A great deal has been written in recent days about Giedo Van der Garde and Sauber, with considerable emphasis being on what the courts in Australia were saying. The matter has now been resolved out of court with, as expected, Van der Garde saying that he has been paid “significant compensation”.There is speculation about how much money is involved but nothing official. It was inevitable from the start that this was going to be the outcome. A court cannot force a company to employ someone it does not want to employ if a settlement can be found. If no solution is possible then there can be contempt of court questions, but the reality is that legal action is really only part of a negotiation process to find a settlement.
Given that we knew this back in the autumn one has to ask about the motivations behind the various cases. Sauber might have settled earlier but perhaps Van der Garde wanted more than Sauber was willing to give. What has been achieved in all of this is that Sauber has taken a lot of flak for deciding to change its drivers, but the team has said virtually nothing. In the PR battle, Sauber is the loser, because Van der Garde has been talking a great deal and the reporting has reflected that. Facts have been rather thin on the ground, but this has not stopped a lot of people having opinions. The facts are as follows. Van der Garde’s management company Giedo Van Der Garde BV signed a services agreement with Sauber on January 20 2014. Van der Garde says that “my sponsors paid the sponsorship fee related to the 2015 season in its entirety to Sauber in the first half of 2014. This was simply in good faith and to help the team deal with its cash problems at the time”. Speculation suggests that this was a sum of $8 million. More may have been paid when the option in the agreement was taken up to allow Van der Garde to race for the team in 2015. That was done on June 28, although it was not admitted at the time because of confidentiality agreements. These normally state that parties shall not make any oral, written or other statement to anyone (and in particular to the press, television, radio or any other media) liable to harm in any way the reputation, renown or brand image the other party.
Sauber’s plans changed after Jules Bianchi’s accident in Japan last year. And it became clear that he would not be able to drive for the team in 2015. As a result additional financial support was required and Marcus Ericsson and Felipe Nasr were offering large sums of money. Sauber was pragmatic, figuring that one package was better than the other. The team said in court that it informed Van der Garde that it was going to terminate the agreement and contracts were signed with Ericsson and Nasr. Van der Garde chose to challenge the decision to terminate.
Most modern F1 contracts allow for arbitration to take place if there are disputes. Arbitration got underway in December. According to court papers, Sauber did not legally terminate the contract until February 6. It informed the Contract Recognition Board of the change on March 4. The CRB exists to protect the teams, not the drivers, and it does not rule unless there are conflicts to be resolved between the teams regarding the contracts that it holds. Thus the CRB was not involved in this dispute. In the court in Australia, it was revealed that Sauber acted in February because it felt Van der Garde had breached confidentiality by talking to the media.
The arbitration hearing took place in London under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration. This granted Van der Garde an injunction on March 2. As no settlement was found (it is not clear if it was even discussed) Van der Garde applied to the Victorian Supreme Court in Australia. Sauber argued that the Swiss decision should not be enforced for various reasons, none of them very convincing – and appealed the decision from Justice Croft. The legal actions escalated but as it was clear that Van der Garde did not have a Superlicence, it was largely irrelevant.
On Saturday morning a deal was done for an amicable settlement. Amicable is not really the word I would use, as both sides were clearly left aggrieved. Yesterday Van der Garde announced that his contract had been terminated but was critical of Sauber. Sauber said it was surprised by Van der Garde’s criticisms but would not respond because it was contractually bound to say nothing and that it was better to concentrate on the racing. Sauber said that it has very good answers to Van der Garde’s statements and accusations, but is not going to respond as it is not keen to get involved in mud-slinging.
Formula 1 has always been a tricky world when it comes to contracts. Some believe that all contracts should be respected, but there is a parallel argument that if things change, there needs to be pragmatic flexibility. That can mean some tough decisions. The conclusions one can draw from all this are largely subjective. Yes, Van der Garde feels hard done by. But Sauber did it because it felt it was in the best interests of the team.
As to the public mess, it could have been avoided.
joeblogsf1 
A contract is a contract. They thought that could trample over the top of him, like they have done to others and this time the subject had a bit if fight, and larges sums of litigation money, behind him. Flexibility? Non sense. Black and white legally binding contract. Good on VDG. I will never support Sauber again. Same goes for Fernando and others who have acted without morales. F1 is running out of sports men and sports team. I’m from a world in racing were a handshake is as good as any contract. Litigation? That’s happens with the hands as well. Its called road racing! If your growing tired if this watch the TT this year. Refreshing to say the least. F1 is rotten to the core.
A subjective view…
Not subjective in the slightest . Unfortunately Joe … contract law is not one your strong suits … especially in relation to employment contracts . Simple reality is … the Court can … and has forced an employer to keep someone on their payroll regardless of whether said person is actually working or not .
As to VdG . The settlement IS official . $16 million US ! That is what Sauber’s ill informed and culturally unaware lawyer/team principal has cost Sauber . And … from what I’ve seen … thats just the tip of what promises to be a very deep dark iceberg about to hit Sauber head on ……… before Sutil’s case even hits the courts I might add
And when I say the only thing in the long run that may spare Sauber F1 from the relegation bin is letting said sub-continent lawyer/team principal go … I am not exaggerating in the slightest . In the business/banking/investment community Sauber’s credibility has gone straight into the abyss over this …. with little hope of rescue/salvation
FYI ; Contract Law .. and especially international contract law as it applies to employment is a quagmire not to be approached lightly .. especially when ones background does not qualify one to be giving opinions on said subject … especially when it is still a pending case [ with a 2nd in the wings ] the consequences of which can potentially be devastating … Add in the factor of serious Big Bucks [ and therefore serious amounts of power ] behind it all and I say to you .. for your own good ….
Tread carefully Joe ! To quote the bard .. David Byrne ;
” This aint no party .. This aint no disco .. This aint no foolin around ”
And its not a mess you personally want to be within a 100km of .. never mind potentially on the front lines
I think we use a rest from your comments.
I dunno. As a business owner who’s known what it’s like to not receive expected payments, and have a bunch of staff who need paying on an imminent Friday, you’d do a deal with the devil himself if it meant getting out of a hole and keeping your employees paid… So while it’s not ideal I can sort of see it from Sauber’s perspective – I’m sure MK probably didn’t relish what she was doing at all, but knew it was vastly preferable to maybe letting 300+ workers going to the wall…
I agree. There is nothing easier than to be critical when you’re not the one facing disaster.
I totally agree.
Pretty much where I am on the whole thing!
Couldn’t have put it better. MK must go.
Why?
Not exactly good or ethical business behaviour, not to mention the broader reputational damage to the sport her management of this matter has caused. There were better ways of handling this…
Oh come off it; if you got rid of every team principle who’d behaved in an unethical fashion on occasion, who do you think would be left?
Agreed. A contract’s worth is based both on the consideration exchanged (i.e. money for services rendered) and the goodwill of the parties to honour it. Having seen the team go through some quite extraordinary contortions to try and get out of its contractual obligations (and, judging from the payment of a settlement sum, failed), I suspect a few parties may not place much weight in the goodwill of the team to honour future contracts. A commercial factor alone, admittedly, but still a valid one.
Sure, F1sidecar. A contract is a contract. And yes, most contracts do include some possible route for terminating or changing conditions if things/views/whatever changes, which mostly recuire “mutual agreement”.
But lets now look at the real world. For example I have a contract with my customer to provide warehousing which was cancelled with 3 months notice (already ignoring terms saying notice starts at the end of the month in wich I was informed), but reality is, that when the customer stops wanting to send material over here to store, I still have an empty warehouse.
And then I have seen endless situations where a large customer might have a contract with you, but when they need saving money, or upping their targets or just a change of mind, they often just tell you to go and stick the contract somewhere.
Yes, in court they would probably be called back. But as it involves a lot of cost, burden and not to mention burning your bridges to take a large customer to court, hardly anyone is going to push the matter unless its forcing you to close shop in which case you have little to lose (not all that different from VdGarde pushing the case here).
Contracts are great and all, but in reality they just help create a set of rules for good times and can give you a better bargaining position if written well.
Sauber gave a very convincing for changing drivers on Sunday afternoon. The best debut I can remember in a long time. The boss deciding to sack herself on Monday would have been a very bizarre response! 😉
The conclusions one can draw from all this are largely subjective? Okay… my subjective conclusion from Sauber and Kaltenborn signing 4 contracts for 2 seats is they are crooks.
You cannot call someone a crook if you cannot prove it. I am quite sure they have a sound legal argument that the new contracts were signed after the others were ended. If you would like me to take down the comment please feel free. I think it is libel.
Sauber “have a sound legal argument”? Joe, everybody that violates civil or criminal law, or that does not, believes they “have a sound legal argument” in their defense. That is what is known as a tautology.
Incredible how people can’t see that. The same goes for many, I believe, racist comments I’ve noticed elsewhere. Double-edged sword ‘freedom’ on the internet.
Joe
If you think it is libel then YOU need to take it down. Otherwise if an aggrieved party were to sue you would have vicarious liability as publisher, loosing the “safe harbour” rights of legislation such as the DMCA.
Joe, you just wrote that the contact of Guido was only terminated February 6, well after they signed the other drivers…
Guido has said that they were basically ignored by the team, so yes a settlement should have been reached long ago, but you need to be talking to each other for that to happen.
Also let’s make an analogy. You want to buy a special car, one so special, you need to convince a builder that he should build one for you. You have an agreement that you can drive one a couple of times, and if you are deemed worthy you can buy one. You are deemed worthy, so you pay for the car to be built. Now someone else comes along, with deeper pockets, and the builder sells the car to him. You call him, but he does not pick up the phone. Would you just do nothing? If I were Guido I would not have taken the settlement and let them feel it (but then again I’m not very nice ;))
If I was GvdG I’d have called Bernie and asked him what to do.
Maybe he did just that.
Is this the same Bernie that’s made a complete mess of F1?
As some were whispering that its Bernie who helped make sure this settlement came about, even possibly paying for or guaranteeing the “considerable compensation” sum, I would say that calling Bernie as you mention Joe, would surely seem to be a very solid step to solve things in F1 (also if we look at what Chandhok mentioned BE has done for him in the past and speeding up payments to FI, and probably also to Sauber and Lotus, maybe even Manor this year).
Afterall Bernie is not interested in having cars impounded or the show being upset by such a court case. Its bad enough how other teams were struggling to get to race in Australia this year.
The ease of how the problem went away suggests someone ‘familiar with the situation’ finally arrived. the problem is that it reinforces the idea that only one person can sort out this things in F1 with the teams being unable to develop anything except a car.
Dennis, you missed one part in your analogy:
The builder calls you to say that he’s very close to losing his business and that buyer No. 2 has offered a higher payment that will help the business to survive. You are unable or unwilling to match or exceed buyer No.2’s offer. What should the builder do?
Well, first, he didn’t state that Sauber are crooks– he stated that his subjective conclusion is that Sauber are crooks, and I’m pretty sure opinion isn’t libel.
Secondly, neither the Swiss Arbitration board, or the Australian courts, felt that Sauber’s argument was sound, or legal, because as near as I can tell, Sauber came very, very close to being held in contempt of court. None of the three legal reviews of the situation agreed with Sauber’s contention that they had terminated van der Garde’s contract, and they all agreed that van der Garde had both a legitimate contract, and a legitimate complaint.
You are missing the point
Categorically, that it is “opinion” has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it might be deemed libelous, at least in the UK, the home of libels cases internationally.
“But Sauber did it because it felt it was in the best interests of the team.”
You didn’t mention that Sauber also had a contract with Sutil. So Sauber actually signed four drivers for two seats. In the business world that would be called a Ponzi scheme.
That’s libel unless you can prove it
Did Sauber somehow forget they signed two too many drivers?
It is all in the chronology.
Of course Sauber aren’t crooked or operating a Ponzi scheme. They have though acted foolishly in my opinion and further dragged the sport into disrepute.
The reasons why they made this disastrous decision probably lies in the inequitous distribution of funds to F1 teams rather than anything else. Until that is sorted out teams like Sauber will always be tempted to try to pull a stunt like this just to survive. Together with the dropping of the German GP, the most boring opening race of the season for years, Horner’s threats to pull out if he doesn’t get his way, I really wonder how much more the average F1 viewer can take before he or she decides to watch something else.
It’s tough to see any winner here, we’ve only really heard one side of the story. We’ve got people jumping all over Sauber and from an image point of view they got it very wrong. That said if i was one of the 300 people at Sauber I’d rather have my job and a bit of tarnish, and lets be honest the two new boys did fairly good job on Sunday. Another one to add to the reasons why F1 continues to shoot itself in the foot.
From the available data garnered from Joe’s, and James Allen’s sites, the impression I am getting is that the Sauber finances to do 2015 were cobbled together from four sources – Van der Garde’s funds, whatever Ferarri deal revolved around Jules Bianchi and the engines, Russian money, and Simone de Silvestro’s package (which I was reading last night, elsewhere, was intended to lead to a 2015 seat for her).
Out of all that, I don’t see where Sutil gets the idea that he had a 2015 seat. I certainly don’t see that he had any money toward the contract.
Was it planned that he would ride on Silvestro’s funding if it had come through, but she was not ready?
There was no Russian money. There was no Silvestro money.
It is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme involves using the funds of later investors to pay “returns” to earlier investors. That is not what occurred here.
Never heard so much bollocks about contracts this and that!!!! No wonder F1 is dying.
Bianchi partly financed by Ferrari. Bianchi out for the count No more dosh/engines for the team. Good bye Marussa.
Horner is crying about being smacked by Mercedes (have you seen how fast those Mercedes are) yep its called race development get with the programme or join every one who is dying.
F1 = moan moan moan! grow up or get out!
Joe from the interview VDG gave last night he stated that if the team would have been more open to him a “amicable solution” may have been reached before the start of the season.
Do you know if the team really just ignored him or if negotiations took place but were unsuccessful?
From a PR point of view Sauber really dropped the ball and its a shame for the F1 career of VDG.
The other question would be were is the money for the buy-off coming from? The team should not have a dime to spare…
Do they also have a contract with Adrian Sutil?
As far as I know Sutil is either already taking them to court to get some compensation, or maybe its out of court negotiations etc for his dismissal rpaco. But as all is handled confidentially its hard to know for sure, nor to confirm exactly what is going on, or whether they have already agreed on something.
He did have a contract to race for the team for 2014 and 2015, but none of us know exact terms off course.
I think that looking after your many employees and their families is the right thing to do. If the future of the team, and those employees, was dependent on Van Der Garde not driving then so be it.
I agree, and it was the right decision. But if you decide to do such a thing you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
I think Sauber hoped that the problem would disappear. But hey… We’ll never know.
Couldn’t agree more. The fact is that if VDG was any good teams would go to court to get him, not the opposite.
I agree, if it’s a matter of saving the team then it’s the right thing to do. Giedo keeping his race seat with a team that’s no longer racing wouldn’t have done anyone any good.
That said, the other right thing to do would be to sort out any contracts and terminations properly. From everything I’ve read, it appears Sauber didn’t bother with this bit. They seemingly just signed another two drivers and hoped the first two would forget they were supposed to have race seats this year or something.
Sauber now claim to have all the answers to Giedo’s claims, but are taking some kind of moral high ground in keeping those answers to themselves. But between the courts ruling against Sauber, Giedo’s claims, Monisha’s remark last year that contracts in F1 are worth nothing, etc., this Sauber’s, “We’re the good guys here, take our word for it,” seems pretty weak. To me it reads more like, “We haven’t a leg to stand on, so we’re going to just keep quiet and hope everyone forgets about it soon.”
Well said Nick! Completely agree with you.
I fully agree. Sauber keeping quiet now is probably some very late damage limitation while they hope the attention all goes away, liked they’d hoped their surplus drivers would just go away. Good on VDG for not just taking it up the backside, but for also stopping short of risking shutting the team down.
Given what has been said about the financial clout behind VDG, it makes me wonder whether the team considered seeking additional funds while keeping VDG in a race seat, and if not why not? He may be a pay driver, but would he seriously have been no better than Ericsson? Unless they wanted to take Ericsson and Nasr’s money and keep VDG’s money too. At least airlines refund you or find another flight if they sell your seat to someone else paying more.
By the looks of things though, without the prepaid money from VDG’s backers last year they could have been out of business last year, so this “saving the workers” argument doesn’t stack up that well. There would have been no team left for Ericsson and Nasr’s money to save.
Contracts can be written in such a way that mitigate against certain circumstances should they occur. If Sauber’s hiring of one driver was conditional on the services of another, this should have been baked into the contract. Sauber’s lack of foresight to anticipate this into the wording of VdG’s contract is evident. They are therefore negligent and the court’s rulings backed this up completely. The courts found Sauber were in the wrong. It will be interesting to see how Adrian Sutil sees all this. I understand he too had a contract for 2015. Was his dispute with the team ever resolved?
Also wondering this, and what happened about the $8million too? He paid for the drive, did they take and spend the money beforehand and hope he wouldn’t want it back?
Totally agree. The contracts I sign for the company are full of “precedent condition” which rule a combination of factors for this or that to happen. In a scenario that drivers bring necessary funding and, considering they’re under permanent risk as racing drivers, then a clause or “force majeure” would have allowed them to terminate the contract by returning the monies initially paid by the driver with x amount of interest. This settlement would come from money from the new driver (like Nasr, for example).
Joe wrote: I am quite sure they have a sound legal argument that the new contracts were signed after the others were ended.
So sound that every where it was challenged legally Sauber lost. If that is your idea of sound I have a bridge to sell you.
Regardless of Sauber’s reasoning and needs, the approach they took to achieving them have resulted in the team severely damaging there reputation. And in the end, reputation is hard one, but once lost, a bitch to get back…
Well, strictly speaking the substantive issue between Sauber and VDG was only decided once — the original arbitration was only decision that actually considered the merits of VDG’s case and Sauber’s defence.
The Australian judgment was on an action to enforce the arbitral ruling in Australia, and the court started from a presumption that the original arbitral decision was correct — which meant that VDG did not have to make his case again and Sauber could not raise any substantive defences. Sauber were limited to arguments against enforcing the arbitral decision specifically in that time and place, thus the rather desperate assertions by their lawyers that safety would be compromised, &c.
These had a very slim likelihood of success, but they were all that Sauber’s lawyers had available in the Australian action. Unfortunately they had the side-effect of making the team look like duplicitous buffoons.
And Sauber did not agree with the arbitration finding because it said other elements were required to decide on the matter.
+1
Funny how Sauber thought they could just terminate the contract because it thought it was in the best interests of the team.
Hmmmm?.. Maybe I should take that approach with my bank when I’m tired of paying off my car? – After all it’s in the best interest of ME
Totally agree with the damaged reputation. I hope Sauber feel the pain of this action for years to come.
completely agree with you. +1000. many courts have decided against sauber. that is a fact. I am very disappointed in Mr Sauber. He used to be a sort of “nice guy” in my book. and the team has always been the underdog i regularly rooted for. now that is gone completely by him saying he supports Monisha. I couldnt care less for his team now. I feel bad for the staff, but their management has totally effed everything in the worst way possible.
Well, as long as sponsors are rolling up at Sauber’s door and competing for ‘car-space’ all the recent publicity will have been worth it.
Personally, I take anything coming out of the F1 official/unofficial PR machine with a pinch of salt –
A shame, considering the sport’s ‘maturity’.
Joe, When Sauber terminated GVDG’s contract, did they give him the money back?? If they kept his money and told him to go away, he had very good reason to feel aggrieved.
Do you have anything to back up the “If”?
i think the devil is in the detail and we are not privy to it. On the face of it there seems to have been ample opportunity to thrash out a resolution but Sauber clearly were being less than straight in their dealings. I suspect Sauber spent the money for 2015 in 2014 as intimated and were trying to avoid paying it back with compensation for the breach of contract for obvious commercial reasons. One suspects that one BE has been involved in the subsequent settlement. All rather unseemly and the only real winners are parasitic lawyers.
So we will never know the full story, as Sauber will never discuss the details (nor should they). Sauber are a racing team, not a PR firm, so of course they are going to look bad in all this.
What we do know is that this issue has been damaging for F1, at the worst possible time. The start of a new season should be the time when F1 can really shine, not dealing with negative press.
At the end of the day, what ever the arguments, Sauber have taken a massive hit with this. Even if you consider it a pure perception thing.
The (admittedly simplistic) fact is that they signed 4 drivers for 2 seats (perhaps 5, my understanding is that Gutierrez had some kind of deal in place too), and god knows where Bianchi fitted into all this… Difference of course is that Gutierrez is now at Ferrari, whereas vdG and Sutil are out of F1 and probably feel more aggreived…
The details are interesting and tell a fuller story, but certainly from a pure perception point of view, Sauber – a team run by a trained lawyer – has ended up in a right mess, and reputation wise have been massively damaged by all this.
Handy for the powers that be though. ‘Look at the mess the teams are making of F1, nothing to do with us…’
This will merely be a footnote to the 2015 season. There are bigger issues…
Holland will forget it all (and Giedo) very quickly. If they were paying more attention they would have seen a really good debut ny Max Verstappen. He was on medium tyres in the first half of the race while the others were on softs. When his care broke down he was poised for a really big result. But everyone was banging on about Giedo and they missed it.
Come again. The Dutch newspapers were filled with …. hang on to your seats …. Max Verstappen. Much more so then with GvdG.
If this was just a contract dispute over PAYMENTS and services I could agree with all of your comments.
Sauber took his 2015 payments in 2014, thereby executing Sauber commitment to the deal.
If Sauber cancelled his contract and gave GvdG a refund, I believe none of this would have happened.
Do you know if Sauber refunded his 2015 payment before GvdG dragged them into court?
Erata: should have typed, FUTURE PAYMENTS.
I might agree with you Joe if no money had been paid, then there is something that might be thought of as a promise in the contract…Regardless of first informing Giedo or not, I think it is close to criminal behaviour. I think this is even more despicable than whatever mister Briatore has ever done.
There is nothing criminal in this affair
Ever the cynic… So Sauber used Van de Gardes money to survive through 2014. Then when they will still in financial problems at the back end of the season signed two more drivers who could provide up front money to see them through the winter.
The most amazing thing is that there are seemingly business people in this world that will give cash up front when there is a real danger Sauber could have closed its doors over winter!
The avoidance part was not done well by Kaltenborn and Sauber. She is hardly a remarkable manager. An utter failure publicly to say the least. Sauber if it goes away will hardly be missed by me for this instance of utter stupidity. Their statement yesterday was worthy of a dictator like Putin not an F1 team led by professionals. J O K E! Thanks Bernie.
Life is easy when you see things your own way all the time.
A contract is a binding document, now if one wishes to break the contract there has to be a settlement, the public mess is all Sauber’s mistake, they should have paid up Geido before (sufficiently), when they had a chance. Its just bad decision making to not settle at the first available opportunity. To have taken his money for 2015 in advance (in part or full irrespective) and then gone ahead with new drivers was always going to be messy.
What bothers me is, if Geido doesnt find a drive in the paddock because he took an employer to task for owing him money which they did for sure, then its shows sheer lack of maturity in the paddock.
Having said that any word on Sutil and others queuing up for payback ?
Joe, I agree with you that more pragmatic flexibility is needed. However, flexibility first and foremost starts in the contracts themselves. Contracts have to be honored, else we all decent in chaos. Sauber should have built flexibility into vd Garde’s contract in order to get legally away with it.
I’m sure Sauber did what it needed to do in order to survive, however we can safely assume (no need to keep using “we don’t know the full story” argument) Sauber breached the contract without being able to use an escape clausule. Hence it’s up to Sauber to bear the consequences. If vd Garde was compensated when he was fired, then vd Garde would have no ground to go to court. Whether or not if they were able to pay off vd Garde is irrelevant, since again Sauber broke the contract and thus needs to bear the consequences.
I agree with you regarding the situation Sauber found itself in and the fact that they had no other options and we doing what they felt was the best for the team. I can see that, and after all there are jobs at stake.
But, did you see their Facebook post yesterday? It really did nothing to help their cause and is bad PR. It’s a shame because, although never a huge fan, I’ve always respected Sauber and always hope they do well.
PS Loved the piece in GP+ on Willy Grover. If people haven’t signed up, they’re missing out!
This is just another component to the most disappointing start to an F1 season for me in 40 yrs of watching and over 30 grandstand seats paid for!
It’s a measure of how desperate many teams are not just at the back of the grid look at the lack of a major sponsor on the Mclaren, We don’t know the details of the contract but its time one of the many drivers put a hand up after a slap like this,
F1 is in trouble on many levels and the greedy dogs who run it are watching it implode as you have hinted at yourself in recent blogs, I want to pay to see racing not a tacky reality show.
Joe, I’m slightly confused by the timeline. You seem to suggest in this comment that the new contracts were signed after the others were ended, but in the main post you say that “Sauber did not legally terminate the contract until February 6”. We’ve all known for a while the the drivers were going to be Marcus Ericsson and Felipe Nasr and the team wouldn’t have announced them without having actually signed them. This really does suggest that they had three contracts in place for just two seats right up until the 6th of February — and that doesn’t include Sutil as I don’t know when his contract was supposed to have been terminated.
Are the dates right or does “legally terminate” not mean what I would assume everyone else thinks it does?
They said they would terminate and then did.
From my point of view, VdG was looking for his money back and all the seat fittings and parading around in Sauber overalls was a smoke screen. He seems to have got a substantial amount of money back so it seems to have worked.
question: Was Sauber’s aim to cancel the contract and KEEP the money?
I don’t think so
What happened to the superlicense? lost? not renewed? withdrawn? vapourised? QUE?
It was not there when he needed it. Now he does not need it
sauber’s surprisingly solid performance in australia was great to see. i hope that the financial settlement does not affect their ability to perform for the rest of the season. with so many teams having financial trouble and teams stumbling into oblivion at the end of last year, i feel like we may end up with a similar situation by the time we get to the USGP
Indeed, Sauber is the loser. They had numerous opportunities to take the high road and exit this deal in classy fashion, but chose to drag themselves thru the mud. Bad form thru and thru.
Sauber will be forever remembered as untrustworthy. Like Briattore, Alonso, etc.
No, they will not. Sauber has always been the most honest team and one kerfuffle will not do much to change that.
If Formula One would spend its money wisely this would not have happened. This whole episode showed one thing, F1 is not a normal business and certainly not a healthy one.
To make it worse this Grand Prix was boring, not worth my time or money.
Very sad that is has come this far…..
Joe, as much as understand that Sauber did what had to be done as a business entity to survive and even if I did believe they were working to “save 300 employees and their families”, people will have “subjective” opinions because only VDG spoke until now.
The “chronology” means very little if the team cannot come forward to set things straight. Also, having come to a settlement, VDG has nothing to gain bashing Sauber after things have been said and done and yet he did just that and reading Sauber’s press release yesterday was a pain. It was better off saying nothing at all and leave things be, it would do them less harm.
You as journalist specialized in business, how do you think Sauber could’ve come out on top of this? Do you have an opinion? Because I absolutely disagree that Sauber’s instinct of survival is automatic excuse for what they’ve done not only to VDG but to their fans. Even if they have an option to simply break the contracts they sign (bearing the consequences), the way they handled it must be a case for PR students of how not to do.
What a royal mess!
I think it’s absolutely right he stood up to defend his contract. Monisha was quoted last year as saying that contracts in F1 are worth nothing. The part she forgot about was the big cheque needed to make the contract go away. Now she has to write the big cheque.
I’m sure GVdG and his money will find a place in motorsport somewhere. If I won more money in the lottery than Nasr is bringing, would Monisha put me in the car?
Having some awful experiences of legal issues, I’m not surprised it took a longish time for the matter to come to a head. Also, I’m not surprised GvdG had to force the point, as in most legal situations, the other side will not respond positively until they are placed in a position where they absolutely have too. Personally, I’m disappointed with how the Team handled all this, they appear to have acted very badly both to Guido & to Sutil, and if I were Nasr or Ericsson, I’d keep a lawyer handy in the Paddock all year, which is not how business ought to be conducted in a civilized society.
However the bigger picture is how dreadful the total situation of the sport is now in. Germany is dropped, and how soon will it be Spa & Monza gone for good? Will anyone notice by then, if 3 or 4 teams fold too? Will anyone really be watching either at the circuits or on the tv?
Without totally reconstructing F1, it is now abundantly clear that the series cannot survive, nor can it pull itself out of this hole while Bernie & CVC run it and while the Todtster swivels aimlessly around in his chair in Paris.
Even you Joe, must surely accept that this charade cannot continue for more than a season or two at most now?
The whole thing appals me as I have followed motorsports and GP racing since a kid of 8 in 1965…..all the spectacle, raw talent, and sheer brilliance and bravery of the drivers, designers, team owners etc, over time has had me hooked all my life to date. But, gradually, like Dracula in a Justin Bieber gig, Bernie & Co have sucked the life out of it to the point that I now no longer care what happens to F1 racing. Knowing that you Joe, have an eternally optimistic outlook, you probably won’t agree with me, but I just feel that things are now so bad that something drastic has to happen so that we, the people who love motorsport, can have our pinnacle back for our benefit, and not for the benefit of Bernie, his awful kids and CVC! Given how bad the finances seem to be for the entrants, it would seem in the best interests of all ( except Bernie & CVC ) if F1 was shut down, and restarted with new promoters, new rules, and proper governance by a new FIA that has people running it that really care about motorsport and not just their own little political careers, and no more hedge funds and controllers like BCE, drawing the life blood of F1 out and sucking it dry. My own view, maybe others will disagree, but was I the only person who likes your blog and views it daily, who didn’t bother to turn on the TV last weekend? Come on everyone, be honest…..
Joe,
what’s the general view by others in the paddock regarding Sauber’s actions?
The drivers have been clear whom they support but very little has been heard from other teams (not that I expected official statements from the team principals regarding the internal affairs of another team).
Do they condone Sauber’s behaviour or is there support for them (like ‘desperate times require desperate measures’)?
No idea. I did not ask
And there is the problem…. journalists in the actual paddock actively AVOID askig relevant questins about F1 for fear of losing ACCESS to the F1 teams. I feel like any accredited F1 journalist is ivolved in the Entertainment idustry and NOT in the Sports Journalism industry.
Well you are wrong.
“Sauber was pragmatic”
You’ve used this term twice in your article. I respectively disagree with you and would substitute this term and replace it with ‘self-serving’.
In my view is that Sauber took a single-minded, ‘self-serving’ action that the interest of the many, (‘shareholders’) took priority over the ‘few’, (contracted employees) and survival of the firm trumped all other rights or civil law.
What this view did not take into account was that one of these employees has above average financial resources at hand and can use these resources to exert their rights using the force of the courts.
Without the emotion of ‘sport’ or ‘Formula One’ involved; look at this situation from a purely contractual and legal viewpoint and you have a straight out managerial failure at the highest level in this firm.
The inability of people (including Sauber) to understand the concept of legal responsibilities is a very solipsistic view of the world and hence my use of the term self-serving instead of your use of the term pragmatic.
You may think that is splitting hairs but the meanings of these two terms are worlds apart.
I am very disappointed in your view of this situation. What you are suggesting is that if the situation of a company changes, it should just ignore its commitments and contracts. That is a hard argument to defend – and Sauber was scolded by the courts for not following legal practices.
If a company is dealing with a changing business environment, it needs to renegociate its contracts, not ignore them. It needs to engage and at least be respectful to its partners and associates. There are some facts that point to Sauber being a bully, that Sauber never questioned in court: that van der Garde was informed he was no longer a Sauber driver by SMS (confirmed by Marc Surer who was with vdG at the time, I believe), and then Sauber revoked his pit pass at Abu Dhabi without telling him. Those were spiteful, arrogant decisions from Sauber to mistreat someone that had saved the company from administration just a few months earlier.
And when you say this whole mess could have been avoided, you are right, but it could have been avoided by Sauber themselves, if they had chosen to engage in proper business ethics, which is to talk and renegociate your commitments rather than taking someone’s money and running and betting that they won’t go through the legal system in fear of their careers being destroyed.
You always say that if someone doesn’t agree with you they can go get their information elsewhere. That is what I will do. Have a great day.
Bye.
To me there’s a worrying undertone to this, which is the image F1 continues to project of itself, a kind of sporting/commercial equivalent of American Exceptionalism. “Yeah, normally X would be the case, but this if F1 we’re talking about”.
It’s above promoting itself, above being accessible to fans, above economic reality, above human rights concerns, and now apparently above the law.
is there a reason for my comment of 1.58pm on the 19th geeting stuck in ‘awaiting moderation’, joe?
Look, I am doing my best… I flew back from Australia to Paris, went straight to London for my father’s funeral. I then drove back to Paris again and have been laid up with a nasty flu ever since. I have tried to hint that a little patience would be good, but some of you people just don’t take hints.
This is a free service and that is about it really. You get what you get. Is that clear enough for you?
Condolences on your fafather’s passing Joe.
Old Chinese proverb: don’t wash your dirty laundry in public.
No-one has come out smelling of roses from this.
Why bother with a contact if it can be ignored? Anyone who argues for Sauer in this mess best watch out. A contract legalizes an agreement, makes it LAW. Two courts found in favor of the driver, and it wasn’t ambiguous legal opinion. To call Sauber bandits or crooks is not libel, two courts have already ruled so.
I find it disturbing the host of this blog, whom I admire for some things, is warning about being harsh in opinion regarding Sauber. Too late Joe, two courts have already weighed in. Sauer is legally and morally wrong, and were let off light by the driver. With the Aussie ruling, he could have brought the team to its knees with its assets frozen in OZ, and Monica behind bars. That was a potential reality! Yet calling them crooks is potential libel? The truth is never libel, no matter how detrimental to the crook.
I guess he got his money back. Who wouldn’t be upset if someone took 8 million of you and decided not to honour their half of the bargain?
So am I to understand from your article that Sauber took a payment of $8 million for the option for VdG to drive for 2015. They took up that option, at which point they may have received an additional payment. They subsequently terminated his contract (illegally it seems). But they still kept all the sponsorship money?
So not only did they sign at least 3 driver contracts for 2 seats, they also took at least 3 lots of sponsorship money for those 2 seats?
Sorry if I misunderstood but I didn’t see anything in your article which indicated they paid the money back.
In which case I wonder what VdG’s sponsors have made of all this – have they not sought to get their money back from Sauber or was this all part of VdG’s settlement?
Also you say Sauber said in court that they informed VdG his contract was terminated. VdG said he only found out after they did a press release announcing Eriksson and Nasr.
So simple deduction tells us one of them is not telling the truth. If it’s Sauber (and please note careful use of the word “if” to avoid the statement being libelous) would they also then not be guilty of perjury?
I think Sauber and Monisha Kaltenborn have both been very lucky in this case. Had they pulled this stunt with a more vindictive driver, Sauber could have had all their assets seized and Monisha would likely now be sat in an Australian jail cell for contempt of Supreme court.
Wayne
Without going into the ins and outs of this particular case, where do you think this leaves the “market” for 3rd / Reserve / Test drivers?
After what happened to Davide Valsecchi when Kimi was out in 2013, and the obvious reluctance to put either Wolff or Simms in the Williams should Bottas not make Malaysia, this must be the final straw in teams being able to command millions for the right to stand around in the back of a garage 19 times a year?
I know we discussed this at “An audience with Joe” last year, but surely at some point all this desperation to be associated with F1 just makes no economic sense at all??
Joe
Is it normal that a team can just terminate a contract with a driver if a better offer comes along?
Perhaps that is part of the contract! But could a driver negotiate the same right to terminate the contract if he received a better offer?
Martin
Just as normal as when a driver tries to terminate a contract if he gets a better offer from a bigger team
Doesn’t seem to be any winners on this whole affair, but the one very clear loser is Sauber and their credibility which is shot to hell.
I always regarded Sauber as the “Gentlemen” of all the F1 Teams and always hoped each race and season they would do well, but this whole affair has destroyed my affection for them. While Monisha Kaltenborn is involved in the team, I could care less about anything they say and do.
Hopefully Peter Sauber, who must be incredibly embarrassed about how HIS team has been dragged though the courts, losing at every stage, is being seen, and take back control.
Whilst I understand your reluctance to openly criticise Sauber Joe due to your position I am astonished that Sauber thought they could get away with in effect stealing GvDG’s sponsor money. You may think these comments are somehow libel but they are based on facts from numerous courts and therefore I welcome Sauber attempting to silence all the F1 fans by suing us, surely that would be the end of Sue-ber! Signing 4 drivers and taking their money is fraudulent and worthy of a spell in prison. If you pay for a service and the company take your money and shove 2 fingers up you’d take them to court and tell every man and his dog how corrupt that company is, I’m please GvDG won, I’m sad Sauber is managed so badly.
Unfortunately Sauber may have survived the last 12 months but they’re dead in terms of future sponsorship and fans.
I will happily criticise Sauber if I think that they deserve it. I think this question is a lot more complex than people know. And we don’t know all the details because at least one of the sides is saying nothing. The other may not always be telling the truth. It is not simple at all.
When Sauber decided to terminate VDG’s 2015 contract, did they return the money he had paid for the race seat? Really poor PR work from Sauber, in the last statement released they never said that they were contractually bound from not responding to VDG’s comment.Made it feel like they never had any valid response.
if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it could be a duck. Two courts in two countries indicated the contract was valid. Would you now think twice about any deal done? I would think their actions may have given pause to anyone thinking about doing business in the F1 arena. The whole sport is sick.and Saubers actions a symptom of it. The Melbourne grid was a travesty.Time will tell but there does not appear to be overly many major companies eager to be part of the circus
Nice to have you back, Joe
Hi Joe, You are trying to sound objective but you are actually supporting Sauber – I do not know the reason for this. Hopefully VDG fulfills his racing career dream elsewhere.
I am being objective. Sauber needed to be pragmatic. I have not said it was right. That’s all. Giedo talked too much.
Hi Joe, I fully understand the pragmatism from the team and I actually sympathise with that, I would also choose ~300 personnel over 1 driver….but I hope you agree that if such a situation arises….that the party that is put aside is entitled to compensation to at least the amount they payed for the race seat (so not counting the 2014 part of the deal)?
The reason Sauber lost the PR battle over this whole mess is mostly down to how they were seen acting in Oz and the arguments put forward during the court case….which even amused the Judges, which is not a good thing….
Can I ask why you think Giedo talked too much? He feels he was screwed by the team, tried to sort this out earlier in court, and it blew up into this more public drama when Sauber were clearly not planning to play ball as the season started. Why should he have kept quiet about it? For the reputation of the team? Why should he be worried about the team that he feels screwed him (and possibly Sutil)? For the sport? I’d say that’s the FIA’s problem. Despite all the court rulings going against Sauber, despite all the talk in the media, I don’t think I’ve read anything from the FIA about Sauber’s poor management of the situation and how it appears for the sport.
Read the comment by Jayme Brito, another seasoned F1 reporter.
Judging from those in the paddock who have spoken out on the topic, particularly the drivers, I’m not sure many would pin the blame on Giedo for this one. He was under no obligation to remain silent and non-litigious if he felt his contractual rights were being discarded by the team. Evidently, he did. It’s unfortunate that it became so public, but as the saying goes it takes two to tango. If Sauber wanted it to remain low-key, they should have resolved it long before they touched down in Melbourne.
I am sorry but if the contract was valid then he was bound by its rems. Confidentiality was one of them. If the contract was broken then I guess he can say whatever he likes but that does not work because he spent his time trying to enforce it.
Wow… a jornalist who actually said that a principal player involved in an explosive NEWS story “talked toooo much” …. what ???
Am with Supratim on this one (as are several others). I can smell something and it ain’t smelling of roses..
Joe, I’ve seen it suggested elsewhere that ‘allegedly’ Colin Kolles has had some involvement in this legal battle as a tactic to help him buy Sauber (yes, I know, I know!). I feel almost too embarrassed to ask but I presume this is just more internet bottom-feeder ‘journalism’ again?
I won’t tell you what Colin’s response was when I asked the question but it was impolite…
Joe, having now unravelled the Sauber / GvdG affair, do you have thoughts on Manor? Was it a case on “no money: no honey” in the form of engine software?
Did you attend the FIA TP’s conference? We’re you left with the feeling that there is no hope for F1 with those schmucks in charge?
EB could say nothing about Alonso, or McHonda failings. MK could say nothing about nothing, despite being destined to have a good race. GL could throw no light on why they had bothered turning up.
And the front row, who had loads of good news to tell fans about the new season, just wanted to keep Schtum!
The engine bills have been paid in advance. So no honey is not correct
They backed themselves in to a corner/position to save themselves. A less litigious driver may have solved it earlier? Either way it’s added to the circus show!
I think common sense dictates that in almost everything related to F1 you’re far more able to offer perceptive comment than 99.999% of the readers here.
However, I feel your analysis of the VdG / Sauber case does you little credit. Whatever you think, I think, or the protagonists think, the judiciary in two independent countries made plain their thoughts on the situation.
Although they may like to imagine they do, Sauber does not exist in a parallel universe where the laws relating to contracts do not apply or where a contact may be modified by one party without the agreement of the other for reasons of ‘expediency’.
I would have expected you, in your capacity a respected F1 business journalist, to recognise this and to place to one side your natural feelings of sympathy for the position in which Sauber had placed themselves and their 300+ employees, and to stand foursquare with those supporting the implementation of commercial contract law in F1.
But you didn’t. You still feel it’s ‘subjective’. And I’m disappointed in you.
I’m sure I’ll get over it.
One has to be pragmatic. I am simply being pragmatic. I’ve not said it is right, only that I understand
Pragmatic, yes. Legally negligent, yes. Morally questionable, yes. Contemptible, yes. F1 is in a very very VERY sorry state of affairs when such actions are defended and justified.
They are not defended nor justified. They are just logical. Emotion is what caused the mess. I understand why but I guess when a driver has no future in F1 he can adopt a slash and burn approach. That is what happened here.
I will admit, Joe, to continued disappointment in that you seem to rank pragmatism before legal fact, natural justice and the application of ethical standards in the sport.
Anyway, it’s always nice to see someone who can stick with his opinions even when the entire civilized world is screaming ‘You’re wrong!’. There’s something about pigheadedness which is mildly endearing… 🙂
I’m not being pig-headed I am just pointing out the realities. I’m not saying they are right. They are just real.
Monty Python’s Argument Clinic sketch springs to mind here..
The actions were pragmatic but they were also immoral, unethical, negligent and contemptible. Whether that makes the decision “logical” is something up for debate.
No – a failure to abide by the terms of a written agreement, and an arbitration decision both parties agreed would bind them, is what caused the mess. But for that, none of the emotion on either side would have mattered one iota.
I don’t mean this to be a stupid question (not being a contract lawyer nor an insider on the Sauber/VDG camps) but at the point at which VDG has given Sauber several million dollars and then Sauber have found several millions more and cancelled VDG’s contract, did they then return the money he gave them?
In simple terms, was it a matter of principle for VDG to take the case to court, or was he financially out of pocket due to Sauber’s actions and not get what he paid for? Nothing I’ve read on this seems to be specifically clear about this point, unless I missed it.
I’m sure they did.
I am surprised that Sauber didn’t have a clause to allow them to replace a driver with another if they wanted to but with adequate compensation, frankly though it doesn’t surprise me because they are clearly incredibly unprofessional. I am somewhat tired of those within the F1 umbrella always taking the side of the teams and even sucking up to them, both BBC and Sky should have asked some very searching questions of the Sauber team management over that weekend.
I would argue the opposite. Sauber is too professional. Having said that no one seems willing to say two things: Giedo would not have been dumped if he was 1) a better driver, 2) he had more money. If he had paid as much as Ericsson then he’d probably still have the drive
But did they provided him with the option? According to what VDG stated he was left in the dark until both drivers were announced.
Then the question to be asked is whether Sauber approached Giedo, explained the situation, gave him a chance and asked for more money or, as Giedo has implied, let him find out he was being sacked via text message.
Right Joe.
I think it will take some time for the REAL details to emerge, but I also think that the key question in this whole mess, is: What did Sauber tell VDG when they were negotiating the deals with Nasr and Ericsson? Did they tell VDG that they’ve had better offers from other drivers and that unless VDG is willing/able to fork over some more their dire financial situation compels them to take the other offers? VDG says he was completely ignored. Of course he’s going to say that. For his own image and case (publicly) he couldn’t say anything else. But I don’t believe that anymore than I believe Sauber saying that all of these deals were above board. He said she said… The truth lies somewhere in between.
Very weak response.
To whom is this directed?
The subsequent replies from others should make that evident enough.
Replies prove nothing
Joe, why is it so hard for you to see the other side of the issue here?
Yes, your reply proved nothing but what is evident is clear for all to see.
Such vehemence. Just cool down. You’ll feel better
*yawns*
Too professional?! After hearing their defence in the Melbourne court and their response to the statement of GvdG after they came to a settlement I’m not at all convinced of that.. These are the only reactions from Sauber we have heard on this matter, so where do you base this on? If Sauber made a clause to terminate the contract under certain conditions, this whole circus would not exist. Furthermore, they could have include a ‘media silence’ clause about this subject in the settlement to GvdG. Apparently they didn’t. Or couldn’t..
If they are bound by a contract then they are bound by the confidentiality clause. As is Giedo.
Well, you first have to include a confidentiality clause in the contract before both parties can agree to it..
These are standard in F1 driver contracts
If there where standard F1 driver contracts, why do we have these kinds of issues then?
Because this is not about contracts, it is about how to get rid of them
Well this is about contacts, as this is the reason why GvdG successfully made his case against Sauber. He had a apparently watertight contact and Sauber ignored it (in a very irresponsible way).
Sauber weren’t worried about being bound by the terms of the contract that created this whole mess. Michael Dekker is spot on – it was negligence on the part of the team who failed to anticipate potential outcomes and bake those into the contract terms. Given that the Team Principal is from a legal background, this doesn’t look good for her and casts a shadow on F1 as a whole (the reaction on this forum being evidence to this).
So they’ve decided to be bound by this contract? I wish that I worked in an industry where I could decide which contracts I would honour and which I wouldn’t.
They were bound by the contract. Until it was negotiated away.
Admittedly I’m a bit rusty on this area of employment law, but such terms in a contract relating to dispute resolution will only be valid if both parties abide by the dispute resolution process set out within the contract (including abiding by arbitration decisions). If either party decides to step outside of that process (as it appears Sauber did by not abiding by the arbitration decision, although without a copy of the decision I reserve my position on that), they cannot then seek to hold the other party to the confidentiality provision. In addition, breach of such conditions is usually regarded as a breach of warranty rather than a breach of condition, as it is not fundamental to the main substance of the contract. As such, any breach would give rise to nominal damages rather than termination.
He may well have had more money and matched that of Ericsson. He paid the asking price at the time and was unceremoniously dumped by text message. It would have been more ethical of Sauber to explain the situation to VDG and attempt to re-negotiate rather than the unprofessional and unlawful way in which they handled it.
There’s a contract breach right there in your comment
It is irrelevant what level of money vdG paid vis a vis Ericsson. The former had a clear contract and therefore needed to consent to its cancellation. What Sauber has attempted to do is terminate the contract on entirely spurious (and legally baseless) grounds in order to ditch him whilst keeping all of his money. This is completely unacceptable. I don’t care how financially desperate Sauber is, it just isn’t on.
“Both BBC and Sky should have asked some very searching questions of the Sauber team management over that weekend.”
From what I saw on Sky they DID ask those questions, but Kaltenborn threatened to wear a hole in the “I can’t talk about those topics” rebuttal (and with a court case ongoing, not exactly surprising), so it was pointless to ask after the first one or two attempts. Though they did keep trying.
Joe wrote: “Sauber’s plans changed after Jules Bianchi’s accident in Japan last year. And it became clear that he would not be able to drive for the team in 2015.”
Unless I’m very much mistaken Jules Bianchi + Adrian Sutil + Giedo vd Garde = 3 drivers, which is still 1 to many.
Joe wrote: “Sauber said that it has very good answers to Van der Garde’s statements and accusations, but is not going to respond as it is not keen to get involved in mud-slinging.”
This should read: “They are not going to respond because they don’t have an answer.”
I am sure you know best. Fans always do.
I find it particularly sad that this whole mess arose because a long standing and respected F1 team felt forced to accept a potential legal penalty for breaking a contract with one pay driver so they could get the greater funds of another pay driver and thus stay in business. Re. this particular situation, I totally side with GVdG. Re. the broader issue of F1 finances, the spreading sense of desperation among F1 teams is very disturbing. Two words: COST CAP.
I personally pleased to see the driver fight back on this one. If, as has been stated, the sponsors paid the 2015 fee in 2014 in order to keep Sauber afloat, I feel they should get compensation+damages. They acted in (extremely) good faith, and were subjected to the accepted slimy F1 dealings we see time and again.
Glad to see the courts stand up on this and back the teams into a corner. The real world poked its head into the F1 game!
If 2 seperate courts upholds your case, you’re right.
Whatever your motives are.
The sequences / chronilogies apparantly don’t matter for the judges.
And under which mattras did they found the money? We’re talking a team getting 6,5 million advanced payment from Bernie.
They just don’t look good.
In the contemporary blame culture you would expect Monisha to resign.
It seems my comments on this topic get stuck in moderation – later comments show up but not mine. Is there a reason for this, or is it something which is a consequence of the way comments are presented in the wordpress back-end?
I have no idea
I have the same issues – got two on this thread which are kept in moderation and also the very first post in the latest thread which is waiting for approval but plenty more posted later which have been accepted?
*plenty more from others accepted that is.
Mine too.
Welcome to the lottery!
Joe – Does Peter Sauber have any say in the running of the team that bears his name? I have always thought him a highly principled person. So it surprises me that the team has acted so unethically.
I can understand that, based on your article, they have had to act this way in order to survive. However, they have done so on the wrong basis. You have always bemoaned the teams spending money they don’t have to compete in the F1 arms race.
Given the difference between the $8m provided by GVG and the sum provided by Nasr/Ericson is not a massive sum, surely this could have been saved from the budget elsewhere? It seems that Sauber has made a leap forward in performance based on this differential, but at the cost of their reputation. Perhaps in the world of F1 sharks and piranhas, this is easily amortised.
However, the biggest loser out of this is GVG. F1 is about being in the right car at the right time. Nasr and Ericson have benefited from some decent results at Melbourne. This might be enough for them to get a leg up to the next level (when combined with sponsorship). This may be worth more than the $15m GVG has received, given what his sponsors have invested in him to date.
Joe, my question to you is: where’s Peter Sauber in all that situation? I didn’t follow the case closely but it was always MK taking the hit. Did he give any interviews or made declarations about the subject?
Peter is very angry with the media.
VdG to Manor now or is his career really over? And, what of Sutil, now that a precedent has been set? MK’s crying juxtaposed against her supposed acumen and has proven to be no excuse for what happened. Big fail for Sauber and F1.
Or as much as Nasr. Seeing that the blue & yellow colour scheme is actually Brazilian blue & yellow (Banco do Brasil) rather than Swedish, I think it is fair to suspect that Nasr has brought the most finance to the team.
All this talk of Ericsson being the one to be replaced I believe stems from the fact that he is approx the same height as GvdG whereas Nasr is shorter, meaning that Ericsson’s car was the only one that GvdG would fit into.
This is presumably also the reason why he chose to avail himself to Ericsson’s overalls, a brazen and on a personal level extraordinarily insulting PR stunt that has not been picked up on sufficiently. In that one move, he certainly lost any respect and understanding that the Ericsson camp may have had for him.
Would you like somebody to put on your work clothes, ponce around a bit and then hand them back ? Incredible behaviour, which sadly too often appears condoned, neglected, ignored or even accepted by the media.
Hi Joe. I also appreciate why Sauber did what it did. But if they repaid VDG when they cancelled his contract and then had to pay additional compensation, has this compensation exceeded the additional sum they received from Ericsson or Nasr? With all the negative PR I hardly think they can have come out too far ahead. It’s a shame when one of the most respected teams has had to act in such a way to stay in business, but in doing so has badly tarnished its reputation.
Joe,
A fundamental principle of contract law is that parties get the benefit of the bargain. For example, one cannot contract to sell his / her house for US$1 million dollars and then when another buyer comes along offering US$2 million, to also contract with them to sell the same house.
Fact is that Sauber had valid contracts with three drivers (at least) for two available seats. This is a fact because the validity of VDG’s contract was affirmed in the arbitration award. There is nothing inherently wrong in this so long as Sauber found a way to agree with one of their drivers to terminate their contract. If you want a precedent for this — Ferrari paid Kimi Raikkonen millions to not drive for them in 2010 because he had a valid contract. Sauber should have settled with VDG after the arbitration award.
The immorality of Sauber’s actions manifests at this stage: instead of settling with VDG, they tried to get out of their contractual obligations by informing the CRB that VDG’s contract was terminated — on frivolous grounds. They finally were forced to settle but only when VDG brought them to their knees.
So yes, the mess could have been avoided. Sauber could have paid out VDG at any time prior to their public humiliation in Australia.
Timothy
PS: I am a contract lawyer and did the identical program as Monisha did at LSE.
Perhaps he asked too much
Sadly I wouldn’t even be surprised if for Sauber the notion of having to pay even a cent, or return any part of the money received from VdGardes camp last year would have been too much while maybe by now they can afford to pay it (over a period) a little bit more.
In that sense, Its not a stretch to see how for Sauber winning time possibly was the only option to survive, even at the risk of being found to be in the wrong by arbitration and sailing close to having cars impounded and the team principal being in custody if they saw little other way out to save the team.
Based on how well the car is doing this year could have been a launch pad for his career, with signifcant earnings well beyond the value of this sponsorship. Sauber have have denied him this opportunity and should pay heaviliy for denying someone their “right to work”. His entire fututre could well have been irrevocably undermined by the actions of Sauber.
My personal high point with Sauber was watching a young Schumi take on the Slik Cat Jags at Silverstone. Their foray into F1 has never reached the same success as their “Group C” era.
That’s his right though. He can settle, or not, on terms he can live with, or go to court, as he did.
You might want to read how things get handled in another sport
http://www.sponsorshipnews.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&nav=11&selkey=44584&utm_source=daily+email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+Email+Article+Link
On a settlement out of court both sides win on a court case there is only one winner. Always better to settle out of court.
What GVDG did in Melbourne was a muppet show. Go to the team , use overalls from Ericsson , pose for the media, ridiculous.
A settlement out of court rarely comes without a visit to the courts at least once, often a lot more.
I Agree, although you could argue that in this court case there were no winners at all.
Absolutely
The lawyers perhaps?
Yes that was a ridiculous, as was the defence from Sauber in court about GvdG being a danger on track and a seatfitting that was about to take 14 days. Which was also hilarious!
What would be ridiculous now Jayme would be for any driver or sponsor to place any trust in a contract signed with Sauber, as they have clearly shown a total disregard for meeting their obligations under GvdG’s driving contract!
Or let’s say a sponsor signs up Sauber for 2015 the likes of A Multi National for 8mill. I cannot see Sauber treating them the same as GvdG. They would possibly be rather more deep pocketed in their pragmatic discussions and then we all could have done without such a fiasco.
-Joe Saward
Read the comment by Jayme Brito, another seasoned F1 reporter.-
Why – its bad enough you have failed to make a sound case for what is tantamount to fraud by Sauber. Another F1 reporter spouting off about something that Sauber lost legally multiple times. This is the most useless piece you have written. Laughable given what Sauber barely avoided. Joe stay out of law. You are not a lawyer. Your opinion is worthless here. Entertaining but hardly noteworthy at all. Much like F1 today.
I am not getting involved in law if you read rather than just spout forth. I am saying that what happened was pragmatism. Don’t abuse of you don’t understand the discussion.
History has a an extensive list of unscrupulous and unsavoury “pragmatists”. We can see which direction F1 is heading…its disappointing that those in the goldfish bowl seem to think it completely logical for the sport to adopt such practices.
Pragmatism hardly excuses what Sauber did on purpose. Spouting off with pragmatism is hardly good journalism. You say you are not getting involved in the law lol! Im sorry you cannot have it both ways. You are weighing in with your pragmatic opinion on a very open and shut legal case.
You have said far too much already and then tell us, some of whom have significant time in the Legal world we have no business telling you —– that you are utterly wrong. Head in the sand. Enjoy the view. You are about as credible as Sauber is in this instance.
The only pragmatism displayed in all of this was the judge in Australia not impounding the vehicles/assets of Sauber and confining Kaltenborn. He implored Sauber to solve this. Thats pragmatism.
Very well said.
Did Sauber intend to keep GvdG cash that he or his sponsors paid in 2014? They sold a service to him and later failed to deliver, selling this service to others. According to reports they then displayed a reluctance to refund the fees or provide any service. Some people would consider this to be fraud, I believe they will struggle to find people gullible enough to advance them monies in the future.
I don’t think there was ever such intention.
At best the GvdG cash was sort of bridging loan aquired on the promise of a seat. I hope that the settlelment to GvdG reflects the costs of defending his positon and the commercial gain that Sauber achieved. I ‘m not sure they would have been able to secure that sort of cash from the banks mid season when your car is doing badly.
Based on my understanding the advance from GvdG provided Sauber a signficnat commercial advantage. Regardless of the driving aspect of the contract they reneaged on they should at least pay commercial rates to GvdG for his/sponsors ability to provide early upfront payment and boost cashflow.
lets move on.
The big failing in the “Save the Team” argument is that it can be in no way proved that had Sauber “done the right thing” the team would have folded. That bit is conjecture. Had they done “something else” then “something else” may have happened. I leave you with the words of Johann Goethe on Commitment and suggest that Sauber should have been committed to doing what was “right” rather than what was “pragmatic”.
“Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative and creation, there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.”
This is where the notion of managed risk comes into play. Clearly they thought that the risks/threats to the long term survival of the team were lessened by ditching GVdG, based on the change in circumstances caused by Bianchi’s accident.
Given the ‘save the team’ argument was advanced by people with far more knowledge of the situation than you or I, it seems ironic that you seem to argue this is ‘conjecture’; but given the team’s declining sponsorship over the pas seasons I’d say it’s understandable that they were reluctant to sit on their hands and hope something turned up.
If we’re going down the road of overused quotes from books on business management, how about ‘When facts change, I change my mind. what do you do, sir?’
I don’t think Goethe was a business management consultant.
But to answer your question: ‘When facts change, I change my mind. what do you do, sir?’
“When facts change I may well change my mind, but I wouldn’t change what I am doing without examining my conscience”. This is of course assuming the facts in question allowed me the time to do so.
‘Sauber did it because it felt it was in the best interests of the team.’ – John DeLorean felt the same back in 1982. We know how that story unfolded. Sorry, but there are things that you CAN’T do irrespective of the interests. Wait, I forgot we are talking about F1…
And the Lotus guys.. in fact you could say that of old Lotus and both new Lotuses…
In the court of public opinion, Sauber have come off worst in this affair and in my opinion deservedly so. Yet another little stain on the fabric of F1 – it’s really becoming challenging for us die-hard fans to retain the respect for the sport lately.
However Sauber have a great shop-front in which to display their wares and their on track performance is impressive. In a month or two no one will be talking about this incident, it will be forgotten and it certainly won’t halt the queue of potential drivers craving a race seat with them.
For all I feel that VDG was right to assert his position and has the moral upper hand (based purely on what we know/think we know) I cannot help but think that he is the one who will suffer the damage. As distasteful as these contractual goings-on may be, it seems they are the norm and VDG didn’t play “the game”. He is going to be damaged goods and a team (f1 or otherwise) is going to view him as a risk going forward.
My post from two days ago is not on here.
Is it still in a moderation queue, or did it fail some sort of test?
Read my reply to similar questions
Posted this yesterday afternoon, but I guess it must have got lost in the volume of posts on the subject as still waiting for approval? so will try again …
Doesn’t seem to be any winners on this whole affair, but the one very clear loser is Sauber and their credibility which is shot to hell.
I always regarded Sauber as the “Gentlemen” of all the F1 Teams and always hoped each race and season they would do well, but this whole affair has destroyed my affection for them. While Monisha Kaltenborn is involved in the team, I could care less about anything they say and do.
Hopefully Peter Sauber – who must be incredibly embarrassed about how HIS team is being seen, getting dragged though the courts and losing at every stage – will take back control of the team.
The few messages of support for the Sauber Team in this affair are totally drowned out by those that feel they have just ignored the rights of others in such a high-handed way. The Team Leadership must be unbelievably thick-skinned to think they can just ignore the overwhelming opinion of the F1 fan base! That kind of action is usually reserved for Ferrari.
See my replies elsewhere
Joe, I agree with your understanding; the termination of the contract is certainly allowable and could have been worked out by cooler heads to both parties satisfaction; or at least quiet acceptance.
Just rampant speculation here, but Sauber has connections to Ferrari and Haas F1 is connected to Ferrari. I’m wondering if Sutil may be working through Sauber/Ferrari to transfer his “contract” for a ride with Haas? He’d fit the mold of the experienced, available, driver to partner a younger driver (hopefully Alex Rossi). Any word of this front that you might have heard and could share or just your thoughts on whether that’d make sense?
Of course, if VDeGar would have played his hand more quietly, he could have taken his $$’s and tried this approach himself, albeit w/o the experience level of Sutil.
Another race very soon. Time to move on, as none of us have a way to improve anything now.
Why does everyone thinks this will limit Van der Garde chances with anyother F1 Team, if a team has the choose to go bankrupt or sign Van der Garde they will choose Van der Garde.
I also don’tr get what the problem is F1 is a dog eat dog world, Sauber have underestimate VDGand VDG and Letting go of VDG Has cost more as signing Ericksson.
Because that is the why F1 is… A driver who stirs up trouble drops to the bottom of a list of desirables. If he has more money than others then perhaps but if he has the same money as some one else, the other guy will get the gig.
You are sooooo WRONG Joe… Simply put, CONTRACTS ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE ! Formula 1 is full of vipers and to allow the courts, the fans, and you the media to impose that disgusting “TOO BIG TO FAIL” rationale behind why Sauber and any other F1 team continually screws young drivers is unforgiveable. What Sauber did what did is beyond defenceable, even if you personally hate the zeal of young drivers in gaining an F1 seat, or if you find Giedo van der Gardeg’s public statements childish. This is what sbould have happened: Sauber should have had BOTH their cars taken away from them for the entire Australian F1 weekend, their clueless Sauber diector Monisha should have gone to JAIL for contempt of court, and the Sauber Team should have HONOURED his bloody contract ! Teams that do not deal in good faith and do not stand behind signed contracts are a CANCER on F1 and bring down the sport as well as hurt its good name. Why should Sauber honour their contract with the Dutchman…. because that evil woman SPENT HIS BLOODY $8 MILLION in 2014 to survive….and yet its Giedo van der Garde that is made by you and others in F1 to look as some kind of con artist ! But, as you say yourself said your blog is about the “real stories in the paddock” and how could you gain ACCESS to those teams IN the paddock if you speak against them or dont take their side.
New to F1?
By the way Joe some of your comments on this mater sound disengenious…. if you and your partners at GRAND PRIX entered into an $ 8 million contract with Sauber F1 and then found out they spent it all in early 2014 and then cancelled your contract without first advising you or paying you back, I am convinced that you would be down at the Old Bailey Court within 24 hours screaming bloody murder for your money back, some form of compensation, and additional financial penalties for your suffering at their hands.
The impression is in your head, I am afraid. All I have said throughout this whole affair is that pragmatism rules in F1 and this is what has happened. Yes, there are questions of right and wrong but getting worked up about it does not change a thing. A settlement was sought and (in the end) a settlement was found. It was always going to be like that.
Irrespective of the legal angle, one has to think that VDG might have performed better than Ericcson in the 2nd Sauber. ERI may have collected some points on his first race for the team but lapping over a second a lap slower than his rookie teammate is not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Much respect for continuing to bat away the overly-emotional replies, Joe!
A contract formalises an agreement. In this case it has served VDG with legal remedy whereby the prior existence of that agreement has been clearly adjudicated, which provides him with leverage for some kind of remedy. It does not provide him with a car: there are few circumstances indeed where you can take high-level legal action against an enterprise and then expect any possibility of an ongoing collaborative relationship with them. Thus, going to court is in itself virtually an acknowlegement that the drive is never going to happen.