The Official F1 2022 silly season *contains speculation*

[Mellow Yellow]

HustleRussell said:

IMO Alonso definitely isn’t going to throw in the towel at the end of this season. Their rhetoric has all been towards being contenders after the regs change.

I'm not so sure he will. If, by the end of the season, he's still not regularly beating Ocon he may well make his excuses and call it a day. Even if the car is a contender, he's not going to be WDC if he can't beat his team mate, especially as that team mate is French, in a French car. I suspect Renault might even help him on his way if his current form continues, Gasly is out of contract at the end of the season and I can't think they wouldn't want him, making it an all French line-up and a strong one at that.

Maybe Alonso will tie up with McLaren for another stint in Indy, their car is currently leading the championship.

[Sandpit Steve]

Interesting interview with Toto on Sky just now, says that contract discussions with Lewis have never mentioned his team mate.

[APontus]

He also didn't even try to deny Russell is being lined up.

[Killer2005]

Russian Gp moving to St Petersberg next year.


Edit for the link

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.russian...

Edited by Killer2005 on Saturday 26th June 11:40

[stemll]

Killer2005 said:

Russian Gp moving to St Petersberg next year.


Edit for the link

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.russian...

Edited by Killer2005 on Saturday 26th June 11:40

Not next year, '23

[thegreenhell]

stemll said:

Killer2005 said:

Russian Gp moving to St Petersberg next year.


Edit for the link

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.russian...

Edited by Killer2005 on Saturday 26th June 11:40

Not next year, '23

It's not exactly close to St Petersburg, but the Finnish fans will like it. The question is whether there'll be any Finnish drivers for them to support by then.

[DanielSan]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but it was announced over the weekend that Red Bull's chief aerodynamicist has left to join Aston Martin.

[APontus]

DanielSan said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned but it was announced over the weekend that Red Bull's chief aerodynamicist has left to join Aston Martin.

Aren't RB trying to keep him from starting for 2 years or something stupid?

[DanielSan]

APontus said:

DanielSan said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned but it was announced over the weekend that Red Bull's chief aerodynamicist has left to join Aston Martin.

Aren't RB trying to keep him from starting for 2 years or something stupid?

It does seem that way. I'd assume some cash will be put forward to get him out of his contract or he'll be doing some gardening for 12 months

[TheDeuce]

APontus said:

DanielSan said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned but it was announced over the weekend that Red Bull's chief aerodynamicist has left to join Aston Martin.

Aren't RB trying to keep him from starting for 2 years or something stupid?

Yes, but they're very unlikely to get a court to enforce such a long non compete clause give that everyone in his industry counts as a competitor, and enforcing that clause effectively removes his 'right to work' across that industry.

Bet they get 6 months, maybe a year enforced, then he's at AM.

This sort of thing wasn't formerly an issue in F1, just pay gardening leave for the non compete period. That's not affordable for such senior staff in a cost cap world though.

[ajprice]

APontus said:

DanielSan said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned but it was announced over the weekend that Red Bull's chief aerodynamicist has left to join Aston Martin.

Aren't RB trying to keep him from starting for 2 years or something stupid?

Maybe he was so fed up of Horner he wanted 2 years paid time off?

[APontus]

TheDeuce said:

Yes, but they're very unlikely to get a court to enforce such a long non compete clause give that everyone in his industry counts as a competitor, and enforcing that clause effectively removes his 'right to work' across that industry.

Bet they get 6 months, maybe a year enforced, then he's at AM.

This sort of thing wasn't formerly an issue in F1, just pay gardening leave for the non compete period. That's not affordable for such senior staff in a cost cap world though.

Such a specific, senior role in such a specific and small industry is not necessarily going to be treated in the same way by the courts as a typical covenent in a more regular one.

The justification of restraint of trade is easier to make out when your market is 10 tight knit competitors and your employee holds the key to the most important competitive data available that can literally be the difference between surivial or not of the employer (would the Red Bull patent tolerate another 8 years without a title if a well funded competitor gained access to secret IP and took full advantage of it?).

Suspect a phone call between the two billionaires and an exchange of cash will sort it before the full period runs.

[TheDeuce]

APontus said:

TheDeuce said:

Yes, but they're very unlikely to get a court to enforce such a long non compete clause give that everyone in his industry counts as a competitor, and enforcing that clause effectively removes his 'right to work' across that industry.

Bet they get 6 months, maybe a year enforced, then he's at AM.

This sort of thing wasn't formerly an issue in F1, just pay gardening leave for the non compete period. That's not affordable for such senior staff in a cost cap world though.

Such a specific, senior role in such a specific and small industry is not necessarily going to be treated in the same way by the courts as a typical covenent in a more regular one.

The justification of restraint of trade is easier to make out when your market is 10 tight knit competitors and your employee holds the key to the most important competitive data available that can literally be the difference between surivial or not of the employer (would the Red Bull patent tolerate another 8 years without a title if a well funded competitor gained access to secret IP and took full advantage of it?).

Suspect a phone call between the two billionaires and an exchange of cash will sort it before the full period runs.

You make a good point, although I would say the same reasons you say the situation is unique could be the same reasons used to justify why he must be allowed to work - because his skillset allows him to work nowhere else. In my (admittedly limited) experience, the courts tend to come down on the side of the individual, not the business interests.

But I wholeheartedly agree with your last point - they'll sort it out one way or another and I would be amazed if he wasn't actively working wherever he needs to be well within the two year period Horner suggests.

[thegreenhell]

Six months is generally the most that is reasonable to enforce in most cases, if it goes to court. I think Horner's two-years comment was just setting out their case that it's going to cost AM a lot of money if they want him sooner.

[anonymous-user]

TheDeuce said:

APontus said:

DanielSan said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned but it was announced over the weekend that Red Bull's chief aerodynamicist has left to join Aston Martin.

Aren't RB trying to keep him from starting for 2 years or something stupid?

Yes, but they're very unlikely to get a court to enforce such a long non compete clause give that everyone in his industry counts as a competitor, and enforcing that clause effectively removes his 'right to work' across that industry.

Bet they get 6 months, maybe a year enforced, then he's at AM.

This sort of thing wasn't formerly an issue in F1, just pay gardening leave for the non compete period. That's not affordable for such senior staff in a cost cap world though.

As you say, this is an unfair contract as it is removing his 'right to work'. Even if they got six months or a year enforced they would surely need to pay him gardening leave?

Surely it would be a massively unfair contract if it prevented someone from working for six months or a year and also left them with no salary during that time?

If you leave any company in any industry the chances are you are going to work for a competitor? Not many people leave a company and then go and work in a completely different industry.

[kiseca]

Joey Deacon said:

TheDeuce said:

APontus said:

DanielSan said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned but it was announced over the weekend that Red Bull's chief aerodynamicist has left to join Aston Martin.

Aren't RB trying to keep him from starting for 2 years or something stupid?

Yes, but they're very unlikely to get a court to enforce such a long non compete clause give that everyone in his industry counts as a competitor, and enforcing that clause effectively removes his 'right to work' across that industry.

Bet they get 6 months, maybe a year enforced, then he's at AM.

This sort of thing wasn't formerly an issue in F1, just pay gardening leave for the non compete period. That's not affordable for such senior staff in a cost cap world though.

As you say, this is an unfair contract as it is removing his 'right to work'. Even if they got six months or a year enforced they would surely need to pay him gardening leave?

Surely it would be a massively unfair contract if it prevented someone from working for six months or a year and also left them with no salary during that time?

If you leave any company in any industry the chances are you are going to work for a competitor? Not many people leave a company and then go and work in a completely different industry.

This is how it will work, at least in the UK. The court will favour the employee and will be extremely unlikely to rule on a contract that keeps them out of pay for 6 months (probably even for 2 months) in the industry and at a pay rate that he is skilled in and used to earning. The only way for Red Bull to keep him out of Aston Martin for 2 years would be to give him full pay for that whole period, or convince AM to pay his gardening leave - and I don't know why AM would agree to that because as far as I can see they wouldn't need to. They would also need the individual's agreement to this unless it's already in his contract.

If he doesn't have contracted gardening leave, I think he can pretty much stick two fingers up at them if he chooses to, and even if they do put him on gardening leave, I think it's incredibly unlikely he'd actually spend that period having no contact with AM and helping them build a competitive car while his knowledge is still current. It would be almost impossible to police even if some familiar looking parts or concepts start popping up on the Aston Martin cars.

[APontus]

You literally have no idea what your talking about. There are plenty of instances where a restriction of 12 months or more would be appropriate. The more senior the person and valuable (to a competitor and damaging to the employer if they get it) the information and contacts they hold, the more likely a longer period will be justified.

Comparing a senior technical role in an F1 team to a business development Noddy lateral hiring here and there is miles off.

[Teddy Lop]

DanielSan said:

APontus said:

DanielSan said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned but it was announced over the weekend that Red Bull's chief aerodynamicist has left to join Aston Martin.

Aren't RB trying to keep him from starting for 2 years or something stupid?

It does seem that way. I'd assume some cash will be put forward to get him out of his contract or he'll be doing some gardening for 12 months

I wouldn't have thought the reasons for enforcing gardening leave - current fundamental secret technical knowledge - are that easily solved with the exchange of a bit of cash?

[vaud]

kiseca said:

This is how it will work, at least in the UK. The court will favour the employee and will be extremely unlikely to rule on a contract that keeps them out of pay for 6 months (probably even for 2 months) in the industry and at a pay rate that he is skilled in and used to earning. The only way for Red Bull to keep him out of Aston Martin for 2 years would be to give him full pay for that whole period, or convince AM to pay his gardening leave - and I don't know why AM would agree to that because as far as I can see they wouldn't need to. They would also need the individual's agreement to this unless it's already in his contract.

If he doesn't have contracted gardening leave, I think he can pretty much stick two fingers up at them if he chooses to, and even if they do put him on gardening leave, I think it's incredibly unlikely he'd actually spend that period having no contact with AM and helping them build a competitive car while his knowledge is still current. It would be almost impossible to police even if some familiar looking parts or concepts start popping up on the Aston Martin cars.

It's a shame BV72 isn't around any more. IANAL but recall many of his comments about how restrictive covenants are enforced all of the time post termination, etc

[kiseca]

vaud said:

kiseca said:

This is how it will work, at least in the UK. The court will favour the employee and will be extremely unlikely to rule on a contract that keeps them out of pay for 6 months (probably even for 2 months) in the industry and at a pay rate that he is skilled in and used to earning. The only way for Red Bull to keep him out of Aston Martin for 2 years would be to give him full pay for that whole period, or convince AM to pay his gardening leave - and I don't know why AM would agree to that because as far as I can see they wouldn't need to. They would also need the individual's agreement to this unless it's already in his contract.

If he doesn't have contracted gardening leave, I think he can pretty much stick two fingers up at them if he chooses to, and even if they do put him on gardening leave, I think it's incredibly unlikely he'd actually spend that period having no contact with AM and helping them build a competitive car while his knowledge is still current. It would be almost impossible to police even if some familiar looking parts or concepts start popping up on the Aston Martin cars.

It's a shame BV72 isn't around any more. IANAL but recall many of his comments about how restrictive covenants are enforced all of the time post termination, etc

Happy to be corrected by someone who has inside experience of high profile moves in Formula 1. I've seen plenty of high profile people in industries with limited competition move and, country dependant it can be very unlikely for their ex company to manage to enforce employment restrictions on them without some kind of compensation. None of those were in Formula 1 so happy to hear examples to the contrary.

Merc didn't seem to manage it with the engine people that went to Red Bull unless I've missed something.

Edited by kiseca on Wednesday 30th June 17:38