reference ~ you can't possibly deny
that. Again, Daimler is protecting their name ~ again, there is
nothing wrong with that. Obviously, this is a personal issue for you ~
and there is nothing wrong with that either, but I'm looking at it
purely from a business standpoint.

No, it's not safe to assume I don't condone divorces, they are a
personal matter, not business. Business ethics are far more clear cut
than personal ones.

And as far as Jamie and Kurt go, I'll keep it short. Kurt was wrong to
sign a deal while under contract. Jamie's deal was supposed to begin
at the end of his contract with Ganassi & 2006 was an option year, with
no garauntee by Chip that he would be driving, in fact Ganassi had said
his job was not secure ~ so I have no problem with him looking around
to ensure he would have a ride lined up had his option not been picked
up. He didn't break his contract with Chip and was willing to stick
with him had the option been picked up.

I do understand business, as my family owns two of them (construction
and learning consultant) and when we sign a contracts we honor our end
100% of the time. To this point, not only have our businesses been
successful, but our reputation is impecible. Business lawyers exist
for all sorts of purposes ~ not only to serve those whose business
ethics are questionable.



--
...."I dreamed the devil and the Lord, they were dancing arm in arm"...
$1 to Dave from "JTR"

http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=3655