Christian Horner
Discussion
WestyCarl said:
Muzzer79 said:
deadslow said:
is she not currently suspended for 'dishonesty', whatever that means?
We believe so.Hence the next move being crucial. Will she be terminated for whatever that "dishonest" activity was? There may be an investigation going on now.
I can't see how she can go to an ET now without claiming constructive dismissal and/or being terminated and that termination being unfair/unlawful.
Muzzer79 said:
Siao said:
Muzzer79 said:
MarkwG said:
If they feel that brave, on the grounds she's made a vexacious complaint against a senior manager, which was found to be without merit - obviously we don't have access to any of the evidence presented from either side or the detail of the result, but I've known companies play hardball that way. It depends on whether they feel the risk of the fall out is worth the quick fix now.
Brave? Stark-raving mad more like it.
If you start sacking people because they've made a complaint, you create a culture that fosters fear of making any complaints about anything in case you'll get sacked for it.
People take a dim view of that, especially if it's a minority group and a sexual complaint.
But 'falsifying evidence' and evidence 'without merit' are two different things.
If she thought he was behaving inappropriately and the company simply didn't agree then that's very shaky ground to terminate her simply for raising it IMO. In this scenario, she hasn't publicised anything so it's not her fault that it's gone outside the RBR bubble.
What I'm trying to say is that it feels like they didn't just sack her for making a complaint, that sentence makes it look like they sacked her over something trivial without much process; they took steps, they had internal investigations and the outcome was what it was. If I understood you wrong, then apologies.
Siao said:
Muzzer79 said:
Siao said:
Muzzer79 said:
MarkwG said:
If they feel that brave, on the grounds she's made a vexacious complaint against a senior manager, which was found to be without merit - obviously we don't have access to any of the evidence presented from either side or the detail of the result, but I've known companies play hardball that way. It depends on whether they feel the risk of the fall out is worth the quick fix now.
Brave? Stark-raving mad more like it.
If you start sacking people because they've made a complaint, you create a culture that fosters fear of making any complaints about anything in case you'll get sacked for it.
People take a dim view of that, especially if it's a minority group and a sexual complaint.
But 'falsifying evidence' and evidence 'without merit' are two different things.
If she thought he was behaving inappropriately and the company simply didn't agree then that's very shaky ground to terminate her simply for raising it IMO. In this scenario, she hasn't publicised anything so it's not her fault that it's gone outside the RBR bubble.
What I'm trying to say is that it feels like they didn't just sack her for making a complaint, that sentence makes it look like they sacked her over something trivial without much process; they took steps, they had internal investigations and the outcome was what it was. If I understood you wrong, then apologies.
The point is, his isn’t a case of Horner or the PA goes as a result of this complaint and investigation - they can’t sack her for raising a complaint, unless she has been found to have acted inappropriately in respect of making that complaint - i.e falsifying the messages or engineering the media leak.
Muzzer79 said:
I’m not suggesting that the complaint wasn’t investigated or that it was trivial.
The point is, his isn’t a case of Horner or the PA goes as a result of this complaint and investigation - they can’t sack her for raising a complaint, unless she has been found to have acted inappropriately in respect of making that complaint - i.e falsifying the messages or engineering the media leak.
If the team had any evidence of that, they’d have very publicly sacked her a long time ago. The point is, his isn’t a case of Horner or the PA goes as a result of this complaint and investigation - they can’t sack her for raising a complaint, unless she has been found to have acted inappropriately in respect of making that complaint - i.e falsifying the messages or engineering the media leak.
The RB company knows that the leaked messages are genuine, and now have to try and dance around why they haven’t fired Horny. They tried paying her off, but that appears to be going nowhere because she has family money and wants to see an amount that means something to Horny, more than the one month of his salary she allegedly turned down.
Which RB company? RB the company proper or RBR?
RB has zero interest in sacking Horner, why would they? He is successful, delivered time and again for the company and holds favoured son status.
RBR would desperately love to get rid of Horner for reasons that have absolutely sod all to do with a PA, messages or where he may have stuck his fingers.
RB has zero interest in sacking Horner, why would they? He is successful, delivered time and again for the company and holds favoured son status.
RBR would desperately love to get rid of Horner for reasons that have absolutely sod all to do with a PA, messages or where he may have stuck his fingers.
DeejRC said:
Which RB company? RB the company proper or RBR?
RB has zero interest in sacking Horner, why would they? He is successful, delivered time and again for the company and holds favoured son status.
RBR would desperately love to get rid of Horner for reasons that have absolutely sod all to do with a PA, messages or where he may have stuck his fingers.
No.RB has zero interest in sacking Horner, why would they? He is successful, delivered time and again for the company and holds favoured son status.
RBR would desperately love to get rid of Horner for reasons that have absolutely sod all to do with a PA, messages or where he may have stuck his fingers.
RBR is run by Horner, it is the UK based racing team.
RB Austria, the group that oversea all the racing programs, advertising, sponsorship and sales of the sickly st want him gone.
The majority shareholder of the entire RB company looks on CH as a son.
CH is untouchable until Thai sugar daddy dies.
732NM said:
DeejRC said:
Which RB company? RB the company proper or RBR?
RB has zero interest in sacking Horner, why would they? He is successful, delivered time and again for the company and holds favoured son status.
RBR would desperately love to get rid of Horner for reasons that have absolutely sod all to do with a PA, messages or where he may have stuck his fingers.
No.RB has zero interest in sacking Horner, why would they? He is successful, delivered time and again for the company and holds favoured son status.
RBR would desperately love to get rid of Horner for reasons that have absolutely sod all to do with a PA, messages or where he may have stuck his fingers.
RBR is run by Horner, it is the UK based racing team.
RB Austria, the group that oversea all the racing programs, advertising, sponsorship and sales of the sickly st want him gone.
The majority shareholder of the entire RB company looks on CH as a son.
CH is untouchable until Thai sugar daddy dies.
CH obviously recognises how the relationship works because he makes himself available for all coverage, all the time. That's why he's always 'live from the pit wall', always hovering ready for a chat with Sky and any other English speaking network, always makes sure to offer a scathing or controversial opinion to ensure headlines follow. In addition to running the team, he ensures maximum media coverage that includes the words 'Red Bull' whenever he can. That's how consumable brand marketing works, there doesn't have to be context relevant to the brand... there just has to be constant repetition of the brand name in the media. CH has sold his soul, to selling Red Bull, he's as loyal to the cause as it gets.
He's safe until the Thai majority owners of Red Bull figure they can find someone else willing to prostitute themselves to the same extent, who is also a person that happens to be very good at running an F1 team. That's not a very common combination, hence their returned loyalty to the guy.
He's a turd, but he's quite an effective one. F1 seems to attract potent turds.
I thought RBR was the Austrian “owned” entity that did the racing for RB proper, the Thai mob?
Either way, the point stands - namely which RB company in this context? The Thai mob love him, the Austrians want him gone, neither gives a monkeys about the PA, Horners fingers or what he did or didn’t do with her.
Either way, the point stands - namely which RB company in this context? The Thai mob love him, the Austrians want him gone, neither gives a monkeys about the PA, Horners fingers or what he did or didn’t do with her.
Red Bull won't care less, They are a stty drinks company and what has gone on won't affect them. They will enjoy the exposure, shrug at the loss of three customers, and have some Boris-type deflection and denial prepared already and come out the other end smelling like a stty drinks company.
DeejRC said:
I thought RBR was the Austrian “owned” entity that did the racing for RB proper, the Thai mob?
Either way, the point stands - namely which RB company in this context? The Thai mob love him, the Austrians want him gone, neither gives a monkeys about the PA, Horners fingers or what he did or didn’t do with her.
RBR is owned by RBT which is owned by RB GMBH which is 51% owned by Chalerm Yoovidhya, your point has been discussed many times on the thread. Either way, the point stands - namely which RB company in this context? The Thai mob love him, the Austrians want him gone, neither gives a monkeys about the PA, Horners fingers or what he did or didn’t do with her.
DeejRC said:
I thought RBR was the Austrian “owned” entity that did the racing for RB proper, the Thai mob?
Either way, the point stands - namely which RB company in this context? The Thai mob love him, the Austrians want him gone, neither gives a monkeys about the PA, Horners fingers or what he did or didn’t do with her.
RBR is the race team. Either way, the point stands - namely which RB company in this context? The Thai mob love him, the Austrians want him gone, neither gives a monkeys about the PA, Horners fingers or what he did or didn’t do with her.
This is owned by Red Bull GmbH. Which is 51% owned by the "Thai mob"
The Austrians very much do give a monkeys about the PA because they want to use the situation as leverage to get rid of Horner. At present, this isn't working.
RB as a company also give a monkeys about the PA but probably only from a PR perspective. In this day and age, you can't be seen to have an employee behaving inappropriately and dipping his pen into the company ink.
They seemingly feel like they have enough for plausible deniability at the moment, hence next move being intriguing.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
anonymous_user said:
& what a stellar job they are doing there ...almost as good as their staff retention
Do you know anything about Red Bull staff turnover, or that of Red Bull Racing?MarkwG said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
anonymous_user said:
& what a stellar job they are doing there ...almost as good as their staff retention
Do you know anything about Red Bull staff turnover, or that of Red Bull Racing?Jordie Barretts sock said:
MarkwG said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
anonymous_user said:
& what a stellar job they are doing there ...almost as good as their staff retention
Do you know anything about Red Bull staff turnover, or that of Red Bull Racing?Do some research??
Standard answer from someone who has no idea. I was asking you since you're so vocal about it. Why don't you back up your absurd assertion with some evidence? And while you're there, compare Red Bull with AMG Mercedes and McLaren for clarity.
No need for your aggression.
Standard answer from someone who has no idea. I was asking you since you're so vocal about it. Why don't you back up your absurd assertion with some evidence? And while you're there, compare Red Bull with AMG Mercedes and McLaren for clarity.
No need for your aggression.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
MarkwG said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
anonymous_user said:
& what a stellar job they are doing there ...almost as good as their staff retention
Do you know anything about Red Bull staff turnover, or that of Red Bull Racing?Jordie Barretts sock said:
Do some research??
Standard answer from someone who has no idea. I was asking you since you're so vocal about it. Why don't you back up your absurd assertion with some evidence? And while you're there, compare Red Bull with AMG Mercedes and McLaren for clarity.
No need for your aggression.
Yeah, do some easy research to support your statement that it's not happening - 10 seconds work - https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/red-bull-not... - Dan Fallows (Aston Martin), Rob Marshall (McLaren), Lee Stevenson (Audi), Adrian Newey (unknown) and Jonathan Wheatley (Audi). So not just the canteen staff, there's always fluidity but that's above expectation, hence why it's being written about.Standard answer from someone who has no idea. I was asking you since you're so vocal about it. Why don't you back up your absurd assertion with some evidence? And while you're there, compare Red Bull with AMG Mercedes and McLaren for clarity.
No need for your aggression.
Absurd? No, fact. You're the one bleating about how irrelevant this all is, if it's that irrelevant why are you so bothered about it, & why are you still here? You're not the arbiter of what's important or otherwise: pulling the "I've followed F1 since Bruce Mclaren was in nappies" is pretty pathetic, it doesn't bless your opinion with any more rights than anyone elses.
Earlier this year Horney claimed RB had poached 220 of Mercs powertrain staff
https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/red-bull-h...
https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/red-bull-h...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff