Christian Horner
Discussion
Byker28i said:
Earlier this year Horney claimed RB had poached 220 of Mercs powertrain staff
https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/red-bull-h...
Two issues with that statement. ‘Horner’ and ‘claimed’. So it’s probably horseshttps://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/red-bull-h...
t. Byker28i said:
Earlier this year Horney claimed RB had poached 220 of Mercs powertrain staff
https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/red-bull-h...
I know the father of one of those supposed 220 (number may not be accurate...) - from what he's said, the lads not enjoying it as much as he'd expected to...https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/red-bull-h...
lauda said:
Byker28i said:
Earlier this year Horney claimed RB had poached 220 of Mercs powertrain staff
https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/red-bull-h...
Two issues with that statement. ‘Horner’ and ‘claimed’. So it’s probably horseshttps://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/red-bull-h...
t. 
You doubt his word !Victor.Lee said:
lauda said:
Two issues with that statement. ‘Horner’ and ‘claimed’. So it’s probably horsest.
If it was false then can be 100% sure Toto would have refuted it publicly. He did not, so I tend to believe CH in that he did poach a lot of Merc staff recently. t. MarkwG said:
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.
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.
Show me where I said it isn't happening. YOU said if I followed F1, I was just demonstrating for how long I have followed F1. It isn't relevant. 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.
You seem to be very angry. Perhaps take some time away from the Internet?
Victor.Lee said:
lauda said:
Two issues with that statement. ‘Horner’ and ‘claimed’. So it’s probably horsest.
If it was false then can be 100% sure Toto would have refuted it publicly. He did not, so I tend to believe CH in that he did poach a lot of Merc staff recently. t. jm doc said:
Victor.Lee said:
lauda said:
Two issues with that statement. ‘Horner’ and ‘claimed’. So it’s probably horsest.
If it was false then can be 100% sure Toto would have refuted it publicly. He did not, so I tend to believe CH in that he did poach a lot of Merc staff recently. t. Your view trying to compare both situations here is flimsy, showing clear prejudice. But can't expect anyone these days to be open minded and want facts, everyone these days jumps to conclusions without verified evidence and happy to join in on something like cancel culture.
The messages might be accurate, they might be partially false, or incomplete or lacking any context. Obviously what was put out does not show CH in anyway good, and I tend to think they are at least partially real. But events suggest that the PA has been dishonest and also I think the messages were very carefully selected to show CH as bad and the PA as 100% innocent... meaning missing any context where she was initiating things and happily consenting. But we don't really know the facts, unless it goes to an ET, which I really hope it does.
CH is the boss and he also needs to uphold company policy of confidentiality of what is being internally investigated. He is very limited in what he can legally say publicly.
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 12:47
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 12:53
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 12:55
PhilAsia said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
PhilAsia said:
Except the constant disinterested bashing away at the keyboard. 
And who made the rules on who could post?Victor.Lee said:
CH is the boss and he also needs to uphold company policy of confidentiality of what is being internally investigated. He is very limited in what he can legally say publicly.
But fine to say he had been exonerated by a KC? I see...You see, the rules are simple, you either keep quiet, or you answer... If you choose to answer one point and not another, well....
Jasandjules said:
No it really isn't. You either keep everything quiet or you don't. Because you are talking about possible litigation coming next.
LMAO... it is 100% fine to state the outcome of an independent KC investigation. It is the outcome, without any details. This was not some internal investigation done by some normal RB employee, it was done by an outside legal expert. And Red Bull themselves publicly stated after the KC investigation that the PA's complaint was dismissed after the KC found no / not enough merit to her complaint. Are you saying that both CH and Red Bull Austria management have broken a law by revealing the KC verdict and can be sued by the PA for merely stating the KC result?????
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 14:34
Victor.Lee said:
LMAO... it is 100% fine to state the outcome of an independent KC investigation. It is the outcome, without any details. This was not some internal investigation done by some normal RB employee, it was done by an outside legal expert.
And Red Bull themselves publicly stated after the KC investigation that the PA's complaint was dismissed after the KC found no / not enough merit to her complaint. Are you saying that both CH and Red Bull Austria management have broken a law by revealing the KC verdict and can be sued by the PA for merely stating the KC result?????
You don't seem hugely bright. Where on earth do you take from my position that I think the law has been broken? And Red Bull themselves publicly stated after the KC investigation that the PA's complaint was dismissed after the KC found no / not enough merit to her complaint. Are you saying that both CH and Red Bull Austria management have broken a law by revealing the KC verdict and can be sued by the PA for merely stating the KC result?????
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 14:34
Re-read what I wrote again, this time trying to actually understand instead of jumping to a conclusion based upon a desire to defend the indefensible.
Jasandjules said:
vaud said:
It's fine to state the outcome of an investigation while protecting all details.
No it really isn't. You either keep everything quiet or you don't. Because you are talking about possible litigation coming next.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff