Adrian Newey to Ferrari? Is it possible?
Discussion
A few snippets from yesterday's BBC article:
"Newey, regarded as the greatest Formula 1 designer in history, has told Red Bull he wants to move on, BBC Sport has learned.
The 65-year-old has been unsettled by the situation at Red Bull since Horner was accused of sexual harassment and coercive, abusive behaviour by a female employee, which Horner denies.
Red Bull and Newey did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Newey’s contract with Red Bull lasts until the end of 2025 but he is said to believe he can negotiate an exit that allows him to work with another team from next season.
His desire to leave Red Bull was first reported by Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport, but the information has been independently verified by BBC Sport with high-level sources close to Red Bull and Newey.
"Newey, regarded as the greatest Formula 1 designer in history, has told Red Bull he wants to move on, BBC Sport has learned.
The 65-year-old has been unsettled by the situation at Red Bull since Horner was accused of sexual harassment and coercive, abusive behaviour by a female employee, which Horner denies.
Red Bull and Newey did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Newey’s contract with Red Bull lasts until the end of 2025 but he is said to believe he can negotiate an exit that allows him to work with another team from next season.
His desire to leave Red Bull was first reported by Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport, but the information has been independently verified by BBC Sport with high-level sources close to Red Bull and Newey.
Muzzer79 said:
thegreenhell said:
Muzzer79 said:
Sandpit Steve said:
Forester1965 said:
Sandpit Steve said:
Yes, that’s my thinking.
It could only be a civil commercial dispute between RBR Ltd an AN Ltd, for which the only sanction is financial. So if Ferrari want to employ Newey, RB can’t stop it.
RB would seek to injunct Newey preventing him from breaching the restriction.It could only be a civil commercial dispute between RBR Ltd an AN Ltd, for which the only sanction is financial. So if Ferrari want to employ Newey, RB can’t stop it.
Such a basic point as being able to extract oneself from a contract by winding the business up, in this context, is unfathomable. There'd be no point in having a contract with him (Newey) at all.
The contract would stipulate that AN Ltd would utilise the services of Adrian Newey for design work and Adrian Newey alone (or words to that effect)
Whatever the contractual structure 1between Newey and RB, some key legal principles will always be stacked against an employer seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant;
1 generally RCs are void as offending the legal principle against restraint of trade;
2 RCs may be enforced in limited circumstances if they are clear and reasonable in scope, geographic area and duration, and protect a legitimate commercial interest (onus on employer to prove); and
3 injunctions to prevent an individual working will only be granted where payment of damages are an inadequate remedy.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, a number can almost always be the fixed. A well constructed part 36 offer of damages in lieu by a new employer could force RB to settle and let him go. Ask Hugh Grant about part 36...
Academic as I expect issues such as this will be resolved behind closed doors between business men armed with their respective lawyers.
1 generally RCs are void as offending the legal principle against restraint of trade;
2 RCs may be enforced in limited circumstances if they are clear and reasonable in scope, geographic area and duration, and protect a legitimate commercial interest (onus on employer to prove); and
3 injunctions to prevent an individual working will only be granted where payment of damages are an inadequate remedy.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, a number can almost always be the fixed. A well constructed part 36 offer of damages in lieu by a new employer could force RB to settle and let him go. Ask Hugh Grant about part 36...
Academic as I expect issues such as this will be resolved behind closed doors between business men armed with their respective lawyers.
slopes said:
According to one newspaper report, RBR have a clause in his contract which means he cannot move to a rival team until the end of 2026. Like i said, it is a newspaper report so could be sensationalism.
I think that's just another version of what's already been said, his current contract runs until the end of 2025 and he has a 12-month gardening leave clause in there (all assumed of course from various sources). So, you're probably not wrong!
C5_Steve said:
slopes said:
According to one newspaper report, RBR have a clause in his contract which means he cannot move to a rival team until the end of 2026. Like i said, it is a newspaper report so could be sensationalism.
I think that's just another version of what's already been said, his current contract runs until the end of 2025 and he has a 12-month gardening leave clause in there (all assumed of course from various sources). So, you're probably not wrong!
slopes said:
According to one newspaper report, RBR have a clause in his contract which means he cannot move to a rival team until the end of 2026. Like i said, it is a newspaper report so could be sensationalism.
I suspect he will claim there is a fundamental breach by RB..... IF needs be.vaud said:
Marigold!HocusPocus said:
Whatever the contractual structure 1between Newey and RB, some key legal principles will always be stacked against an employer seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant;
1 generally RCs are void as offending the legal principle against restraint of trade;
2 RCs may be enforced in limited circumstances if they are clear and reasonable in scope, geographic area and duration, and protect a legitimate commercial interest (onus on employer to prove); and
3 injunctions to prevent an individual working will only be granted where payment of damages are an inadequate remedy.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, a number can almost always be the fixed. A well constructed part 36 offer of damages in lieu by a new employer could force RB to settle and let him go. Ask Hugh Grant about part 36...
Academic as I expect issues such as this will be resolved behind closed doors between business men armed with their respective lawyers.
Horner may have kicked himself in his own knackers here, where he states that RB success is NOT DEPENDANT ON ADRIAN NEWEY.1 generally RCs are void as offending the legal principle against restraint of trade;
2 RCs may be enforced in limited circumstances if they are clear and reasonable in scope, geographic area and duration, and protect a legitimate commercial interest (onus on employer to prove); and
3 injunctions to prevent an individual working will only be granted where payment of damages are an inadequate remedy.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, a number can almost always be the fixed. A well constructed part 36 offer of damages in lieu by a new employer could force RB to settle and let him go. Ask Hugh Grant about part 36...
Academic as I expect issues such as this will be resolved behind closed doors between business men armed with their respective lawyers.
Given that, it might be tricky to argue that he's utterly vital / irreplacable to the team and can't be released without a trillion pounds in compensation etc.
NGK210 said:
Again, the contract and gardening leave are irrelevant if he invokes his force majeure clause – which is why he’s citing Hornergate and the Thai / Austrian / Marko fallout and infighting.
Yes but you're making a massive assumption he even has such a clause in his contract, whereas the gardening leave is widely reported as the end of his current contract. Also, he's not citing anything at the moment, it's speculation.Same as the article I've just read which says his wife is house shopping in Italy at the moment
All fun and games and not to be taken seriously until statements get made. C5_Steve said:
NGK210 said:
Again, the contract and gardening leave are irrelevant if he invokes his force majeure clause – which is why he’s citing Hornergate and the Thai / Austrian / Marko fallout and infighting.
Yes but you're making a massive assumption he even has such a clause in his contract, whereas the gardening leave is widely reported as the end of his current contract. Also, he's not citing anything at the moment, it's speculation.Same as the article I've just read which says his wife is house shopping in Italy at the moment
All fun and games and not to be taken seriously until statements get made. Everyone has a force majeure clause – don’t they??
NGK210 said:
C5_Steve said:
NGK210 said:
Again, the contract and gardening leave are irrelevant if he invokes his force majeure clause – which is why he’s citing Hornergate and the Thai / Austrian / Marko fallout and infighting.
Yes but you're making a massive assumption he even has such a clause in his contract, whereas the gardening leave is widely reported as the end of his current contract. Also, he's not citing anything at the moment, it's speculation.Same as the article I've just read which says his wife is house shopping in Italy at the moment
All fun and games and not to be taken seriously until statements get made. Everyone has a force majeure clause – don’t they??
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff