Sauber F1 Team 2015

[kooleracer]

@Manoah2u
So you have seen his contract or the ruling whole of the judge an deduced that it doesn't include FP and QLY? Or are you just making this up? Because that would the first ever F1 contract I know that didn't include the whole race weekend.

[kooleracer]

How does vdG's stature compare to the two 'resident' Sauber drivers? If Sauber's position that it would be dangerous is related just to the lack of experience in the current car then that can be solved by letting him drive all the practice sessions, but if he is noticeably bigger/taller than the other two (and any reserve drivers) then in a practical sense they might be unable to adapt the car at such short notice, whatever any court says.

Then again Sauber is in breech off a contract with V/D Garde because they would be failing the deliver on made promises. They have promised him something and failing to deliver would mean breaching the contract. There are 4 options.

1. Sauber decides not to race, but really unlikely because then they would face 2 additional lawsuits from Nasr and Ericsson.

2. Sauber puts in VdG and sits down Nasr or Ericsson and try to settle with Giedo before the Malaysian GP.

3.Sauber ignores the court order and risks being shut down on race day.

4.VdG and Sauber reach a settlement before the race weekend and its all dealt with.

[efuloni]

Its funny how Sauber claims safety issues but in 2011 they didn't call their substitute driver, Gutierrez, to replace Checo. They called Pedro de la Rosa about 15 minutes before the practice of friday. I guess it was on Canada GP, but I cant say for sure.

They have to find an agreement with VDG or they will be bankrupt and its the end of the line for the team.

[kooleracer]

http://grandprixradio.nl/images/Formule ... rt2015.pdf
The whole verdict. Ruling 7 is really important.

[bill shoe]

http://grandprixradio.nl/images/Formule ... rt2015.pdf
The whole verdict. Ruling 7 is really important.

Thanks much for posting facts.

The Judge ruled that he would not rule on the merits of the case. Rather, he said there was no reason to refrain from enforcing the previous arbitration judgement (which was in favor of GVDG).

Some highlights:

Item 26: Judge determined it's not possible to nullify an arbitration agreement simply because it would affect third parties (the two "current" Sauber drivers). This logic would make it impossible to ever enforce an arbitration decision.

Item 27: Judge said Sauber is claiming new jurisdictional problems now with the arbitration that they had no problem with at the time of the original arbitration hearing.

Item 30: Judge said the ruling did not just apply to Australia, but rather to the whole 2015 F1 season. Implication: if Sauber wants to operate in Australia in the future then they can't ignore the court's decision anywhere in the world.

Item 22: Judge did not explicitly say he would enforce the order, but he did say the court was ready to be of assistance around the clock 7 days a week to assist either party in ensuring the decision was followed.

Item 29: Judge said that if Sauber had concerns about safety, insurance, etc. then they were welcome to return to the court to ask for assistance in this matter. Not clear what this meant. Perhaps the court would clear legal barriers to enforcing the arbitration decision. At any rate, this does not seem to offer Sauber any hope of avoiding the judgement.

Items 31 and 32. The parties (Sauber and GVDG) are required to bring in suggested procedures for how the original arbitration award will be enacted.

Overall a giant, heaping spoonful of "binding arbitration is binding".

I think it's quite likely Sauber will simply pack up and head home. This is not the "best" outcome for anyone, but I think there are simply no other plausible outcomes. Sauber have no money to pay off GVDG, they have no integrity or credibility left, and they have three contracted drivers for two cars.

[ParkerArt]

I think it's quite likely Sauber will simply pack up and head home. This is not the "best" outcome for anyone, but I think there are simply no other plausible outcomes. Sauber have no money to pay off GVDG, they have no integrity or credibility left, and they have three contracted drivers for two cars.

Plus, the need Nasr's and Ericsson's money to run the team and neither is going to pay for a reserve seat.

[bill shoe]

Plus, the need Nasr's and Ericsson's money to run the team and neither is going to pay for a reserve seat.

Yea, and furthermore both "current" drivers paid lots of money upfront which Sauber already spent and therefore can't refund.

[bill shoe]

I see one unlikely but plausible way for Sauber to settle this. Kaltenborn has significant equity in the team, didn't Peter Sauber give her something like a 20% share? If Kaltenborn gives GVDG 10-15% of the team then he might drop his claim and the team can continue. Otherwise Kaltenborn will lose everything in the ensuing insolvency.

The financial difficulties were caused by many things, but the specific action of signing 3 drivers to 2 cars falls on Kaltenborn, so it's her equity that would have to solve it. I don't see Peter or any other people sacrificing their equity before Kaltenborn gives up hers.

Interesting situation but I need to stop thinking about it. Goodnight.

[ParkerArt]

I see one unlikely but plausible way for Sauber to settle this. Kaltenborn has significant equity in the team, didn't Peter Sauber give her something like a 20% share? If Kaltenborn gives GVDG 10-15% of the team then he might drop his claim and the team can continue. Otherwise Kaltenborn will lose everything in the ensuing insolvency.

The financial difficulties were caused by many things, but the specific action of signing 3 drivers to 2 cars falls on Kaltenborn, so it's her equity that would have to solve it. I don't see Peter or any other people sacrificing their equity before Kaltenborn gives up hers.

Interesting situation but I need to stop thinking about it. Goodnight.

I thought it was 33% but I can't find a source on that. Plus, vdG wants to drive, not get his money back.

[Fulcrum]

The only other possible, and unlikely, option I can see is Sauber asking Bernie to pay the arbitration fee - this would be debited against their future championship payouts.

It doesn't solve the problem of having no money, but it does kick the can down the road a bit. They could do well this year, move up a couple of positions in the constructors and secure a bigger payout, which proves sufficient to continue their existence even after the Bernie debit order.

If Sauber has to pay, and payment means disappearing from the grid, Bernie has a vested interest in keeping them around.

[ChrisM40]

are you kidding me? in coming FP1, FP2, FP3 and Qually. whereas Guido will have none. read.

If Sauber deny him the chance to 'test' in the practice sessions then even by their own dubious standards they are the ones 'risking other lives', not GVDG.

[KeiKo403]

Yes, Sauber has the opportunity to ensure that GvdG can start the race in a safer manner by participating in FP1/2/3 & Quali. At the moment if they block him from gaining the relevant practice required to safely participate in the Race then it's on their heads.

Like I said in an earlier post, Monisha seems to be on a Power Trip since Peter gave her a stake in the team. She's allowed this mess to occur and all the Sauber staff and Bernie should should point the finger to her.

I remember that the Symonds/Briatore FIA ruling for bringing the sport into disrepute (Singapore '08) couldn't be enforced properly as they didn't hold an FIA Licence, I'm sure that then changed and Key staff & TP's had to have a licence. I wonder if Monisha will be accused of bringing the sport into disrepute (or some other unsportingly-like act) and find herself on the wrong side on FOM & FIA.

I do love a bit of drama just before FP1 of Aus GP.

[Phil]

Joe Saward with some good info on why Sauber is in this situation in the first place:

URL: https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015/03 ... ngled-web/

The original plan, as I understand it, was to have Jules Bianchi and Van der Garde as the team’s drivers in 2015. The inclusion of the Frenchman ensured a top talent and also backing for the team (probably in the form of an engine discount) from Ferrari. Van der Garde was included because he would be able to provide considerable funding for the team, through his sponsors, largely related to his father-in-law Marcel Boekhoorn. After Bianchi was injured in October, it became clear to Sauber that the plan needed to be changed as Ferrari was no longer in a position to help the team as it was going to do. The team still has an arrangement with the Italian team, to have Raffaele Marciello as its test driver, but this meant that the team still has a hole in its 2015 budget. Perhaps more importantly, so I am told, the team was in a cash-flow crisis at the time because of the failure of Russian backers to deliver money that had been promised and because the plan to develop a relationship with Simona de Silvestro had also run into financial trouble. The word is that Marcus Ericsson’s backers were willing to pay Sauber a substantial sum of money on signature of a 2015 contract which meant that the team was instantly out of immediate financial danger, but that still meant that there was more money required to get to a sensible budget in 2015. Thus when Felipe Nasr came along with more money than Van der Garde, it was the obvious solution to the problem.

There's more if you follow the link, which is a very good read.

As for the verdict... This is not good news for Sauber. What I am wondering about is, if a company does terminate a contract - in this case, VdGs contract - how is it determined when and how compensation is payed? I'm sure any contract has clauses that state exactly what happens if a contract is terminated by either party (in form of a breach-of-contract fine), but in this case, it's about a lot of money and money that Sauber can't pay up front. So if they do try to pay damages and compensation, is it down to a judge to decide when and how it is payed?

What I'm also wondering about is that VdG backer (Marcel Boekhoorn) has been quoted to saying that he was in negotiations to buy the 2008/2009 Honda team - that was later then sold to Mercedes. If VdG doesn't back down and more or less forces Sauber to drive him, he is also provoking more charges against Sauber by their two other drivers, Nasr and Ericsson, both with significant money that has already been payed to Sauber. If Sauber has already lost to VdG, I can't see them digging themselves out of additional charges by their other two drivers they wanted to race. The end result would be likely that Sauber goes down and is suddenly on the market (again) but for a bargain price this time. From what I understand, Sauber still has quite a good infrastructure with their windtunnel and base in Hinwil/Switzerland and must still be quite a good prospect if you wanted to buy an F1 team...

Saubers situation can be quite easily summed up: Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't (to the question if they abide the ruling).

What is the path with the least resistance / the lesser of two evils? To race VdG or not? That probably depends on what the Australian court will do, if Sauber does not allow VdG to race on Sunday despite the ruling.

[Dazmacca5700]

I don't know the history of all the contractually driver issues and how this came into being, it seems good to me the any organisation having a valid contract with any employee should be held to account. F1 cannot be the exception to this rule. The. ASIC are very bad management for the sake of driver bringing money. Having their cake a eating it comes to mind. I am sure a solution will found. apologies for stating the a obvious, but Sauber and their management do need a reality check!

[Phil]

Again, if this was a simple contract of "we employ you to drive our car and you shall receive money as an employee", it would be pretty straightforward to terminate the contract, just as any company can. A contract is always between two parties - the employer and the employee, or in this case, the race team and the driver. Sometimes, circumstances change, as they do everywhere.

This case is only as complex as it is because Sauber is in financial troubles and is fighting for survival and because of that, hired a pay driver who is effectively "paying to drive". Because payments were obviously made, that driver has some entitlement to the seat he was promised, but also because in this not so ideal world, Sauber can't pay any compensation up front. So the key point here is survival and not a simple case of evil coorporation who is not abiding by the contracts they signed.

Am I saying that Sauber should get away with this [that being accepting money and not upholding their end of the contract or offering suitable compensation]? No. But it's hard to judge and overlook the circumstances that led to this mess in the first place. The very real reality is, if they hadn't (tried to) terminate(d) VdG's contract and signed Nasr and Ericsson - they might not have made the grid in 2015 at all.

But to *force* them to actually race that driver? That is madness IMO. F1 isn't only a driver's sport - it's as much and most definately a team-sport where there is more to it than simply the driver. The racing team is acting as a team with hundreds of employees. Which is why, no driver is ever bigger than the team. Wouldn't it be a case of similar proportion if any team decided to suspend one of their drivers because of an internal dispute (think about Hamilton/Rosberg after their clash in Belgium). In that case it probably is more straightforward because those two drivers aren't "pay drivers" (although they do bring substantial value to the team through image and PR) and effectively employees. In a pay drivers sense, does he have more entitlement to his race seat because he is "paying for it"? Maybe so, but IMO he can't be bigger than the team, which is why forcing the team to drive him is madness. Any court should order Sauber to pay damages / compensation - not to force them to give him the seat...