Sauber F1 Team 2015

[Jonnycraig]

I can't seem to think Giedo is that stupid. First of all contracts can be broken, and when compensation is given, the contract does not have to be continued. Ergo, if sauber pays off the clauses in the contract, which surely will stipulate what Giedo can ask in the event of contract termination, Giedo will not have one single claim anymore on the seat.

Second, if we ignore the first point and assume for a second Giedo wins this, surely after a long exhausting and heavily expensive series of courts, and gets his seat, it'll mean the ousting of one of the current Sauber drivers. That Sauber driver will both stop paying the team AND will on his turn go to court to recuperate given capital. Giedo takes place in a team that totally does not want him nor will be very motivated to help him a lot, and will probably never even race due the team going broke before the next race.

I agree entirely on the first point, but as the arbitrators voted unanimously in his favour last week, either there were no invokable clauses, or perhaps more likely, Sauber can't afford to pay the contractually stipulated compensation figure.

On the second point, and probably with a tinfoil hat on, that leads to the two theories I've considered, being 1. He and his backers want to push the team into administration as a form of 'payback' for messing him about, or 2. He and his backers want to push the team into administration with an eye on taking it over themselves.

[turbof1]

I can't seem to think Giedo is that stupid. First of all contracts can be broken, and when compensation is given, the contract does not have to be continued. Ergo, if sauber pays off the clauses in the contract, which surely will stipulate what Giedo can ask in the event of contract termination, Giedo will not have one single claim anymore on the seat.

Second, if we ignore the first point and assume for a second Giedo wins this, surely after a long exhausting and heavily expensive series of courts, and gets his seat, it'll mean the ousting of one of the current Sauber drivers. That Sauber driver will both stop paying the team AND will on his turn go to court to recuperate given capital. Giedo takes place in a team that totally does not want him nor will be very motivated to help him a lot, and will probably never even race due the team going broke before the next race.

I agree entirely on the first point, but as the arbitrators voted unanimously in his favour last week, either there were no invokable clauses, or perhaps more likely, Sauber can't afford to pay the contractually stipulated compensation figure.

On the second point, and probably with a tinfoil hat on, that leads to the two theories I've considered, being 1. He and his backers want to push the team into administration as a form of 'payback' for messing him about, or 2. He and his backers want to push the team into administration with an eye on taking it over themselves.

Either Sauber wants to pay less then the clauses, or Giedo wants to be paid more then the clauses. Actually, it'll be probably both. As you said, Giedo will probably have rights on more.

[AnthonyG]

Someones head will roll for this, for sure, how stupid can you be to sign a driver and change your mind after thinking a contract doesn't have any meaning...

Nothing stupid about per se. As always it's a matter of money. Caterham went broke, Ericsonn got back on the market with a big bag of money, but in the meanwhile vd Garde was already signed. Sauber just ditched vd Garde in order make way for the bag of mon... ehh driver!

Sauber very probably offered Giedo some compensation for breaking the contract. Giedo probably finds he deserves more. There are only things Giedo possibly want:

-He either wants Sauber to pay up more and all of this is only a tactic to make Sauber sweat.
-Or he really wants to drive for Sauber.

I can't seem to think Giedo is that stupid. First of all contracts can be broken, and when compensation is given, the contract does not have to be continued. Ergo, if sauber pays off the clauses in the contract, which surely will stipulate what Giedo can ask in the event of contract termination, Giedo will not have one single claim anymore on the seat.

Second, if we ignore the first point and assume for a second Giedo wins this, surely after a long exhausting and heavily expensive series of courts, and gets his seat, it'll mean the ousting of one of the current Sauber drivers. That Sauber driver will both stop paying the team AND will on his turn go to court to recuperate given capital. Giedo takes place in a team that totally does not want him nor will be very motivated to help him a lot, and will probably never even race due the team going broke before the next race.

Exactly, but if Giedo can go to court (and win as he did in Switzerland), then Sauber probably doesn't live up to the terms of the contract. Or perhaps there are clauses in the contract that are too vague.

Come to think of it, the most logical scenario is that Sauber realised signing Ericson is more financial beneficial, given they've allready signed Giedo and they just want to try their luck in court. (just in case it might save them money)

[Manoah2u]

A hearing is set for set for the Supreme Court in Victoria on Monday, March 9, just four days before the the first Friday practice session in Melbourne. Sauber has released a statement confirming a Swiss arbitral tribunal had ruled in the Dutchman's favour, but added the ruling was "not yet final".

The statement said: "In a first partial award of a Swiss arbitral tribunal, the application of Mr. van der Garde was upheld, with the tribunal relevantly ordering Sauber to refrain from taking action the effect of which would be to deprive Giedo van der Garde of his entitlement to participate in the 2015 Formula One season as one of Sauber's two nominated race drivers."

The statement went on to confirm Sauber will defend against Van der Garde's application at Monday's hearing.

Team boss Monisha Kaltenborn said: "As this matter is currently before the courts it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific details. However, we will take all necessary steps to protect our company, this team and its interests. Last year was a challenging time for us but going into the 2015 season we have been focused on putting steps in place to ensure that we are delivering the best outcomes for F1's fans."

Read more at http://en.espnf1.com/sauber/motorsport/ ... JP8OKqW.99

This all will end with a court settlement where no doubt Sauber's defense and legal division will bring decent and reasonable points, one obviously being the timing and way vd Garde is trying to use an 'unsolvable' way to 'solve' an otherwise easily solvable problem. The appointment of Nasr and Ericsson is made months ago. Sutil had a race contract, too iirc. Sauber could throw some bones into the courtroom like 'causing damage to the company's reputation' and indirectly too to F1 by not willing to resolve their issues outside of clear media attention.

In final, the courtroom will rule in favour of Saubers defense but not without also recognising the point mr. VdGarde has brought to the attention, and thus will advise or demand a form of compensation, which will, probably, be asked of Sauber to be fullfilled not directly but in a reasonable timescale because of cashflow.

nobody other than Ericsson and Nasr are going to be operating the steering wheel of either both Saubers and as VdGarde is not part of the team he will be prohibited to enter the team's premesis. He knows this and he knows damn well there is zero chance he'll move even a single foot in a Sauber. It's all a ballsy and imho very disrespectfull manner to get $$, by trying to bring Media attention to the circus he'll hope he'll make a more powerfull stand.

[Jonnycraig]

You all seem to forget that the rediculous thing about this all is that this stuff is being dreamed up just moments before the race, whilst Ericsson and Nasr have been confirmed as race drivers for Sauber months ago. In any reasonable form, this all should have happened and been going on months ago. Not all of a sudden like as if somebody is b*tthurt.

A seat made up from his test & Fp drives? Seriously? that is last year's car. A driver isn't using a once-made seat. It has to be made perfect. It's nuts thinking a seat indeed would be the biggest issue. It's nuts too to think it is not an issue. Because there is no way sauber is going to give him or make him a seat. So if guido is all ballsy, he'll have to make do with how the car is and step in. He'll find himself in a seat that isn't made for him and that would mean he can't race becuase a disformed seat will cause a lot of physical issues on a racetrack.

No action could be brought until the contract was broken by Sauber, which it was last week when they left him off their nominated driver list for Melbourne. Do you seriously believe that both parties haven't been in discussions for months?

If the Australian judge upholds the Swiss decision, Sauber will just be digging themselves into an even bigger hole. They lost in the Swiss arbitration court, who voted unanimously in VDGs favour, each action detrimental to giving VDG a drive puts them further in contempt.

In final, the courtroom will rule in favour of Saubers defense but not without also recognising the point mr. VdGarde has brought to the attention, and thus will advise or demand a form of compensation, which will, probably, be asked of Sauber to be fullfilled not directly but in a reasonable timescale because of cashflow.

No it won't. The Australian court has no say over the Swiss ruling, they are merely to decide if it can be enforced on Australian territory or not. Sauber have already lost the battle, and the 'compensation' was the demand to give VDG a race seat.

When he doesn't race this week, it's back to Swiss court and likely financial ruin for the team.

[turbof1]

nobody other than Ericsson and Nasr are going to be operating the steering wheel of either both Saubers and as VdGarde is not part of the team he will be prohibited to enter the team's premesis. He knows this and he knows damn well there is zero chance he'll move even a single foot in a Sauber. It's all a ballsy and imho very disrespectfull manner to get $$, by trying to bring Media attention to the circus he'll hope he'll make a more powerfull stand.

To be honest, we just don't know enough details if it is either disrespectful from Sauber or from vd Garde. Vd Garde probably did got ditched while being under contract. We are from Belgium and the Netherlands; when an employer ditches us for no urgent reason, we also get a compensation. That's pretty normal, and is exactly what happened between Sauber and vd Garde. However, we don't know if Sauber paid vd Garde enough, or even at all, or if they did but vd Garde wants to get more out of it.

All else are legal tactics. Sauber probably did not even show up at the court in Switzerland, knowing vd Garde will have to go to the court in Melbourne as well.

I suggest we do wait with further speculating until tommorrow? We'll get a clearer view when both are in that court room.

[Manoah2u]

You all seem to forget that the rediculous thing about this all is that this stuff is being dreamed up just moments before the race, whilst Ericsson and Nasr have been confirmed as race drivers for Sauber months ago. In any reasonable form, this all should have happened and been going on months ago. Not all of a sudden like as if somebody is b*tthurt.

A seat made up from his test & Fp drives? Seriously? that is last year's car. A driver isn't using a once-made seat. It has to be made perfect. It's nuts thinking a seat indeed would be the biggest issue. It's nuts too to think it is not an issue. Because there is no way sauber is going to give him or make him a seat. So if guido is all ballsy, he'll have to make do with how the car is and step in. He'll find himself in a seat that isn't made for him and that would mean he can't race becuase a disformed seat will cause a lot of physical issues on a racetrack.

No action could be brought until the contract was broken by Sauber, which it was last week when they left him off their nominated driver list for Melbourne. Do you seriously believe that both parties haven't been in discussions for months?

If the Australian judge upholds the Swiss decision, Sauber will just be digging themselves into an even bigger hole. They lost in the Swiss arbitration court, who voted unanimously in VDGs favour, each action detrimental to giving VDG a drive puts them further in contempt.

In final, the courtroom will rule in favour of Saubers defense but not without also recognising the point mr. VdGarde has brought to the attention, and thus will advise or demand a form of compensation, which will, probably, be asked of Sauber to be fullfilled not directly but in a reasonable timescale because of cashflow.

No it won't. The Australian court has no say over the Swiss ruling, they are merely to decide if it can be enforced on Australian territory or not. Sauber have already lost the battle, and the 'compensation' was the demand to give VDG a race seat.

When he doesn't race this week, it's back to Swiss court and likely financial ruin for the team.

1: it was the Arbitration Institution in Switzerland that sided with VdG.

Tell me, what force can be imposed on both australian grounds and swiss grounds and how does an arbitration instatution value impose any force compared to a court issue? None.
Its an arbitrary ruling. it's nothing more [yet].

2: http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12478 ... r-decision

Overlooked Sutil & van der Garde both aggrieved at losing out on seat; Kaltenborn says any dispute will be dealt with internally

we have announced our drivers. If there are any other points related to it these are internal matters which we will discuss internally.”

I am clearly aware of my situation and I know what I’m doing, We’ve announced our drivers and anything else we will sort out internally,” she said. “It’s for me a clear situation."

as for Miss Kaltenborn

studied for a Law degree at the University of Vienna, and then completed a masters' degree in International Business Law at the London School of Economics. Whilst still a student in Vienna, she worked for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and the UN Commission for International Trade Law, and on completion of her studies she worked for various legal firms: first in Stuttgart with Gleiss Lutz; then back in Vienna with Wolf & Theis; and finally for the Fritz Kaiser Group."

Kaltenborn seemingly not doing a good job as a F1 team leader role; there i can agree. However, i have no doubt Monisha will be the one being the one whom laughs hardest in the end regarding legal 'issues'.

In any case, Monisha could eventually pull a good one out of the hat and leave GvdG in a worse situation than he's opting for now; Lease a seat @ ManorF1 team under Sauber contract and point GvdG to the Manor garage, where he'll have to do with a Sauber racing seat operated through Manor F1. Manor will get some Sauber $$, GvdG gets a drive and Sauber will not have to give financial compensation because he's got a race seat. GvdG then still has his side of the contract to bring sponsors which will be happily taken by Manor F1. GvdG camp wont come up with the sponsors and contract is legally [automatically] unbinded. have a nice day.

Funniest thing is sensational tabloids like f1today and telegraaf are trying to paint the image with the false information that 'the highest judge' in swiss has ruled this, which is a blatant lie. the arbitration institution is not something that values as 'the highest judge'. The court in AUS will simply look into the case whether they find they are obligated to comply to the arbitrary ruling. My guess would be they do not, because it is an arbitrary ruling, not a final binding legal jurisdiction or verdict. Sauber still can go to appeal the case, instead of what popular tabloids are trying to make people believe is the case. Furthermore, Australia can in any case completely ignore this entire case, if they see fit to it and believe there will not be any 'legal' consequences - which i don't think there will because why would AUS give a single dime about Swiss arbitrary rulings.
If it were a final judge verdict, it might be different. It is however an arbitrary ruling.

[Per]

Dutch business website shed some more light on the case as they dig up financial results of GvdG's private company: http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Zakelijke ... min-148102

I suppose I'm not allowed to post a full translation here but I'll transcribe the key points:
- Giedo van der Garde BV (his company) shows 8 million euro loss in 2013, his Caterham year - presumably the money that got him the seat at Caterham
- the company's equity now stands at -24.5 million euro
- long-term debt has increased by €10 million in one year to -26.6 million euro
- 2014 financial results are not published yet
- "the paradox in this story is GvdG is going to court to pursue a contract that will cost him even more money"
- investors such as McGregor probably want to see their logo on the car in 2015, as their millions are already gone anyway
- GvdG might fear facing legal action by his backers, as has happened in the past to Robert Doornbos, although it is not very likely as his main backer is his father-in-law

I don't know how relevant the company's financial results are, because it's probably more to do with tax "optimisation" than anything else. But it's interesting to see what kind of money we are dealing with.

[Manoah2u]

Dutch business website shed some more light on the case as they dig up financial results of GvdG's private company: http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Zakelijke ... min-148102

I suppose I'm not allowed to post a full translation here but I'll transcribe the key points:
- Giedo van der Garde BV (his company) shows 8 million euro loss in 2013, his Caterham year - presumably the money that got him the seat at Caterham
- the company's equity now stands at -24.5 million euro
- long-term debt has increased by €10 million in one year to -26.6 million euro
- 2014 financial results are not published yet
- "the paradox in this story is GvdG is going to court to pursue a contract that will cost him even more money"
- investors such as McGregor probably want to see their logo on the car in 2015, as their millions are already gone anyway
- GvdG might fear facing legal action by his backers, as has happened in the past to Robert Doornbos, although it is not very likely as his main backer is his father-in-law

I don't know how relevant the company's financial results are, because it's probably more to do with tax "optimisation" than anything else. But it's interesting to see what kind of money we are dealing with.

Thanks, this would give some more insight on motives and the situation. Mr vd Garde and his managers are facing [remember, Guido's manager is not mr. Boekhoorn]

[Richard]

....

It's quite simple. Sauber contracted with van de Garde then failed to honour that contract. Clearly they didn't offer van de Garde suitable compensation, so he's looking to enforce the legally binding contract. We all know this is brinkmanship by both sides to get the best financial deal to settle this.

I've known people do this when job offers were cancelled. The company said "no thanks we don't need you after all", the employee took legal action to recover their 3 months notice. The company never repeated that error again.

Yes it takes them past the point of no return, but contracts have to be enforced once in a while for contract law to function. If they were never enforced then no one would bother honouring them.

[Per]

@Manoah: I don't understand why you think arbitrary rulings have so little meaning. I don't know much about legal issues, but in this case the contract between Sauber and GvdG will contain a clause saying any disputes will be taken to an arbitrary institution in Geneva. It is my understanding that arbitrary rulings are legally binding and can only be appealed for procedural reasons (arbiters not correctly appointed etc.). I might be wrong, it's hard to find understandable information on Google if you're not a specialist.

Now if you show an Australian judge this contract with the clause mentioning the arbitrary court in Geneva, and then you show him the ruling by said arbitrary court, I do not see how the Australian judge could not side with GvdG in this case.

But we'll find out soon, the case was supposed to start an hour ago.

[Per]

Bogus arguments coming from Sauber are appearing on Twitter as we speak.

"The agreement was with Giedo van der Garde's company, not with him personally, so the arbitration ruling was wrong."
- wait, are you trying to say Ericsson or Nasr are actually employees of GvdG's company?

"It's too late to make a seat for GvdG, therefore we cannot let him race."
- lol

"It's too dangerous because he hasn't driven this car yet"
- as if Lotterer and Stevens drove the Caterham before driving in Grand Prix weekend last year

They're going to have to come up with something more solid than this, I'm afraid... Although the first point is interesting.

Twitter feed to follow btw, from a court reporter who knows nothing about F1 but at least knows about court procedures: @kate_jones7

[Slife]

So if VdG was entitled to be a nominated driver, does that mean Sauber sold a driver seat that they had no right to sell ?

[ME4ME]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/saube ... e-to-race/

That's one big B-S argument from Sauber. Hope that GVD wins this.

[WaikeCU]

They really have worked themselves into an entirely huge mess. Lawyers of Nasr and Ericsson are not happy that they didn't know Sauber still had strings attached with VDG. Sauber surely doesn't shine confidence towards their drivers, managers and also their sponsors.