Meanwhile the new beta of the F1 web site apart from mostly not working, is selling tickets, so it looks as if FOM intend cut the ciruits out of all income apart from the hot dog and burger revenue. Interestingly there are also tickets for the Paddock club to be bought without any status check. A mere £3229.73 gets a 3 day pass to Malaysia. So non-millionaire hoy-poloy may be let in. Best keep a watch on the silverware!
Also noted parking charges for Silverstone! £72 for 3 days! If this is real there may be riots. The child prices do not show the revisions Patrick Allen said were coming either. Still it is a beta site but what are ticket sales for the circuits doing on FOM’s site?
In the long run you’re doing Sauber a disservice supporting them on this. I understand why they did it and I’d have done the same but for making good somehow on the other contract but until teams like sauber, lotus, force India etc start to fail nothing is going to change.
People need to see actual historic point scoring teams fail before anything will change.
Sauber living hand to mouth at the back of the grid running two pay drivers us pointless.
They may be in contempt of court, Van der Garde’s lawyer has asked for their Australian based assets to be seized and Monisha Kaltenborns passport to be confiscated. Will we see bailiffs in Albert Park tomorrow?
And Adam Cooper reported that it seems the team and VdGardes people are now talking and starting to get somewhere to an agreement. Both that and the fact the cars were on track is very good to see.
Sad it had to come to court this way before they did, but I really do hope this gets solved in a somewhat positive way and we can remember the weekend for the epic win by Rosberg, or the great overtake from Hamilton to stamp his authority on the race. Or Kimi proving that Ferrari really have made a step up, or even that Manor managed to fire up their engines 🙂
I, like you Joe, have always considered Sauber one of the more honourable teams (if not particularly exciting) – but I thought the Nico Hulkenburg interview yesterday was very interesting – where he was saying is not surprised this has happened as he ‘knows the people’. Did you see that? I thought that was quite telling, but then, this is F1, who knows…
…and VDG wearing a set of 2015 Sauber overalls in the paddock, with both sides involved in on-going discussions to resolve the dispute out of court and reports of Ericsson stepping aside for the rest of the weekend. I’m not a betting man, but I wouldn’t rule out VDG appearing in the car tomorrow. This has further to run yet.
– The court’s judgement (albeit I don’t have access to the exact text and am working through media reports) says the Van der Garde should race the Sauber on Sunday. Is there a mention of Van der Garde should qualify the Sauber on Saturday, or practice it on Friday? He obviously can’t race it if he can’t qualify it…
– In the (dim and distant) past we’ve seen teams swap seats during an event and even during a race – notably Peter Collins handing his healthy car over to Fangio to let the latter win the title in 1956. Is there any way under the rules that drivers can be swapped mid-event other than illness or injury?
Makes sense. Giedo can’t race without a superlicence, and can’t get one in time. Ironically (though irony seems to be the norm in F1) this may entitle Sauber to terminate his contract (yes, the one that has just been upheld by the court) because Giedo’s inability to race means he is in breach of his duty to perform the contract. This potentially also gets Sauber off the hook as regards contempt of court, as they cannot legally do what the court has ordered them to do.
Well done ? So now its a good thing when someone blatantly breaks the law ? Come on Joe ! Remember … ethics ? Contract law 101 ? How’s about basic gentlemanly behavior and general all around civility ?
How in God’s name with all the garbage thats been done to you over the years when it comes to broken contracts you can take that stance is beyond my comprehension .
But .. I figured out what the problem with Sauber is . Not to seem prejudiced or anything … but I’m betting its all down to Kaltenborn … who is a lawyer first and foremost …. from India where their complete lack of understanding and comprehension when it comes to Western business culture , etiquette , law and ethics … not to mention their willingness to continually flaunt the law when it comes to doing business in and with the West [ and which you have been a victim of ] is legendary
I’ll be honest here Joe . And yes … should you chose … I’ll put my money where my opinions are .. just name a number … or a gentleman’s wager’ll do ..
Sauber .. dead and gone before the 2015 season is over . Unless … Kaltenborn is handed her walking papers immediately and Peter Sauber bends over backwards to right the many wrongs this whole debacle has and is creating . Though even that may not save the team considering the overall gravity of the situation , the damage already done .. and the toes that have been stepped on .
Either way … guaranteed if he doesn’t already … Peter Sauber will rue the day he ever hired Kaltenborn .
Just to correct you GS, the Indian Judicial system is still, in probably all respects, the same as the British one, upon which it is based. I’m sure there are corrupt Indians, just as much as corrupt British folk, be they lawyers or ordinary citizens….this isn’t about racially differing ideas or laws, it is purely about greed and bad business ethics. If Sauber is in such a bad place right now, it will not get better as a result of displaying such appalling business practices. Sponsors will not be attracted by lies and falsehoods, they won’t be impressed by a team that can so casually break contracts. For Sauber and for F1, it would be better if they failed now, rather than in a few races time.
Monisha moved to Austria as a small kid where she was raised as well, she is an Austrian citizen. All this crap you write about ‘Western business culture, etiquette & law’ (Monisha studies law in Vienna by the way) all sounds rather racist to me GuitarSlinger.
Somewhat racist towards India and Indians, I think… and yes, I have done business there too.
And, at times, have been royally screwed by Asians, Europeans, and the lovely people from N. America too…
So, please, lay off the racist stereotypes here…
I have to instinctively agree with Guitar Slinger as well.
And note in another thread you reply to another that “nobody sensible” had disagreed with you.
If there’s a inside track you know about that changes substantially the way people should be perceiving anything to do with this, then I think we might hear without fear of your simple mention of such detail existing causing contempt of anything bad for you.
It’s just the fact that you often do know better than other less connected commentators that creates the difficulty here: either your status lends credence to a rather unhappy view of the complainant in this case, the ex and maybe would be driver van der Guarde. You sell your work on the basis of a inside track. Your comments whilst almost inscrutable – almost – are definitely negative towards this Guido chap, and I don’t see how one’s supposed to assume you’re not implying something, when you make statements that appear to claim several experienced judges et alia are all misguided.
I said myself, that I expect the FIA to effectively rule this so the drive cannot be restituted. Maybe that is the call you are trying to make. I read the various judges wondering why the FIA did not come and explain safety to them…
I actually see this as a chance to see the FIA in the dock, for real, finally, to explain what they really do.
Because I see that as the almost inevitable end, and oh my I consider myself so highly as to be able to see the writing on the wall, along with everyone I have spoken with which is (including my own direct experience) many many decades of litigation experience first hand, I imagine there may be a immense back room pressure to try to sting this story and even poison it if possible.
For crying out loud, Joe, yu are expending political capital on this issue, whether you like it or not. And amusingly many suibscribers or would be subscribers actually like and have fun with your extempore admonishments! That’s much part of the value we all enjoy. But this is beyond a biut of school marming and slaps on wrists for wayward commenters here who may need the virtues of a cool darkened room. This is you pooh-poohing a heck of a lot of reckoned to be erudite legal opinion. And without really giving us any reason much, other than it appears expedient for the better good.
But the expedience argument falls flat, if Sauber, instead of realizing a error no matter how late, compound that until it truly hurts them,
Because until Sauber – and only Sauber can do this, at present only they can act in any way unless the appellant walks away – if they don’t act more intelligently then it is they and only they who will cause any of the greater loss to the racing community at large of which you speak. Heck, if I read correctly, the Sauber lawyers even tried to hint that Van der Guarde would directly sue the incumbent drivers who you say are out in cars today. Obviously ven der Guarde’s lawyers said they’d do nothing of the sort, but the suggestion from Sauber’s cam was very smeary.
Normally you are right there trying to figure out what is the real beef with the game. This is to say the lest a major departure from what many have come to expect. But yet it could be drawn to fit with a pattern of what to date I’ve regarded as purely incidental apparent biases. Such as all fall within the realms of “well that’s Joe being Joe”.
Some time ago I called for the need for there to be a publication of record, for F1, ad a few times as is my wont at some length, at that. You echoed your desire to be that publisher in recent blurbs for the magazine.
But, crikey, I don’t care if you think my view of this case and affair is silly, what is silly is even being seen to be biased when you aim or aspire to be the publisher of record this sport desperately needs and is clamouring for. You don’t need the taint at all. Not the merest hint. So what is is that puts regular readers and intelligent observers of your insights, to rest, as to that apparent and unfortunate misalignment of conceptions?
What the problem is, as GS has his say above, is that usually you might be expected to call this affair all that is wrong about F1, from a very different perspective entirely. Is there explanation for that? Can genuine fans of your writing talents be assured this isn’t some misguided siding against a driver nobody can place as having done anyone any harm otherwise? Whats the general drifty of the angle, if you are unable to speak of specifics? What is that which cannot be argued because its looking behind the case, in Aus tomorrow? Looking behind means unravelling earlier decisions without proper appeal so isn’t allowed much…
if nothing else this case brings into the light a vital crossection of this sport in ways that could illuminate so very much long firm fans desperately want to understand, even if they would not change a thing… It’s fascinating the implications.
somehow it feels instead you’re sitting on something you may be able to remark upon about later. Whilst everything else anyone can read points in the opposite direction. So, if we are simply in the dark, it feels a bit like some of us are being let to look like fools, eren if ewe are in quite exalted company.
okay,I;ll make a contribution to the thought, amid all the apparent denial of reality:
If Bernie said or some comparable figure said to Monisha that there’s no way that Guarde could ever be let to drive so therefore she’ll always be able to keep the new money which apparently is so crucial as to cause her to risk her liberty (no matter how technically) finally is it the opinion of this publication or editor that in the end Sauber will prevail; somehow scrape through, get their money from the new drivers top pay bills now so they can raise more money later with which to pay off a frustrated van der Guarde, and is it your opinion that that will suffice for a outcome for the stakeholders in this sport sufficiently that the oft disregarded poor fans (junior subordinated to the infinite degree stakeholders) will just accept it was all prudent business and that your apparently unequivocal support of the Sauber position was wise in the end? I worry, because of the contempt of fandom involved in that enormity of a construction of corkscrew logic.
Please overturn my verdict of this being a entirely other travesty, and of your assessment of this causing collateral and unfair damage to the record of this sport in the pertinent media.
Unlike I think Sauber have, I believe I have grounds for leave of appeal concerning this debate on points of law.. Rebuttal?
and p,.s, the nth – – it would be just fun to have out a argument, and I don’t think the word argument is pejorative at all, I argue with my best and closest out of affection – each way and maybe even hypothetically as to what’s going on.
but instead of using these comments for debate, and can we actually link to sources now or is even useful links banned? – we’ve got to this weird stand off where it seems some of Joe’s most ardent supporters are thinking he’s taken leave of something upstairs. I might as well say that as the vice versa has been implied and at least can be imputed from the words.
this could be the most interesting – and even vital – development in this sport. So why pooh pooh supposedly dissenting voices? Nobody’s hardly got to the lines of debate yet here, it’s all in reference to what maybe we can’t link to, and so pretty vague and messy. Better show anyone and get a grip on what this all means?
A friend of mine at university, a Welsh chap with a quick wit and a hearty laugh, had a t-shirt with a picture of a blushing sheep on and the words “National Stereotypes Society” on scrolls across the top and bottom.
This, of course, adds nothing to the conversation – nor do derogatory remarks about Kaltenborn which make wild assumptions about her capacity to do business “in and with the West” based purely on her race and origins.
A twelve second glance at her wikipedia page will tell you clearly enough that Kaltenborn is not some recently arrived immigrant with a sense of entitlement and a flair for dodging court cases.
That said, she did study at LSE, so she might be a fully settled immigrant with a sense of entitlement and a flair for dodging court cases, which, if she lived in the UK, would arguably make her perfectly qualified to run a big bank…
Way to denigrate an entire country of 1+ billion people – of course, entirely ignore the fact that Kaltenborn was only born in India. She grew up, was educated and works in Austria. So shall we now use the same language for Austria too?
Monisha Kaltenborn moved from her native India to Austria at the tender age of eight. She’s married to a lawyer who is a native German (hence her surname). Your third paragraph is based on entirely incorrect presumptions. The guitar you’re slinging is somewhat out of tune.
I think you’re taking an overly simplistic view. As Joe pointed out, if Sauber hadn’t gone down this path, Sauber may already have been dead and buried along with the jobs of the other 300+ employees of the team. Would you take the moral high ground on two contracts (lets not forget Sutil) at the expense of 300 peoples livelihoods.
I do agree that Monisha’s position is probably a lot less secure right now.
>> who is a lawyer first and foremost …. from India where their complete lack
>> of understanding and comprehension when it comes to Western
>> business culture , etiquette , law and ethics …
Calm down sir. Your comments are borderline racist. It would have been better if you have checked your facts – Monisha emigrated to Austria as a child, studied law, and then worked for UN before working for Peter Sauber. She is as Indian as Sir Ben Kingsley – she has parents of Indian origin. That’s it. Also it is not fair to make blanket accusations on an entire country.
Let’s keep this blog focused on F1 that we love.
This whole saga is simply indicative of the financial gulf that exists between teams and the extent to which few teams have to juggle resources to just compete.
@Slinger; you may want to check your facts before you spout such nonsense. Kalterborne was bought up and educated in Austria and latterly in London at one of the UK’s finest institutions. I doubt she has any issues understanding ” Western business culture”…
Wow, “from India “. I’ve done enough business in India to know it isn’t always easy, but enough to know that it’s rarely easy anywhere. Besides which, she’s a long term Swiss resident, hardly straight from the Mumbai slums.
Sorry if the rest of your points were valid, but thanks to the casual racism, I chose to write them off as garbled nonsense.
GS: there is no “against the law” here – this is a civil matter, not a criminal one. There was a contractual dispute that was argued in front of an arbitrator. The arbitrator ruled against Sauber. They did nothing illegal – that’s not how civil law works. People and companies have contractual disputes every day of the year. Just because GvdG has won doesn’t mean that it was clear-cut, just that there was a bit more weight on his side of the argument.
GvdG then applied to the Australian court to issue an order requiring Sauber to follow the arbitration award. GvdG won. For Sauber to not follow that order would be against the law – contempt of court, in fact.
GvdG now can’t race because he doesn’t have a SuperLicence. Some thing that the contract may require GvdG to have one. If it does, Sauber can go back to court / arbitration and present a different case: that the lack of a licence allows them to back out of the contract. They might win that argument. We will have to wait and see.
There are no moral absolutes in contract law, merely opinions, vested interests, and – sometimes – the ruling of a judge or arbitrator. There is no value in getting on so wounded a high horse as the one you imagine to roam the corridors of the civil courts…
I agree. The damage with the fans, F1 people and sponsors is done I believe. Any potential sponsor will think twice before doing business with Sauber. And the current ones have probably already got their lawyers look over their agreements with Sauber and will look over their options.
I still wonder why Sauber did not offer Giedo the reserve role. Btw, who is the reserve driver at Sauber?
GuiterSlinger – you should check your facts before making such strong statements. Kaltenborn is Austrian where she spent most of her formative years. She studied law in Vienna and later in London at LSE. She practiced law in Stuttgart and then Vienna, not India.
She barely spent any time in India (early childhood only) and certainly would not be well-versed as to how law is practiced in that country. Considering her current role and background, her understanding of European business culture, etiquette and ethics is probably superior to the average European.
Her background is a red herring and to suggest otherwise is simple xenophobia (just look at the short one if you want to see how another European conducts his business affairs with less grace). She does however appear to have made an error of judgement and her organization is paying the price for it.
I’ve never seen so much racist rubbish! Furthermore, I’m not lawyer, are you? You may need one. We all have opinions but best not write inflammatory, insulting, comments unless you are VERY sure of your facts.
Kaltenborn is half Austrian, emigrated to Austria as a child and grew up there. Her law background is in the ‘west’, despite her not being the colour you expected. The crack about her ‘Indian’ heritage kind of backfires there sparky. Maybe in between slinging that guitar (into your head I’m guessing?) you could figure out Wikipedia or some other basic access to knowledge?
Guitar Slinger, I must have missed the part where Joe said it was a great thing that Sauber had broken the contract. I took his opinion to be that Sauber had indeed wronged VdG (albeit out of desperation to save their business rather than unnecessary greed). However that his suing them made little sense since it would not result in him getting a drive (as it has indeed not), because they have no money to recompense him anyway and since it wouldn’t help his image with other potential teams. That’s a very different thing from endorsing their original behaviour which I thought Joe had been explicit in criticising and stating his sympathy for Guido. Or did I miss something?
Also ‘Guitar Slinger’, I have to say, if you’re going to pin the entire blame for this on one woman purely on the basis that (to paraphrase) ‘she’s Indian and they don’t have a clue how to do things properly’ that’s pretty strong stuff mate. Simply prefacing a whopping dose of prejudice with: “not to seem prejudiced or anything” doesn’t make it so!
Can’t actually believe your comment was able to be posted and actually slightly angry at how backward thinking it is.
Yes Kaltenborn was born in India where the culture is different and corruption is rife, but to think that you have somehow worked out the story behind the whole problem by being racist and tarring anyone with an Indian background with the same stereotypical brush is ridiculous.
Given the superlicense situation this is not a surprise, hence it really should have been a bit of a moot point with respect to this race. It will be more interesting to see who goes out in Malaysia in two weeks, as vdG should be licensed by then, and the extra time for the lawyers to sort it out (i.e. find out which of Ericcson or Nasr is willing / cheapest to be paid off)
One does wonder whether the Sauber team have or use a contracts lawyer. If they do, then that lawyer sure messed up.
I severely doubt that Sauber could argue VdG’s inability to race is in breach of contract, or least not HIS breach of contract, given it was their responsibility to file the superlicense paperwork and they did not do this. Any contract breach was of their own making.
And it appears even a temporary superlicense cannot be applied for because Sauber did not get VdG’s contract validated by the Contracts Recognition Board, which is a requirement for the superlicense paperwork.
It should be noted that Sauber lost their original Arbitrary court ruling in early December last year. This means 3 months ago a court ruled they had to let VdG drive – giving Sauber sample time to get the contract recognized, file all the correct superlicense paperwork and arrange the seat fitting.
Sauber did none of this, quite deliberately it would appear.
So I hear now that VdG’s people and Sauber are getting together and talking, and the judge has postponed Sauber’s contempt hearing until Saturday to allow them to do so. 3 drivers into 2 searts still doesn’t go, and I somehow doubt VdG will agree to give up his race seat having come this far to win 2 court rulings and an appeal.
The only agreement I can see VdG accepting is that Sauber sort the contract recognition and superlicense paperwork over the next week or so, and that they decide which of Eriksson and Nasr they are going to drop before Malaysia to make way for VdG. In the meantime they race Eriksson and Nasr in Australia.
Oh and yes I also find myself agreeing with GuitarSlinger – Peter Sauber will rue the day he ever hired Kaltenborn.
What maddens me even more about this is that Kaltenborn is a lawyer by profession. It can hardly be claimed she was ignorant of the legal ramifications of signing 3 binding driver contracts for 2 driver positions, and then expecting no consequences when dumping one of the drivers.
Bureaucracy at it’s finest! If Sauber wanted to put some kid from kartng into one of their cars tomorrow morning their lawyers or Bernie would find a way. There are a number of new drivers in Formula One at the moment without half the knowledge or experience as Giedo.
In response to GuitarSlinger’s comments, Kaltenborn was only born in India, her family moved to Austria when she was a child. She has been educated in London and Vienna, i think that makes her more of a westener than you would like for your ill judged views.
Joe, according to GvdG’s attorney, the hold up on his superlicense is down to Sauber not signing the paperwork, and it could be fixed if they wanted to. Can you comment on that? Does that sound plausible or not?
I have a feeling that somewhere, a lawyer who advised Sauber on this issue is about to receive notice of a claim for professional malpractice. It would be very “un-Swiss” to simply fly by the seat of your pants in matters such as this. Advice was surely given and likely followed, allowing the team a certain level of comfort in making its decision. The outcome in the Australian court was probably not foreseen, and the team now has to scramble because the best-laid plans of mice and men often go astray. This outcome was never predicted because it is beyond the worst-case scenario.
Could it be that Ms Kaltenborn, got 3 pay drivers to ensure Saubers survival?
Deal with the court cases at later date….
A masterstroke if it meant the team could arrive at Melbourne. I do feel for GvDG in that respect, he was sold a kippers seat!
I think we all can see which side of the fence your opinion is on. Your blog your opinion ,but it is suprising as your normally quiet outspoken in regard to right and wrong which is why i have always respected your correspondence over the rabble who rehash others stories.
I like many, are just bemused as to why you aren’t canning Sauber for its pathetic treatment of its employees, that its about sacrificing one for the many is really irrelevant,its just plain wrong. You have regularly pointed out that F1 is very much a business that happens to also be a sport. If you ran your business like they have, you’d be quickly classified as unemployed!
Finally, apart from all this disgraceful drama, i hope your enjoying your time in OZ. We’ve tried to keep the rain away for you.
You see what you want to see. I am simply looking at the problem from a pragmatic point of view. If I was Giedo I would be annoyed, but Sauber has done what Sauber felt was necessary. A settlement has been found. It was always going to end up that way.
You are no doubt correct in taking the pragmatic approach, it’s probably how you’ve keep your sanity whilst reporting all these years. All i can say is i’m glad that the mess is now behind F1 and came to the expected conclusion,we can now focus on more exciting items.