Trials take forever.dialtone wrote: ↑27 Apr 2024, 21:13Not only the uk government intends to limit non competes to 3 months.
It’s totally not true that a trial would take a year or longer, lol.
But ultimately he would work for Ferrari so it’s something to be dealt with across country lines so the matter is very much more complicated.
The amount of auditing that happens in F1 wouldn’t allow this to happen, it’s so difficult to get around anything, they can probably hire him for other series like GT but even they wouldn’t dare let him have influence on F1 until things were legal
Could the fact he is not an employee create a loop hole for him to leave the team and forego gardening leave?
.These are the crucial questions raised by the news about Adrian Newey
If Adrian Newey actually decides to leave Red Bull after this Formula 1 season, what are the implications for that team, the competition and F1 as a whole? Some crucial questions at a glance.
For example, with today's knowledge, Verstappen already said very interesting words in Suzuka when this site asked him about Newey.
"I can of course say that everything should stay together, but if someone wants to leave, you can't always stop them."
Verstappen chose his words carefully. During the media day for the Japanese Grand Prix, no immediate explanation was given, but with the current reports, Verstappen's words are of course in a slightly different light. The same applies to earlier statements by Jos Verstappen that the team could fall apart if the internal unrest continues.
A crucial note in all of this is that Red Bull Racing first wants to talk to Newey next week in response to all the reporting to see whether something can still be possible with his concerns and reservations.
Question 1: To what extent will Red Bull be affected if Newey actually leaves?
------------------------------------------
Question 2: When will a possible effect be felt?
-------------------------------------------
Question 3: What are the options for Newey if he really leaves Red Bull?
-------------------------------------------
Question 4: Does a departure affect other key players at Red Bull?
-------------------------------------------
This is dejavu for Dan Fallows isnt it?Henk_v wrote: ↑27 Apr 2024, 23:17Non compete clauses can be written to be enforcable.
Under many local laws, you cannot reasonably impair another company from doing business. If there's a secrecy clause, most judges will rule the non compete can't refrain you from working at x company as your skillset kinda forces you to work with a competitor, you must be allowed to make a living and you've signed clauses to keep any information propriatary to your former employer secret. Therefore you can reason that the non compete is unreasonable.
This works when you are just a gear in the machine, but stuff changes if you possess unique knowledge or skill.
A non compete clause can be augmented with a clause that says that you agree the non compete is reasonable. This trick is used a lot.
You therefore cannot go to a judge asking him to dismiss the non compete because it is unreasonable.
Very similar yes, he had to serve a years gardening leave if I’m not mistaken, I think it was found out about half way through that he was leavingringo wrote: ↑27 Apr 2024, 23:35This is dejavu for Dan Fallows isnt it?Henk_v wrote: ↑27 Apr 2024, 23:17Non compete clauses can be written to be enforcable.
Under many local laws, you cannot reasonably impair another company from doing business. If there's a secrecy clause, most judges will rule the non compete can't refrain you from working at x company as your skillset kinda forces you to work with a competitor, you must be allowed to make a living and you've signed clauses to keep any information propriatary to your former employer secret. Therefore you can reason that the non compete is unreasonable.
This works when you are just a gear in the machine, but stuff changes if you possess unique knowledge or skill.
A non compete clause can be augmented with a clause that says that you agree the non compete is reasonable. This trick is used a lot.
You therefore cannot go to a judge asking him to dismiss the non compete because it is unreasonable.
Didn't we have a similar discussion when he left redbull? And he didnt stay away from F1 for long either. Correct me if I am wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... ormula-oneThe Guardian understands that Red Bull’s chief technical officer is yet to formally tender his resignation or announce to staff that he will be leaving and insiders say the headlines caught Newey and the team by surprise on Thursday.
The matter went to the court and Aston had to strike a settlement with Red Bull to release him. Gardening leave was enforceable in his case too.ringo wrote: ↑27 Apr 2024, 23:35This is dejavu for Dan Fallows isnt it?Henk_v wrote: ↑27 Apr 2024, 23:17Non compete clauses can be written to be enforcable.
Under many local laws, you cannot reasonably impair another company from doing business. If there's a secrecy clause, most judges will rule the non compete can't refrain you from working at x company as your skillset kinda forces you to work with a competitor, you must be allowed to make a living and you've signed clauses to keep any information propriatary to your former employer secret. Therefore you can reason that the non compete is unreasonable.
This works when you are just a gear in the machine, but stuff changes if you possess unique knowledge or skill.
A non compete clause can be augmented with a clause that says that you agree the non compete is reasonable. This trick is used a lot.
You therefore cannot go to a judge asking him to dismiss the non compete because it is unreasonable.
Didn't we have a similar discussion when he left redbull? And he didnt stay away from F1 for long either. Correct me if I am wrong.
In October 2021, Red Bull commenced High Court proceedings against Mr Fallows in respect of the dispute. The case was listed for an expedited trial to take place three months later beginning on 24 January 2022.
The parties reached a settlement just days before the matter was to go to trial.
Martin Whitmarsh, Group Chief Executive Officer of Aston Martin Performance Technologies, said: "We are pleased to have reached an agreement with Red Bull which releases Dan early from his contract and are looking forward to him joining the team."
They settled for earlier leave, how was this proof of enforceability?Dunlay wrote:The matter went to the court and Aston had to strike a settlement with Red Bull to release him. Gardening leave was enforceable in his case too.ringo wrote: ↑27 Apr 2024, 23:35This is dejavu for Dan Fallows isnt it?Henk_v wrote: ↑27 Apr 2024, 23:17Non compete clauses can be written to be enforcable.
Under many local laws, you cannot reasonably impair another company from doing business. If there's a secrecy clause, most judges will rule the non compete can't refrain you from working at x company as your skillset kinda forces you to work with a competitor, you must be allowed to make a living and you've signed clauses to keep any information propriatary to your former employer secret. Therefore you can reason that the non compete is unreasonable.
This works when you are just a gear in the machine, but stuff changes if you possess unique knowledge or skill.
A non compete clause can be augmented with a clause that says that you agree the non compete is reasonable. This trick is used a lot.
You therefore cannot go to a judge asking him to dismiss the non compete because it is unreasonable.
Didn't we have a similar discussion when he left redbull? And he didnt stay away from F1 for long either. Correct me if I am wrong.
https://www.wallace.co.uk/articles/wall ... to%20trial.
In October 2021, Red Bull commenced High Court proceedings against Mr Fallows in respect of the dispute. The case was listed for an expedited trial to take place three months later beginning on 24 January 2022.
The parties reached a settlement just days before the matter was to go to trial.
Martin Whitmarsh, Group Chief Executive Officer of Aston Martin Performance Technologies, said: "We are pleased to have reached an agreement with Red Bull which releases Dan early from his contract and are looking forward to him joining the team."
They went to the court! You don't go to court for a losing cause.dialtone wrote: ↑28 Apr 2024, 03:47They settled for earlier leave, how was this proof of enforceability?Dunlay wrote:The matter went to the court and Aston had to strike a settlement with Red Bull to release him. Gardening leave was enforceable in his case too.
https://www.wallace.co.uk/articles/wall ... to%20trial.
In October 2021, Red Bull commenced High Court proceedings against Mr Fallows in respect of the dispute. The case was listed for an expedited trial to take place three months later beginning on 24 January 2022.
The parties reached a settlement just days before the matter was to go to trial.
Martin Whitmarsh, Group Chief Executive Officer of Aston Martin Performance Technologies, said: "We are pleased to have reached an agreement with Red Bull which releases Dan early from his contract and are looking forward to him joining the team."