Christian Horner
Discussion
EddieSteadyGo said:
I don't know how much authority Horner has to make very large ex-gratia payments on behalf of his employer. I would imagine that would likely trigger/require additional approval processes. Hence option (b) might not have been viable.
Also re-employing someone allows Horner to leverage feelings of 'loyalty' and also 'guilt'. That might be useful when trying to persuade (manipulate?) someone to do the "right" thing.
Ultimately of course, I'm speculating, but it does seem odd.
He is the CEO and team principal he doesn't have any employer to answer to. He might have to answer to the rest of the board and shareholders eventually but in terms of hiring, firing, writing checks the buck stops with him. On the face of it if you need someone to "Temp" then getting a previous employee, who might know the ropes, in on a short term contract makes sense. It's only skulduggery if the payoff suggestion and implied motives are correct. Also re-employing someone allows Horner to leverage feelings of 'loyalty' and also 'guilt'. That might be useful when trying to persuade (manipulate?) someone to do the "right" thing.
Ultimately of course, I'm speculating, but it does seem odd.
Graveworm said:
He is the CEO and team principal he doesn't have any employer to answer to. He might have to answer to the rest of the board and shareholders eventually but in terms of hiring, firing, writing checks the buck stops with him. On the face of it if you need someone to "Temp" then getting a previous employee, who might know the ropes, in on a short term contract makes sense. It's only skulduggery if the payoff suggestion and implied motives are correct.
The buck doesn't stop with him. He is an employee. He doesn't own the company. There will be rules he needs to follow and authorising large ex-gratia payments will likely require additional approval imo (for reasons related to normal financial controls in large companies).EddieSteadyGo said:
The buck doesn't stop with him. He is an employee. He doesn't own the company. There will be rules he needs to follow and authorising large ex-gratia payments will likely require additional approval imo (for reasons related to normal financial controls in large companies).
This - large one-off payments, depending on the size and type, could well need further approval, for example board of directors. It will depend on their own controls. EddieSteadyGo said:
skwdenyer said:
So you think Horner has secured countless injunctions in every country on the planet to try to keep the story down? Does that really sound plausible?
I think he has secured some injunctions, or has threatened legal action, to discourage adverse coverage. But if you think otherwise, that's fine with me. I’m only guessing this based on 3 interviews I’ve seen Joe Saward dance around the subject and say he can’t say what he knows as he’s not able to say anything - why would he say that ?
Edited by rallycross on Friday 5th April 22:24
AlpineWhite said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
The buck doesn't stop with him. He is an employee. He doesn't own the company. There will be rules he needs to follow and authorising large ex-gratia payments will likely require additional approval imo (for reasons related to normal financial controls in large companies).
This - large one-off payments, depending on the size and type, could well need further approval, for example board of directors. It will depend on their own controls. AlpineWhite said:
This - large one-off payments, depending on the size and type, could well need further approval, for example board of directors. It will depend on their own controls.
There are two directors him and Helmut the directors have the power to do anything on behalf of the company, with very few exclusions which require resolution at a GM, those exclusions don't include making large payments, hiring or firing. As CEO he has delegated powers to do anything the directors can. Edited by Graveworm on Friday 5th April 21:58
Graveworm said:
..., those exclusions don't include making large payments....
And you know this specific point how? Based on your logic, the shareholders (which is where the buck actually stops) would have little protection against malfeasance and/or fraud. Which is why large companies use financial controls to help mitigate those risks.EddieSteadyGo said:
Graveworm said:
..., those exclusions don't include making large payments....
And you know this specific point how? Based on your logic, the shareholders (which is where the buck actually stops) would have little protection against malfeasance and/or fraud. Which is why large companies use financial controls to help mitigate those risks.The controls for companies are appointing directors who won't conduct acts of malfeasance or fraud, monitoring and taking action against them if they do.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 5th April 22:24
Graveworm said:
Because the restrictions are by statute or within the articles of association and the articles of association place no such restrictions.
The controls for companies are appointing directors who won't conduct acts of malfeasance or fraud, monitoring and taking action aainst the f they do.
You don't know what you are talking about. Articles of Association provide a framework but they are not designed to cover every aspect of a company's day-to-day operations or internal financial controls.The controls for companies are appointing directors who won't conduct acts of malfeasance or fraud, monitoring and taking action aainst the f they do.
Financial controls are not usually detailed in the Articles of Association. Instead, they are specified by a company's internal procedures/policies.
And for the reasons given earlier, particularly relating to risks of malfeasance and/or fraud, individual employees in very large companies (regardless of how senior) don't usually get to make large ex-gratia payments without additional approval processes.
Directors run companies and have the power to do anything the company can do. Directors are officers and may also be employees. Shareholders appoint directors and hold them to account. Directors have the power to set the internal processes etc and to delegate their authority to others. The only exclusions are in the articles of incorporation and within statute. The controls are that fraud is wrong and illegal and that monitoring and reporting takes place.
The directors are responsible for the actions of the company, shareholders who don't even have to be people, are not. Indeed the shareholders of Red Bull Racing are Red Bull technologies so the immediate controls on Red Bull racing via the shareholders are the directors of Red Bull technologies.... One of which is CH.
The directors are responsible for the actions of the company, shareholders who don't even have to be people, are not. Indeed the shareholders of Red Bull Racing are Red Bull technologies so the immediate controls on Red Bull racing via the shareholders are the directors of Red Bull technologies.... One of which is CH.
Graveworm said:
Directors run companies and have the power to do anything the company can do. Directors are officers and may also be employees. Shareholders appoint directors and hold them to account. Directors have the power to set the internal processes etc and to delegate their authority to others. The only exclusions are in the articles of incorporation and within statute. The controls are that fraud is wrong and illegal and that monitoring and reporting takes place.
The directors are responsible for the actions of the company, shareholders who don't even have to be people, are not. Indeed the shareholders of Red Bull Racing are Red Bull technologies so the immediate controls on Red Bull racing via the shareholders are the directors of Red Bull technologies.... One of which is CH.
Thats a myopic view of international financial mechanisms. Payments by very high networth individuals do not need to be through any company or be constrained by normal corporate structures. Ways and means exist to make stuff happen .The directors are responsible for the actions of the company, shareholders who don't even have to be people, are not. Indeed the shareholders of Red Bull Racing are Red Bull technologies so the immediate controls on Red Bull racing via the shareholders are the directors of Red Bull technologies.... One of which is CH.
Graveworm said:
Directors run companies and have the power to do anything the company can do. Directors are officers and may also be employees. Shareholders appoint directors and hold them to account. Directors have the power to set the internal processes etc and to delegate their authority to others. The only exclusions are in the articles of incorporation and within statute. The controls are that fraud is wrong and illegal and that monitoring and reporting takes place.
The directors are responsible for the actions of the company, shareholders who don't even have to be people, are not. Indeed the shareholders of Red Bull Racing are Red Bull technologies so the immediate controls on Red Bull racing via the shareholders are the directors of Red Bull technologies.... One of which is CH.
You have written out a set of unrelated sentences to obfuscate from the original point, which was large companies use financial controls, which would in all likelyhood prevent Horner from authorising large ex-gratia payments without additional approval. And the buck doesn't stop with Horner because he is an employee, not an owner. But let's not let the thread get bogged down by going around in circles.The directors are responsible for the actions of the company, shareholders who don't even have to be people, are not. Indeed the shareholders of Red Bull Racing are Red Bull technologies so the immediate controls on Red Bull racing via the shareholders are the directors of Red Bull technologies.... One of which is CH.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Graveworm said:
Directors run companies and have the power to do anything the company can do. Directors are officers and may also be employees. Shareholders appoint directors and hold them to account. Directors have the power to set the internal processes etc and to delegate their authority to others. The only exclusions are in the articles of incorporation and within statute. The controls are that fraud is wrong and illegal and that monitoring and reporting takes place.
The directors are responsible for the actions of the company, shareholders who don't even have to be people, are not. Indeed the shareholders of Red Bull Racing are Red Bull technologies so the immediate controls on Red Bull racing via the shareholders are the directors of Red Bull technologies.... One of which is CH.
You have written out a set of unrelated sentences to obfuscate from the original point, which was large companies use financial controls, which would in all likelyhood prevent Horner from authorising large ex-gratia payments without additional approval. And the buck doesn't stop with Horner because he is an employee, not an owner. But let's not let the thread get bogged down by going around in circles.The directors are responsible for the actions of the company, shareholders who don't even have to be people, are not. Indeed the shareholders of Red Bull Racing are Red Bull technologies so the immediate controls on Red Bull racing via the shareholders are the directors of Red Bull technologies.... One of which is CH.
The directors can give all or some of that authority to employees or groups of employees, at their absolute discretion. He is a director as well as an employee. Directors may be owners and or they may be employees or they may be neither.
They have the power to run a company as they see fit. Outside legislation there are no restrictions on what directors can do, save which they impose on themselves or that are contained within he articles. The former which may include SOPs and practices, they are free to change, without recourse to anyone. It's the legal structure of a company and it has to be that way because they are the ones who are legally responsible for the conduct of a company.
The articles explicitly state that there are no other restrictions on the directors, save those in the articles and even specify that that their power cannot be limited or restricted by anything outside the articles.
The owners/shareholders have the power to appoint or remove directors, that's the control they have over them but they have no direct control over a company save votes/resolutions at GMs etc. The further complication is that the beneficial owners are even more arms length in the case of RBR - so even the shareholders of RBR are Red bull technologies, not individuals so it's the directors of Red Bull Technologies who exercise the power over RBR.
I don't know how else to explain it but it's the way the smallest to the biggest companies work. The only "Financial controls" are those which they impose on themselves and those which fall out of their fiduciary responsibilities but if the company can spend it, the directors have the power to decide how it gets spent.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 6th April 00:39
Forester1965 said:
Erm. Anyway.
The idea that Horner has tried to help reduce the negative publicity around his philandering by re-hiring a woman he previously philandered with and had to pay off, is fantasy. Put the tabloids down, people.
The lady spent 15 years at RB and was clearly very good at her job. For whatever reason, she decides to move to the West Country and do basic co tract work remotely. This could be for the very simple and very common reason most competent female employees do this sort of thing, they've got married, having children, following a dream etc. People in the prime of their life and career don't just leave to go and live as a yogurt weaver in the West Country without a reason, typically it's following a lifestyle dream with a partner although it can be due to some horrendous event but not usually. Sometimes it's because they're just a loser who has given up but that is very clearly not the case with this person. The idea that Horner has tried to help reduce the negative publicity around his philandering by re-hiring a woman he previously philandered with and had to pay off, is fantasy. Put the tabloids down, people.
It's most probably a case a smart person trying the rural dream with a new family and realising just how mind judderingly boring it is being young, in the middle of nowhere and just doing some online contract work for dull companies full of dull people.
Meanwhile, back at RB they need a temp to fill in an important role and they could gamble on a wholly new person who when they are replaced formerly will be leaving with a load of data and gossip and also where regardless of whether this person is young totty, an old battle axe or H from Steps the media is going to fabricate a slander and from their side, who would want what is going to be a toxic role while everything plays out? Then you have this alternative: this person who worked for you for 15 years, was excellent at their job, knows exactly how it all works and who everyone is, has proven integrity and is sitting down in the middle of some inbred horror hole contemplating whether to shoot themselves?
I'm sure that we will have another raft of offensive and patronising comments about little ladies and how weak they are and how they all need protecting from the big bad men by heroic men such as themselves. But it would be rather nice for a change if people were to consider a reality where women are their equals, don't need their platitudes or faux protections and that this particular person is quite probably smarter than them, wealthier than them and better at their profession than them and has like all good people been called upon because they are good at what they do and can step in immediately while being willing to do so on a temp basis.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff