van de Garde sueing Sauber

[jamiebae]

The main issue here for Giedo is likely to be that he (his backers) paid a lot of money last year for the third driver position on the understanding that he would step up to a race drive in 2015. Had the contract been a pure 'third driver' agreement without the race seat it would no doubt have been significantly less attractive and commanded a lower price. It is also possible that vdG has now ended up in breach of his own personal sponsorship contracts as a result of Sauber not putting him in the car.

Sauber have made an utter Horlicks of this whole situation, and should have dealt with it very differently. I understand that Giedo first heard he wouldn't be driving the car when he read the press release for the new driver signings, and there were no negotiations to buy him out of his contract option prior to that which is asking for trouble.

As everyone else has said the safety argument is totally rubbish - he drove the car last year and it's certainly not a totally new car so I'm sure he fits. He has more GP experience than either of their current drivers and holds a valid Superlicence so there shouldn't be a problem there.

I wonder if the FIA or FOM will do Sauber for 'bringing the sport into disrepute' by suggesting that it would be unsafe to run him ...

[rallycross]

jamiebae said:

I wonder if the FIA will do Sauber for 'bringing the sport into disrepute' by suggesting that it would be unsafe to run him ...

Who knows what Todt is doing? Is he actually doing anything or maybe he is just sitting in his boudoir drawing doodles of Napoleon wondering WTF he is actually supposed to do in this job?

[DeltonaS]

rallycross said:

This episode is just another symptom of the complete mess F1 is in.

Financially unsustainable model half the grid on the borderline of collapsing
New drives must bring larger cheque book
Sponsors hard (impossible) to find due to excessive cost and poor return and bad press
FIA not got the (backbone or desire) to sort simple things such as contract disputes out behind closed doors
Core markets lost massive coverage due to pay per view model

Sauber have got themselves in this mess through to trying to survive with no sponsor and the only route to a sponsor currently is via these pay drivers. What a mess it is.

Indeed it is. But hey, it makes the first race of the season even more interesting.

And maybe even more so because I have some doubt if VdGarde really is after a financial settlement, his father-in-law is a billionare and funding his race career; he's (partly) paying for his seat at Sauber.

On the other hand the lawsuit will ofcourse be lethal for the spirit and cooperation between the team (management) and VdGarde (also heard that Sauber made sure VdGarde could not be at lasts years final race in Abu Dhabi because Sauber blocked his access card). Sauber can't do anything else than go for a financial settlement since reaching a settlement with the "new" drivers will cost them a lot more.

[anonymous-user]

andburg said:

I agree Sauber are in the wrong, not suggesting they aren't, nor am I suggesting they weren't being paid.

I think they failed to realise how expensive the new regs were going to be and couldn't afford to develop a competitive package with the money they were bringing in. They made a decision when back into the corner and have to deal with it now.

His contract has been upheld in 3 separate courts now so i do not doubt it is legal and he should be in the seat. He's technically right, but morally wrong. I just see hime is shooting himself and the sport in the foot, dragging another team into the mud and killing any chances he has of scoring a drive elsewhere if they collapse.

I do not see any way this works out well for the driver/team/fans, i dont thin kthey have the funds to pay anyone to go away

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 11th March 12:02

Why is he morally wrong? It's not his responsibility to look after the image or finances of Sauber, who seem to have royally fked up.

And have you any evidence to support your olfactory suspicions:

"Smells like he accepted a package before seeing the car was going to be competitive through testing and has now decided he wants his seat back. He was happy to take the payment when he thought he was going to be running round at the back without even a manor / caterham for company"

[anonymous-user]

andburg said:

I agree Sauber are in the wrong, not suggesting they aren't, nor am I suggesting they weren't being paid.

I think they failed to realise how expensive the new regs were going to be and couldn't afford to develop a competitive package with the money they were bringing in. They made a decision when back into the corner and have to deal with it now.

His contract has been upheld in 3 separate courts now so i do not doubt it is legal and he should be in the seat. He's technically right, but morally wrong. I just see hime is shooting himself and the sport in the foot, dragging another team into the mud and killing any chances he has of scoring a drive elsewhere if they collapse.

I do not see any way this works out well for the driver/team/fans, i dont thin kthey have the funds to pay anyone to go away

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 11th March 12:02

Why is he morally wrong? It's not his responsibility to look after the image or finances of Sauber, who seem to have royally fked up.

And have you any evidence to support your olfactory suspicions:

"Smells like he accepted a package before seeing the car was going to be competitive through testing and has now decided he wants his seat back. He was happy to take the payment when he thought he was going to be running round at the back without even a manor / caterham for company"

[Woody]

Interesting read from Joe Saward:

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/oh-what...

It has to be said that Sauber haven't handled this very well at all.

[andburg]

REALIST123 said:

Why is he morally wrong? It's not his responsibility to look after the image or finances of Sauber, who seem to have royally fked up.

And have you any evidence to support your olfactory suspicions:

"Smells like he accepted a package before seeing the car was going to be competitive through testing and has now decided he wants his seat back. He was happy to take the payment when he thought he was going to be running round at the back without even a manor / caterham for company"

I have no evidence, its just my view.

lets take it to the real world away from F1, you have a contract and it gets terminated. You fight to get back into the job and after 2 months the company collapses because you took away their source of income. who wins? they've gone and you still dont have a job

its extreme but given the state of F1 atm, is it too far fetched?

[jamiebae]

andburg said:

REALIST123 said:

Why is he morally wrong? It's not his responsibility to look after the image or finances of Sauber, who seem to have royally fked up.

And have you any evidence to support your olfactory suspicions:

"Smells like he accepted a package before seeing the car was going to be competitive through testing and has now decided he wants his seat back. He was happy to take the payment when he thought he was going to be running round at the back without even a manor / caterham for company"

I have no evidence, its just my view.

lets take it to the real world away from F1, you have a contract and it gets terminated. You fight to get back into the job and after 2 months the company collapses because you took away their source of income. who wins? they've gone and you still dont have a job

its extreme but given the state of F1 atm, is it too far fetched?

The issue is that he's already paid for the drive in part, through last year's third-driver agreement, so has every right to feel aggrieved at the situation.

For a real-world scenario you have to flip it around because of the financial way it works or it doesn't make sense. Last year he employed Sauber to provide him a Friday drive during his probationary period, he then paid them extra to provide him a race drive in the future (think of it as a promotion) with some kind of golden handcuff signing on bonus. The 'employee (Sauber) then walked away, taking the bonus, because someone else offered them more money but they didn't return the bonus, just walked away.

[DeltonaS]

andburg said:

REALIST123 said:

Why is he morally wrong? It's not his responsibility to look after the image or finances of Sauber, who seem to have royally fked up.

And have you any evidence to support your olfactory suspicions:

"Smells like he accepted a package before seeing the car was going to be competitive through testing and has now decided he wants his seat back. He was happy to take the payment when he thought he was going to be running round at the back without even a manor / caterham for company"

I have no evidence, its just my view.

lets take it to the real world away from F1, you have a contract and it gets terminated. You fight to get back into the job and after 2 months the company collapses because you took away their source of income. who wins? they've gone and you still dont have a job

its extreme but given the state of F1 atm, is it too far fetched?

This post is so stupid it can't be real ;-)

Not meeting a legal and mutual agreed upon contract is morally wrong.

[StevieBee]

I think I'm right in saying that the decision only has jurisdiction in Australia. Sauber can do what they like elsewhere unless he takes action in the countries hosting other GPs. Although the Australian ruling sets precedence which would influence courts elsewhere, would he have the desire to do this - or the funds?

AFAK, for the ruling to stick, it has to given in the country in which the contract was signed.

[thegreenhell]

StevieBee said:

I think I'm right in saying that the decision only has jurisdiction in Australia. Sauber can do what they like elsewhere unless he takes action in the countries hosting other GPs. Although the Australian ruling sets precedence which would influence courts elsewhere, would he have the desire to do this - or the funds?

AFAK, for the ruling to stick, it has to given in the country in which the contract was signed.

You mean like the Swiss court ruling in favour of GvG the week before, in the country where Sauber is legally and physically based? The Australian ruling merely enforces the Swiss ruling, AIUI.

[jamiebae]

thegreenhell said:

StevieBee said:

I think I'm right in saying that the decision only has jurisdiction in Australia. Sauber can do what they like elsewhere unless he takes action in the countries hosting other GPs. Although the Australian ruling sets precedence which would influence courts elsewhere, would he have the desire to do this - or the funds?

AFAK, for the ruling to stick, it has to given in the country in which the contract was signed.

You mean like the Swiss court ruling in favour of GvG the week before, in the country where Sauber is legally and physically based? The Australian ruling merely enforces the Swiss ruling, AIUI.

Exactly, the Australian ruling is purely to enforce the Swiss ruling as opposed to a ruling on the contract itself, which is why the discussion has centered around the safety of putting him in the car rather than the minutiae of the contract and if it is or isn't valid.

Not entirely sure why the FIA/FOM haven't stepped in yet really....

[anonymous-user]

andburg said:

REALIST123 said:

Why is he morally wrong? It's not his responsibility to look after the image or finances of Sauber, who seem to have royally fked up.

And have you any evidence to support your olfactory suspicions:

"Smells like he accepted a package before seeing the car was going to be competitive through testing and has now decided he wants his seat back. He was happy to take the payment when he thought he was going to be running round at the back without even a manor / caterham for company"

I have no evidence, its just my view.

lets take it to the real world away from F1, you have a contract and it gets terminated. You fight to get back into the job and after 2 months the company collapses because you took away their source of income. who wins? they've gone and you still dont have a job

its extreme but given the state of F1 atm, is it too far fetched?

So what's he supposed to do? Shrug his shoulders and write off his sponsors cash? For the good of Sauber and F1? In all honesty I don't believe anyone would do that.

[StevieBee]

jamiebae said:

thegreenhell said:

StevieBee said:

I think I'm right in saying that the decision only has jurisdiction in Australia. Sauber can do what they like elsewhere unless he takes action in the countries hosting other GPs. Although the Australian ruling sets precedence which would influence courts elsewhere, would he have the desire to do this - or the funds?

AFAK, for the ruling to stick, it has to given in the country in which the contract was signed.

You mean like the Swiss court ruling in favour of GvG the week before, in the country where Sauber is legally and physically based? The Australian ruling merely enforces the Swiss ruling, AIUI.

Exactly, the Australian ruling is purely to enforce the Swiss ruling as opposed to a ruling on the contract itself, which is why the discussion has centered around the safety of putting him in the car rather than the minutiae of the contract and if it is or isn't valid.

Not entirely sure why the FIA/FOM haven't stepped in yet really....

Ahh - I clearly need to gen up a bit more!

[Oz83]

angrymoby said:

& if they're doing this with a driver ...imagine how 'fast & loose' they'll be with the other 300 odd staff's contracts when it all goes t1ts up (& if this episode is anything to go by, it'll be a matter of 'when' not 'if')

there's only one person responsible for the whole sorry mess ...Kaltenborn

Have you considered that this decision by Kaltenborne probably saved Sauber and the jobs of those 300+ employees.

[jamiebae]

Oz83 said:

angrymoby said:

& if they're doing this with a driver ...imagine how 'fast & loose' they'll be with the other 300 odd staff's contracts when it all goes t1ts up (& if this episode is anything to go by, it'll be a matter of 'when' not 'if')

there's only one person responsible for the whole sorry mess ...Kaltenborn

Have you considered that this decision by Kaltenborne probably saved Sauber and the jobs of those 300+ employees.

It may well have done, but putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalala until the start of the season is pretty stupid, especially for a lawyer. If you have a watertight contract under Swiss law it isn't something which can be easily wriggled out of, so they should have negotiated to buy VdG out much sooner. The issue is probably that they can't afford to buy him out, so should he just write off the 2m+ Swiss Francs he has paid already towards the seat for 2015 because they've taken more money from someone else to replace him?

[PhillipM]

Oz83 said:

Have you considered that this decision by Kaltenborne probably saved Sauber and the jobs of those 300+ employees.

So if another hopeful driver steps up and offers Sauber £15m in sponsorship money, it'd be okay if they go "Great, here's the seat, thanks for the money" and then kick one of the other current drivers out who've brought money to the team and have a contract to drive?

[anonymous-user]

Oz83 said:

angrymoby said:

& if they're doing this with a driver ...imagine how 'fast & loose' they'll be with the other 300 odd staff's contracts when it all goes t1ts up (& if this episode is anything to go by, it'll be a matter of 'when' not 'if')

there's only one person responsible for the whole sorry mess ...Kaltenborn

Have you considered that this decision by Kaltenborne probably saved Sauber and the jobs of those 300+ employees.

So you're along it was OK for Kaltenborne (sic) to defraud someone to save her business? How would you view the same in other businesses?

[Oz83]

REALIST123 said:

Oz83 said:

angrymoby said:

& if they're doing this with a driver ...imagine how 'fast & loose' they'll be with the other 300 odd staff's contracts when it all goes t1ts up (& if this episode is anything to go by, it'll be a matter of 'when' not 'if')

there's only one person responsible for the whole sorry mess ...Kaltenborn

Have you considered that this decision by Kaltenborne probably saved Sauber and the jobs of those 300+ employees.

So you're along it was OK for Kaltenborne (sic) to defraud someone to save her business? How would you view the same in other businesses?

No of course not. I certainly don't agree with the way VdG has been treated. All I'm saying is that the decision was more likely the lesser of two evils. Save the team and those 300+ jobs, or let down the F1 driver with his billionaire family and backers. They probably thought he would simply buy a seat on an other team and get on with the job, rather than making a fuss.

Kaltenborne was probably in a very difficult situation following Bianchis tragic accident and subsequent condition. At some point, they lost the backing from Ferrari and a decision had to be made, and quickly. I dunno, the whole thing is a complete mess and it has been very badly handled.

[Ponk]

Difficult decision or not it doesn't make what they've done right. Nor should the driver's affluent background make it ok for him to be ripped off! I'm quite shocked that that appears to be acceptable to some, including Joe Saward.

As others have said this is a sad situation for a team to be in, especially Sauber whom I have enjoyed supporting as the plucky underdog for so long, but when considered as an employment issue its right that he stands up for himself.