Lizzerd
12-03-03, 07:16 PM
This story (http://espn.go.com/rpm/cart/2003/1202/1676720.html) says that OWRS is balking at the sale because some of the conditions of the sale won't be met.
Specifically, the condition requiring "the absence of a material adverse effect" won't be satisfied because CART expects to have fewer teams participating in the series in 2004.
A little later, Paul Gentilozzi says:
OWRS partner Paul Gentilozzi said. "OWRS expects to retain a sufficient number of cars to meet CART's contractual obligations with our race promoters."
So, which is it? The way I read this is OWRS doesn't think CART can provide or guarantee a minimum car count, but they think that they can? Seems to me that OWRS is saying to CART "You don't have the cars now, so we're not gonna bite. Go bankrupt, we'll pick up the pieces, and fill the grid later."
Specifically, the condition requiring "the absence of a material adverse effect" won't be satisfied because CART expects to have fewer teams participating in the series in 2004.
A little later, Paul Gentilozzi says:
OWRS partner Paul Gentilozzi said. "OWRS expects to retain a sufficient number of cars to meet CART's contractual obligations with our race promoters."
So, which is it? The way I read this is OWRS doesn't think CART can provide or guarantee a minimum car count, but they think that they can? Seems to me that OWRS is saying to CART "You don't have the cars now, so we're not gonna bite. Go bankrupt, we'll pick up the pieces, and fill the grid later."