Christian Horner under Investigation

[Stu]

As for the purpose of a PR firm I think there is a legitimate reason for it on both sides of it. IF she has been falsely accused of being dishonest. Then you want to be able to build that trust up with the public promote your image when you're coming up a company the side of RB that have the media connections they do. But if she has been dishonest then she is in for the world of hurt too if she has been dishonest, its probably not going to look good on future career aspects - least not the ones with the profile she has at RBR.

If going to court (presumably an employment tribunal), the court of public opinion holds no sway there - in fact, spin & manipulation of the case to the media would not play well if the case ended up being lost - why keep the case in the news if there is no guarantee of winning?
As I put previously, there is NO SENSE in following legal proceedings & PR spin concurrently.
Matters to be brought forward in the case cannot be used for PR prior to the court judgment (employment tribunal’s are considered sub-judice in the UK), they also tend to be very long-winded. They also hear evidence from both sides (which we have not).
If the PR campaign is being paid for out of RedBull GmbH coffers a better move would be to sell the team & its assets, as any serious campaign will devalue/destroy the team & its management- it doesn’t seems to be a particularly sensible move (a Trumpian business move, you could say!).

[basti313]

Then surely somone is funding her PR agency expenses, considering it's not something an average PA can afford, more so when she is suspended.

I think the narrative "average PA" is simply wrong. She is well in the middle of UKs money aristocracy...with millionaire friends and family all around.
We are not talking about a poor woman now fighting to feed her 3 children.

If the PR campaign is being paid for out of RedBull GmbH coffers a better move would be to sell the team & its assets, as any serious campaign will devalue/destroy the team & its management- it doesn’t seems to be a particularly sensible move (a Trumpian business move, you could say!).

I do not think there is much more than we saw, so I fail to see which "serious" campaign they can do. My bet is that she simply sells a book once the legal "fight" is done and have paid talk show appearances...and the PR company is simply selling this and getting a piece of the cake. That would fit the reported settlement...they found out that it is more money if they sell the story, so they canceled the settlement.
That makes the combination of PR and lawyer fit together and opens a completely normal explanation for "who pays the lawyer" without strange conspiracies that someone internal pays the lawyer to fight the own company.

[Dunlay]

Then surely somone is funding her PR agency expenses, considering it's not something an average PA can afford, more so when she is suspended.

I think the narrative "average PA" is simply wrong. She is well in the middle of UKs money aristocracy...with millionaire friends and family all around.
We are not talking about a poor woman now fighting to feed her 3 children.

That makes me wonder why would someone do a PA job if so wealthy already or surrounded by millionaires? Usually, it's a job that pays around 30k to 40k GBP per annum.

https://uk.indeed.com/career/personal-a ... t/salaries

[Wouter]

The Guardian wrote an article about the case with some information from Tania Goodman, a partner at the law firm ­Collyer ­Bristow. .
.

Horner has always emphatically denied any wrongdoing and has called for a line to be drawn under the matter. The Guardian understands from industry insiders however that the complainant will take the ­grievance to an employment tribunal in the event her appeal fails.

Legal experts say such a move would simply follow an ­anticipated process. “It’s like a roadmap, these are the stops along the way,” said Tania Goodman, the head of ­employment and a partner at the law firm ­Collyer ­Bristow. “If an employee has a complaint or grievance, they raise it internally, perhaps informally at first but if it’s not resolved then it becomes formal and is investigated and ­considered, usually as part of a grievance hearing after which an outcome is given.

“If the employee is not happy with the decision, then they can appeal internally and at the end of that process if they’re still not satisfied they can go to an employment tribunal.”

The day after the Red Bull complainant’s grievance was not upheld, during the opening grand prix of the season in Bahrain, an email was leaked to the FIA, F1, the teams and the media containing messages purporting to be between her and Horner. The veracity of the messages has not been confirmed nor have Red Bull confirmed or denied whether the messages formed any part of the investigation

Unsurprisingly speculation around the case has remained rife, given the paucity of information and the strictly private nature of the ­investigation. “In those circumstances [going to an employment tribunal] the ­confidentiality that attaches to internal procedures would no longer apply,” said Goodman. “A final hearing is open to the public ­during which information about the case is ­available ­including the nature of the complaints, ­witness ­evidence, ­submissions, the ­tribunal’s conclusions, and a written judgment.”

Since her grievance was ­dismissed, the woman in question has been suspended from her job at Red Bull Racing, pending a disciplinary investigation, it is believed on the basis of the evidence she gave to the investigation.

Friends of the employee have told the Guardian she remains ­determined despite what they describe as ­orchestrated attacks on her.

“She is stoical but it is a difficult time,” one ally told the Guardian. “She has been suspended from a job she loves in an industry where she is highly regarded after she tried to do everything by the book.”

Although it is reported the ­process began in early January it is now believed that the complaint was originally raised in November of last year and it remained private for a long period of time before it was leaked to the press and then confirmed by Red Bull GmbH in early February.

The appeal process remains ­under way and Red Bull GmbH has given no indication of when it will conclude.

Red Bull Racing and Red Bull GmbH have been contacted for comment.

[Watto]

As for the purpose of a PR firm I think there is a legitimate reason for it on both sides of it. IF she has been falsely accused of being dishonest. Then you want to be able to build that trust up with the public promote your image when you're coming up a company the side of RB that have the media connections they do. But if she has been dishonest then she is in for the world of hurt too if she has been dishonest, its probably not going to look good on future career aspects - least not the ones with the profile she has at RBR.

If going to court (presumably an employment tribunal), the court of public opinion holds no sway there - in fact, spin & manipulation of the case to the media would not play well if the case ended up being lost - why keep the case in the news if there is no guarantee of winning?
As I put previously, there is NO SENSE in following legal proceedings & PR spin concurrently.
Matters to be brought forward in the case cannot be used for PR prior to the court judgment (employment tribunal’s are considered sub-judice in the UK), they also tend to be very long-winded. They also hear evidence from both sides (which we have not).
If the PR campaign is being paid for out of RedBull GmbH coffers a better move would be to sell the team & its assets, as any serious campaign will devalue/destroy the team & its management- it doesn’t seems to be a particularly sensible move (a Trumpian business move, you could say!).

Fair point. The first of which plays into what I've said a few times. Something in the story isn't adding up.

I generally believe in where this is smoke there is fire so have I feel there is something to her claims. But the changing nature of the scope of the investigation kept ramping up putting more and more pressure on CH

That RB suspended the woman on full pay for being dishonest and gave her 5 days to respond. I would assume if she didn't there would be some kinda penalty, whether sacked, demoted etc. If she made a legitimate complaint to HR even if resulting in no findings against Horner, to then accuse said employee of being dishonest and what ever happens should she not respond to the claims I would imagine would not go down well with an employment tribunal so either (I think) RB are paying a very dangerous legal game - or there is some substance to the claim too

I'll back track a little on the Austrian side of RBGmbH paying her costs but maybe slightly conscious of the supposed Thai/Austrian RB conflict. Some if that may play into the above point too - albeit I feel with a lot of caution - if the Thai owner and people point to his history with his son and the police officer decided to try sack her on whatever grounds possible to retain Horner who he wanted to potentially become a partial owner maybe.


But right now it feels like something is missing it may by all means be she has a log ore to come out against Horner should it make it to court and doesn't want to risk it becoming public.

[Big Tea]

We often read (no personal knowledge in this or anyother case so hearsay) of the media, or the gutter press as it is colloquially known, offering a wad to "know the story" which includes payment for legal and other coats, in the knowledge the sales of their rag wit (X opens up to the dungheap (paper name)) and boosts their sales for a few days or weeks.
Again, not suggesting that is the case, but there may be money or notoriety from indirect sources we do not consider

[basti313]

I'll back track a little on the Austrian side of RBGmbH paying her costs but maybe slightly conscious of the supposed Thai/Austrian RB conflict.

I do not know if I support the "if there is smoke" claim. Often smoke is just generated. With the rest I agree, something is missing. In my point of view as mentioned above, I think it might just be a nice story to sell.

For the quoted part:
What makes you think that RBGmbH can pay her or any lawyer anything without the Thai knowing it? The Thai own 51% of this billions dollar business, so they have their own finance/controlling there.
I think it is clear, that company money can not be used to drive any conflict.

Then surely somone is funding her PR agency expenses, considering it's not something an average PA can afford, more so when she is suspended.

I think the narrative "average PA" is simply wrong. She is well in the middle of UKs money aristocracy...with millionaire friends and family all around.
We are not talking about a poor woman now fighting to feed her 3 children.

That makes me wonder why would someone do a PA job if so wealthy already or surrounded by millionaires? Usually, it's a job that pays around 30k to 40k GBP per annum.

https://uk.indeed.com/career/personal-a ... t/salaries

Well, just look at the Whatsapps. That was a jetset position with fancy hotels and private jets. On this point I can only assume, but my bet is she got this position because of the money aristocracy, because of who knows whom.
As said, my bet is we read this in her book in 1-2 years

[Watto]

I'll back track a little on the Austrian side of RBGmbH paying her costs but maybe slightly conscious of the supposed Thai/Austrian RB conflict.

I do not know if I support the "if there is smoke" claim. Often smoke is just generated. With the rest I agree, something is missing. In my point of view as mentioned above, I think it might just be a nice story to sell.

For the quoted part:
What makes you think that RBGmbH can pay her or any lawyer anything without the Thai knowing it? The Thai own 51% of this billions dollar business, so they have their own finance/controlling there.
I think it is clear, that company money can not be used to drive any conflict.

I guess I generally don't think these things materialize out of nothing maybe over exaggerating details or telling one side of the story. I'm far from settled one way or the other as to what happened whether I think Horner should be removed etc.

I backtrack a little on the Austrian side of RB funding costs. But reasons I though they might have been are: Was an article mentioning a while back she had the support of the Austrian side of RBR. Marko made comments re her maybe taking legal action that seemed to indicate he had at some level been breifed on what she may be planning or was at the very least sympathetic to her cause. That the Oliver Mintzlaff tried to force Horner to resign before the start of the season Horner turned to Yoovidhya for support and he was saved. Mintzlaff has his links to Mateschitz running their soccer team etc.
Yoovidhya might have controling interesting but he really can't force what the Austrian side do with their (non company) money; if Horner has doe something wrong I am sure they could force his hands on legal grounds and deal with the fallout later. But also a tactic to perhaps force Yoovidhya hand if there is too much damage being done to RBGbH then he may change his mind and see Horner as not worth the fight and move on - but there is probably too much selective reading on my part for that

[basti313]

I'll back track a little on the Austrian side of RBGmbH paying her costs but maybe slightly conscious of the supposed Thai/Austrian RB conflict.

I do not know if I support the "if there is smoke" claim. Often smoke is just generated. With the rest I agree, something is missing. In my point of view as mentioned above, I think it might just be a nice story to sell.

For the quoted part:
What makes you think that RBGmbH can pay her or any lawyer anything without the Thai knowing it? The Thai own 51% of this billions dollar business, so they have their own finance/controlling there.
I think it is clear, that company money can not be used to drive any conflict.

I guess I generally don't think these things materialize out of nothing maybe over exaggerating details or telling one side of the story. I'm far from settled one way or the other as to what happened whether I think Horner should be removed etc.

Yep...there is also just too little info we have. I stick to the point that if there would have been enough to remove Horner, he would have been removed.

But reasons I though they might have been are: Was an article mentioning a while back she had the support of the Austrian side of RBR. Marko made comments re her maybe taking legal action that seemed to indicate he had at some level been breifed on what she may be planning or was at the very least sympathetic to her cause.

I can not read this. I think a clear thing is that Marko is among those who know the story best. He simply commented on it...I see no special sympathy. RedBull kept it quite professional with saying nothing, I am a bit puzzled with the leaks though....and what is real about the leaks.

That the Oliver Mintzlaff tried to force Horner to resign before the start of the season Horner turned to Yoovidhya for support and he was saved. Mintzlaff has his links to Mateschitz running their soccer team etc.

I think this is only part of the story. Mateschitz and Yoovidhya decided to run the company with a board they selected together. Mintzlaff was simply one of the three in the board and obviously the winner over Horner in this game.
Yes, the board may have asked if they can fire Horner and the Thai might have said no...but if the Thai said "cover the story" the board will do nothing else.
This is what is a bit fishy to me on all conspiracy theories here: Mintzlaff is the winner, he has the position Horner did not get and is backed by Yoovidhya as well. His only job is not to piss off the Thai who can remove him from everything he achieved within a minute. So why on earth should Mintzlass intrigue against the hand that is feeding him and put everything on the line for playing games with Horner?

Yoovidhya might have controling interesting but he really can't force what the Austrian side do with their (non company) money

True. But it was always RBGmbH mentioned here. What you actually mean is that Mateschitz Junior is playing games. Can be...but would be surprising. Mateschitz Junior pulled back from all operational tasks by his own discission and he has no rights on the board at all. He made the discission to do nothing else but collecting the money. Why should he play games?

[Wouter]

Mateschitz Junior pulled back from all operational tasks by his own discission and he has no rights on the board at all.
He made the discission to do nothing else but collecting the money. Why should he play games?

.
Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board and so are Yoovidhya and the two CEO's and one CFO.

[basti313]

Mateschitz Junior pulled back from all operational tasks by his own discission and he has no rights on the board at all.
He made the discission to do nothing else but collecting the money. Why should he play games?

.
Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board and so are Yoovidhya and the two CEO's and one CFO.

???
The board consists of Franz Watzlawick (CEO Beverage Business), Alexander Kirchmayr (CFO) and Oliver Mintzlaff (CEO Corporate Projects and Investments). This is the board of directors for all operations.
What do you mean with Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board? He is not even a chairman as far as I can see it. He is a shareholder with a minority share, not more.

[Dunlay]

Mateschitz Junior pulled back from all operational tasks by his own discission and he has no rights on the board at all.
He made the discission to do nothing else but collecting the money. Why should he play games?

.
Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board and so are Yoovidhya and the two CEO's and one CFO.

???
The board consists of Franz Watzlawick (CEO Beverage Business), Alexander Kirchmayr (CFO) and Oliver Mintzlaff (CEO Corporate Projects and Investments). This is the board of directors for all operations.
What do you mean with Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board? He is not even a chairman as far as I can see it. He is a shareholder with a minority share, not more.

Share holders are part of board of directors for every company, private or public. A board of directors is a panel of people who are elected to represent shareholders. Either the significant shareholder can himself/herself be the member of the board or can nominate another external individual as director, who would then represent the shareholder. Every public company is legally required to have a board of directors.

[Wouter]

Mateschitz Junior pulled back from all operational tasks by his own discission and he has no rights on the board at all.
He made the discission to do nothing else but collecting the money. Why should he play games?

.
Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board and so are Yoovidhya and the two CEO's and one CFO.

.
???
The board consists of Franz Watzlawick (CEO Beverage Business), Alexander Kirchmayr (CFO) and Oliver Mintzlaff (CEO Corporate Projects and Investments). This is the board of directors for all operations.
What do you mean with Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board? He is not even a chairman as far as I can see it. He is a shareholder with a minority share, not more.

.
I posted this a few weeks ago in this thread when someone asked for it. I also quoted the source.
When Mateschitz was still alive he and Yoovidhya were the two only members of the board.
When he died Mark took over his place and announced also the three other members.

[basti313]

.
Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board and so are Yoovidhya and the two CEO's and one CFO.

.
???
The board consists of Franz Watzlawick (CEO Beverage Business), Alexander Kirchmayr (CFO) and Oliver Mintzlaff (CEO Corporate Projects and Investments). This is the board of directors for all operations.
What do you mean with Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board? He is not even a chairman as far as I can see it. He is a shareholder with a minority share, not more.

.
I posted this a few weeks ago in this thread when someone asked for it. I also quoted the source.
When Mateschitz was still alive he and Yoovidhya were the two only members of the board.
When he died Mark took over his place and announced also the three other members.

You mean on the 16th? I see nothing useful there, sorry.
The company is registered under number 56247t in Salzburg. Just read what is there...no idea what we are discussing...it is three directors.
It is also black and white to read in the registration, that it is three owners, two for the Thai which have 51% controlling share. There is no right for Mateschitz that would allow him anything in the register and I can not find info that he is a chairman. So as long as he does not have a contract with the Thai, he has exactly nothing to say.

[Wouter]

???
The board consists of Franz Watzlawick (CEO Beverage Business), Alexander Kirchmayr (CFO) and Oliver Mintzlaff (CEO Corporate Projects and Investments). This is the board of directors for all operations.
What do you mean with Mark Mateschitz is a member of the board? He is not even a chairman as far as I can see it. He is a shareholder with a minority share, not more.

.
I posted this a few weeks ago in this thread when someone asked for it. I also quoted the source.
When Mateschitz was still alive he and Yoovidhya were the two only members of the board.
When he died Mark took over his place and announced also the three other members.

.
You mean on the 16th? I see nothing useful there, sorry.

.

The hidden story of the Horner bid to buy Red Bull F1 Racing
March 5, 2024 · by thejudge13

Bla, bla, bla, ....................
When it became clear the godfather of Red Bull was terminally ill, Horner was rightly concerned about what would happen in the future. While he had the undying loyalty of the Austrian billionaire, it was not immediately clear who would control the destiny of the F1 team into the future.

Mateschitz son Mark inherited his 49% stake in the energy drinks empire and the right to appoint a certain number of board members to the Austrian registered Red Bull GmbH parent company. Yet the family of the creator of the magic energy drinks formula from the hinterlands of Thailand held the controlling 51% interest that had been agreed back in 1984 when the global drinks brand was founded.

With the passing of Mateschitz senior it was unclear how the F1 team would be controlled and managed.
Christian Horner was duly concerned that someone lacking the paternalistic interests of his former boss would gain control of the team which could jeopardise his position in the organisation he had built almost from the ground up.

Mark Mateschitz assumed his place on the board and promoted his friend Oliver Mintzlaff to CEO of the group’s sporting activities. Horner now had his answer as Mintzlaff sought to take control of the F1 team’s direction.