Sauber F1 Team 2015

[thedutchguy]

We don't know the details for the contract, so speculating that Sauber can fire him after a 'bad' performance in FP1 is pure speculation, and not very likely if I may say so. Also not running both cars is a prospect I'm sure they want to avoid at all costs, not in the least because Nasr and Ericsson's sponsors will frown upon that as well.

It's been established by several courts that Van der Garde has a valid contract, and even Sauber doesn't seem to argue with his claim. Their only defense is the ridiculous safety aspect which - if anything - can only buy them time. At the next race, the contract will still be there and presuming that their argument will fly this time, it won't fly twice because at the next race they'll have had enough time to 'change' the car for VdG. So either in Australia or at the next race, they'll have to let him race.

The assumption that the team will go bankrupt when they sack either Nasr or Ericsson is only an assumption and Sauber themselves have not used this argument (in court) either. Obviously it's not something you'd want to be known, but if it's really the case, I think it might resonate better with a court than the safely bs they're running now.

[notsofast]

As far as I understand it, the court has merely decided that GVDG has a valid agreement. I don't think the court can force (or is going to force) Sauber to let GVDG drive. The outcome is simply that Sauber has three valid agreements. Sauber has no choice but to terminate or violate one of those three agreements. The court is not telling Sauber which one. It is up to Sauber to choose which one they will terminate or violate. Based on the discussion up-thread, it appears that it may not be financially possible for Sauber to terminate or violate any of the three agreements without going into bankruptcy.

[efuloni]

As far as I understand it, the court has merely decided that GVDG has a valid agreement. I don't think the court can force (or is going to force) Sauber to let GVDG drive. The outcome is simply that Sauber has three valid agreements. Sauber has no choice but to terminate or violate one of those three agreements. The court is not telling Sauber which one. It is up to Sauber to choose which one they will terminate or violate. Based on the discussion up-thread, it appears that it may not be financially possible for Sauber to terminate or violate any of the three agreements without going into bankruptcy.

This is also my understanding. And as I said a few days ago, no court can demand a driver to drive or a team to give a seat. All they can say is: 'the agreement is valid, you gotta do as its written'. Any agreement surely has a clause in case of termination. So Sauber can choose: terminate the contract and pay the stipulated indemnization for this violation or give him the seat.

They simply will not run if vd Garde gets the seat. If they run vd Garde, then either Nasr or Ericsonn will launch their own case in court. By not running at all they can avoid that.

The issue is very complex: obviously as long as the courts keep ruling that vd Garde should drive, then Sauber cannot leave the pits at all because that would breach an other contract. However, they can only miss out on 3 races, because after that they forfeit their price money.

If they don't leave the pit without a valid reason, they would be breaching all the three contracts. They are in a terrible situation. They have to find an agreement with vdG or they will go into bankruptcy.

[efuloni]

We don't know the details for the contract, so speculating that Sauber can fire him after a 'bad' performance in FP1 is pure speculation, and not very likely if I may say so. Also not running both cars is a prospect I'm sure they want to avoid at all costs, not in the least because Nasr and Ericsson's sponsors will frown upon that as well.

It's been established by several courts that Van der Garde has a valid contract, and even Sauber doesn't seem to argue with his claim. Their only defense is the ridiculous safety aspect which - if anything - can only buy them time. At the next race, the contract will still be there and presuming that their argument will fly this time, it won't fly twice because at the next race they'll have had enough time to 'change' the car for VdG. So either in Australia or at the next race, they'll have to let him race.

The assumption that the team will go bankrupt when they sack either Nasr or Ericsson is only an assumption and Sauber themselves have not used this argument (in court) either. Obviously it's not something you'd want to be known, but if it's really the case, I think it might resonate better with a court than the safely bs they're running now.

Well, by a legal point of view, the strategy of safety is surely to buy time. If they manage to succed, they will have a couple of weeks to try finding an agreement with one of the drivers to avoid bankruptcy or new lawsuit.

Its simple: they can be ruined now or in two weeks. Of course they will choose the second option, so they may find a solution in this time. But its almost sure that if they lose again in court, they will be f...

[PlatinumZealot]

It seems that Geido signed a contract to race in 2015, with a promise to bring the money in 2015. The money did not come, but the contract was and is still there. This is the only logical reason I can see leading to Sauber signing three drivers. Don't sign any pay drivers that don't come with money in tow! It is a hard lesson for any midfield team.. and a lesson that many fail to learn. We have seen so many drivers plucked from their seats early season because their backers failed to deliver the money on time. Only this time Geido's contract was smartly made with some loopholes.

[thedutchguy]

It seems that Geido signed a contract to race in 2015, with a promise to bring the money in 2015. The money did not come, but the contract was and is still there.

Dude, they signed both Nasr and Ericsson well before the end of 2014, so that's bull. If VdG would be in breach of contract, the last four rulings woudn't have been in his favor.

The reason they decided to sign both other drivers, was - presumably - not only because they would pay more, but also because their sponsors would help out with the alleged cash flow problems the team encountered late last year.

[FW17]

I also do understand the theory that VdG sponsors are pulling the strings (as they are being left out on the car).

Sauber is open to putting the stickers (they have next to nothing) on the car

[Richard]

I suspect Sauber's next move will be to claim the relationship is irretrievably broken down. I imagine this would have to go back to the arbitrator in Switzerland and they'll ask the Australian court to allow that option. I don't know the scope of the Swiss arbitrator, but the common law approach used in Australia allows for pragmatism. ie an English or Australian judge could say forcing VDG into the seat isn't practical and say VDG had to accept a financial settlement.

Also Sauber have a nuclear option of mutual self destruction by telling VDG to be nice or he'll get very little if they go bust.

Williams - Good point, they could give the sponsors what they need and sidestep the driver.

[efuloni]

I just can't see a way of vdG actually drive the Sauber car in this race. Of all the possibilities ahead, that's, imho, the one with less chance of happening.

[FW17]

Why is the court and arbitrator forcing Sauber to give him a seat and not come to a damage settlement that would have been a part of the contact in case of a breach?

It is like forcing a couple to stay married when one wants a divorce (and already married in another country)

I have no idea of driver contracts but last i remember of a breach was Jenson Button Williams 2005 and Montoya 2006, both walked away after a settlement.

What is different here when it is the other way around?

[thedutchguy]

I also do understand the theory that VdG sponsors are pulling the strings (as they are being left out on the car).

VdG's main backer is McGregor, a brand owned by his father in law, Marcel Boekhoorn. This man is apparently no pushover and he's been in court many times before. And with an estimated worth of around €1.3 billion, he can afford it too. I think it's quite obvious that he's the one pulling the strings, and not VdG himself.

[Jonnycraig]

A court can't force Sauber to pay damages as they've not effectivly broken the contract yet, therefore the court are enforcing the legally binding contract. It is Sauber that stipulated he must race in that contract when it was signed.

But from the second VDG is not in the car for FP1, the contract is broken and they are in contempt of the Swiss arbitrators & the Australian court and will surely have a crippling writ in their inbox.

Does it count from FP1? Or Quali/Race. Thinking if it's just the race then if he fails to post any representative FP1/2/3/Quali time for 107% rule could that lead to him not being allowed to partake anyway?

The arbitration ruling states that Sauber cannot undertake any act detrimental to VDG racing. Denying him FPs & 4 hours of track time would surely constitute detrimental actions.

[KeiKo403]

Am I right in thinking we could only be a few hours away from hearing the outcome of the court appeal?

[r_b_l]

Am I right in thinking we could only be a few hours away from hearing the outcome of the court appeal?

Starts at 9:30am EST according to the supreme court of Victoria website

[ESPImperium]

I know that in F1 the contracts art worth their weight in gold, or any paper they are written on. But i hope VDG gets his seat as it sends a nice little warning shot to all the other teams who have been know to do what the hell with their drivers contracts to suit themselves.

As i see it VDG, NAS & ERI have Sauber over a barrel, as does the agreement with FOM. NAS is rumoured to be bringing €32m to the team, ERI with again a rumoured €28m, VDG deal was reported last year for €35m over two seasons, €8m in 2014 as a Test/FP1 driver and €22m as a Race Driver in 2015. VDG with McG was to bring an extra €5m in non financial support by suiting the team out in McGregor kit in 2014/2015. The drivers will bring Sauber €60m without VDG however that dips to €50m to €54m depending on who they have as their other driver over VDG.

Then the FOM question comes in, at present Manor are going to receive the £30m for P9 they gained last year for attending the first race. They can miss 3 races i agree, but missing the first race Sauber will no longer get the approximate £25m(€35.5m) they get for P10. Sauber, since 2012 have been operating on a budget that was the second lowest in F1 with about €90m, so with NAS/ERI and FOM, they get their money for the season plus €5m more. With VDG its up to €5m less that what they need. Manor last year operated on €85m for most of the season and were showing over a race distance they were on the pace with the Saubers till they went into Administration.

Any question on money is circumspect to me, its down to if Sauber want to honour a contract or not. They have clearly got two pay driver hot shoes in the cars at present. Its who they want to breach with, Van Der Garde could easily get a order, preventing Sauber from leaving the pitlane and that would breach all 3 drivers, heck he could easily do what happened in 2013 to the Lotus LMP2 team at Le Mans and send in Bailiffs into the team garage and seize parts that are crucial to the running of the cars like the steering wheels. However the Lotus case was about debts however. (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108143)

Van Der Garde has the team where he wants them, the safety aspect won't wash as he participated in FP1/Test sessions last year, he raced in F1 in 2013, he did FP1s in 2012 as well as GP2 races and is also a ex WSR3.5 Champion. Sauber can't bring that aspect into it. Toro Rosso and Manor are showing this isn't an issue with their lineups.

This thing aint finished yet. This will get messy, this probably won't end well for someone.