why did larry sell his franchises

naughtymutt · 15 Feb 2005, 09:44 (Ref:1225974)

Maybe I missed something, but why did Larry sell his Franchises to WPS?

billy bigtime · 15 Feb 2005, 09:53 (Ref:1225980)

3 million good reasons.

Falcadore · 15 Feb 2005, 09:56 (Ref:1225981)

Billy: I do not believe that to be the case. It has been widely commented on covering a number of reasons in these fora. You would do well to jump into one of the other threads which has already examined this topic at length, rather than cover the same old ground.

Again.

billy bigtime · 15 Feb 2005, 10:03 (Ref:1225987)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcadore

Billy: I do not believe that to be the case. It has been widely commented on covering a number of reasons in these fora. You would do well to jump into one of the other threads which has already examined this topic at length, rather than cover the same old ground.

Again.

I just answered the Mans question, why dont you go moderate somewhere else.

Falcadore · 15 Feb 2005, 10:13 (Ref:1225998)

Touchy.

Billy: I do not believe that to be the case.

Naughty: It has been widely commented on covering a number of reasons in these fora. You would do well to jump into one of the other threads which has already examined this topic at length, rather than cover the same old ground.

Again.

Does that make you happier?

It's not my job to moderate here, as you so eloquantly suggested, but the topic has been done to death already.

Just Do It! · 15 Feb 2005, 10:22 (Ref:1226005)

Quote:

Originally Posted by billy bigtime

3 million good reasons.

2.5 million good reasons would be closer to the mark, Billy....or about half what Larry "thought" the franchises were worth when they had "thought tax" and "Larry tax" added to them

billy bigtime · 15 Feb 2005, 10:26 (Ref:1226009)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcadore

Touchy.

Billy: I do not believe that to be the case.

Naughty: It has been widely commented on covering a number of reasons in these fora. You would do well to jump into one of the other threads which has already examined this topic at length, rather than cover the same old ground.

Again.

Does that make you happier?

It's not my job to moderate here, as you so eloquantly suggested, but the topic has been done to death already.

I didn't start the Topic, don't shoot the mail man.

**GTRMagic** · 15 Feb 2005, 10:29 (Ref:1226015)

Imagine.... if you will...

Divorce pending...

Own an asset that cost $2k, but is worth $3m... own a business with assets worth, ironically, around $3m..

Trouble & strife entitled to a cut....

Do I sell the income producing business... that has been my past for 20 years, and my future for 20 more...

... or do I sell something that may not be worth more than I can sell it for today... that cost me very little...

... and allows my business to survive... and my liabilities to be washed away...

If any of this actually happened of course....

naughtymutt · 15 Feb 2005, 10:30 (Ref:1226016)

Dont blame me, all i did was ask a question in a discussion forum.... isnt that what your meant to do?

I had looked back through the discussions and I couldnt find any reason (other than the money) as to why larry would do it. surely he needs them to gain entry into the races.

thanks GTR

billy bigtime · 15 Feb 2005, 10:44 (Ref:1226023)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Imagine.... if you will...

Divorce pending...

Own an asset that cost $2k, but is worth $3m... own a business with assets worth, ironically, around $3m..

Trouble & strife entitled to a cut....

Do I sell the income producing business... that has been my past for 20 years, and my future for 20 more...

... or do I sell something that may not be worth more than I can sell it for today... that cost me very little...

... and allows my business to survive... and my liabilities to be washed away...

If any of this actually happened of course....

I think your spot on GTR. Now the CGT would be around.....

Average Punter · 15 Feb 2005, 11:26 (Ref:1226058)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

... or do I sell something that may not be worth more than I can sell it for today... that cost me very little...

But isn't it a grave risk to sell your L1 entry slots and therefore rely on the Franchise Police to guarantee you access to some "lower level" positions on the grid?
Would he really have risked not getting a Castrol car on the grid for '05?
Is his engineering business so good that he could have walked away from CPR??
What would happen to Richo and Dumbrell?
Maybe the L2's were in fact "promised" to him by the Franchise Nazi?
Did they have ownership of them to make promises anyway?

Still sooo many questions...
Sorry Falc but I still can't find the answers on here...

Wrighty05 · 15 Feb 2005, 12:49 (Ref:1226133)

Home priority is higher than business priority.

Silver GT · 15 Feb 2005, 23:32 (Ref:1226674)

it always comes own to the money.....I reckon Larry would have his first dollar

manwell · 16 Feb 2005, 00:04 (Ref:1226698)

Because he was offered $3million for something he originally got for free.

lcfp2297 · 16 Feb 2005, 00:52 (Ref:1226724)

IF TEGA gets the grid down to 32, then all 32 will be required at all events.

IF all 32 licenses were required at all events (as opposed to the current 80% requirement for L2) then L2 would have to become at least equivalent to L1...

Wouldn't it be better to own L2 than L1 in this fictitious scenario?

Spunky · 16 Feb 2005, 01:00 (Ref:1226729)

Can I make a suggestion, Larry is having problems getting "his" numbers back, maybe if we all emailed Tega/Avesco and showed some support so he can keep these numbers. These numbers are as symbolic to Larry, as 05 to Brock and 17 to Dick. Lets see if we can help him. Sponsors who spend so long associating with a number would not be happy either, in my opinion.

lowndes6 · 16 Feb 2005, 01:02 (Ref:1226732)

Dont worry larry will have his normal number next season. Just all media hype.

Trev Campbell · 16 Feb 2005, 01:46 (Ref:1226744)

There was a bit in AA today tha TEGA still haven't validated his use of the L2 fanchises. Britek's were rubber stamped straight away at the same meeting Larry's were sent too. Anyone know what the deal is. It will be pretty crappy if LP doesn't have 11.

Spunky · 16 Feb 2005, 04:29 (Ref:1226795)

Trev my post is accurate as of two days ago, which was after the meeting with Tega.

**GTRMagic** · 16 Feb 2005, 08:34 (Ref:1226891)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcfp2297

IF TEGA gets the grid down to 32, then all 32 will be required at all events.

IF all 32 licenses were required at all events (as opposed to the current 80% requirement for L2) then L2 would have to become at least equivalent to L1...

Wouldn't it be better to own L2 than L1 in this fictitious scenario?

Anyone would think this is why a certain L1 team which is busting to achieve an alternate ownership, is sitting on their franchise.. in case the Kelvinmonster decides TEGA should add a L1 to the L2 in its drawer!

Falcadore · 16 Feb 2005, 12:55 (Ref:1227168)

Why does anyone think Larry cares about 'his' numbers? #8 was just a number of convenience and was mainly associated with a driver no longer in the team. Steven Richards has never had "a number", neither has Paul Dumbrell.

Larry is as pragmatic a soul in the pits as they come. Chances are such an organised move might be greeted with a shake of the head.

Raglanparade · 16 Feb 2005, 13:07 (Ref:1227179)

I still think you will find Perkins buying a discounted Dynamik L1 Franchise, and Dynamik running one car in a L2 without a penalty.

lcfp2297 · 17 Feb 2005, 00:56 (Ref:1227788)

From memory, Perkins chose 11 in the first place because it was the easiest number to put on the car with tape...

Sandgroper · 17 Feb 2005, 01:23 (Ref:1227802)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonhill9884

I still think you will find Perkins buying a discounted Dynamik L1 Franchise, and Dynamik running one car in a L2 without a penalty.

That sounds quite interesting, not to sure how the folk will feel about TD having NIL penalties?
I do wonder if Larry would ever want to sell his franchisers again very soon....I think not. Nearly backfired.

MHDT · 17 Feb 2005, 01:35 (Ref:1227807)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcfp2297

From memory, Perkins chose 11 in the first place because it was the easiest number to put on the car with tape...

I think he can be quoted as saying that "number 11 is the easiest number to carry spares for".

He may have become 'attached' to 'his' number since making that statement; however such would probably be insignificant now, given other issues at hand.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Level 2 Franchises	tiko	Australasian Touring Cars.	19	5 Apr 2006 01:42
The 4 remaining franchises	crozier74	A1GP	23	2 Sep 2005 09:32
Perkins L1 franchises sold	pete55	Australasian Touring Cars.	13	7 May 2004 04:36
2003 Franchises etc ????????????	The Tool Man	Australasian Touring Cars.	4	15 Nov 2002 10:31