Sauber F1 Team 2015

[bill shoe]

I still don't get why there has not been a verdict yet to simply pay vd Garde for his damages and be done with it. Truly the damage in the relationship between vd Garde and Sauber is this deep now that the contract can impossibly be forfilled. It'll simply result in Sauber not racing.

I think Sauber have never come out in court and said something simple to the effect of "we signed three drivers for two cars". If they did then they'd be guilty of fraud on contracts worth a minimum of $20 million each. White collar fraud of this magnitude would likely bring significant prison time for the people who did it. So Sauber has never factually told the court what the 3 driver vs 2 car situation is even though everyone knows it.

The court does not want to assume this for Sauber and then figure out a solution for them because--
1. that's not the court's job,
2. the court would like to see Sauber's leadership take responsibility for their team and any fraudulent acts,
3. simple admission of the 3-contracts-2-cars situation would probably quickly lead Sauber into administration but the court doesn't want to assume the team into this legal status because again it's the teams responsibility to be grown-ups and make any necessary applications or requests.

I think yesterday's original written decision by the judge made a somewhat vague note that the parties could come back to the court anytime if there was something they needed to tell the court about why they could not fulfill the judgment. I'm beginning to understand that note better.

EDIT: Also notice Sauber's continued odd use of the phrase "nominated drivers" instead of "contracted drivers". The term "nominated driver" has never been used before in F1 to describe a team's current driver lineup. Sauber is using this terminology in courts because "contracted driver" has legal implications as described above. Courts can adjudicate contracts, but not "nominations".

[Richard]

I think you linked the wrong URL ..

The Hulkenberg interview is in the video on that page. I've updated my post with a better link directly to the video .

[Phil]

Ah, I think it's only available to UK viewers, that's why no video was shown (Cannot play media. Sorry, this media is not available in your territory.). Sadly, I can't seem to find the site that I read this morning that had an article on probably the same quotes by some of the drivers that were asked about the Sauber situation that I could link...

[turbof1]

Adam Cooper, praise the man for tirelessly feeding us all the information!, reported that the biggest issue now is the super license. Not the application itself for license, but because he has his contract "terminated" they first need to reinstate the contract before they can make the application. They need to do this at the contract recognition board (CRB).

http://adamcooperf1.com/2015/03/12/no-i ... der-garde/

First some explanation what the CRB really is: It's a part of the FIA and checks driver contract legality. Also, and this may be very important to note, is that they settle disputed contracts. I foresee a lot of legal issues here because:

-The organ did not act when Nasr and Ericsonn where signed. I don't know whether the CRB is a passive or an active board, but in the case of the latter it failed it could possibly face legal charges if pressed.

-Since the FIA has this organ, it will certainly not be pleased that the CRB was ignored and matters went to a public court. It could possibly financially punish vd Garde, Sauber or even both for this.

Now, the wikipedia entry, I really could not find a better source for the moment, tells us the board can instate contracts within a few days. Obviously that's too long and would leave vd Garde without a, in the eyes of the FIA, legal contract. No legal contract, no super license. I think it would be theoritical possible to do it in matter of hours. Then again, the board might be reluctant to make this swamp of legal issues a rush job.

Also given the FIA might not be too pleased with the case in a public court, they could intentionally delay the whole process even further or even deny reinstation of the contract.
A first indication of this could be that the FIA denied Sauber's request for 3 nominated drivers and left vd Garde out of the loop. That's not for certain however, and could simply be down on procedures. Also, Sauber terminated the contract based on vd Garde's leaks in the press. If that is true, then that's a further reason to delay or deny.

I don't think Sauber can be legally charged if the CRB does not reinstate the contract in time. That is simply out of their hands.

[void]

Sauber can appeal for this race saying we have the car, the race suits, but he cannot race because don't have superlicence, this is FIA bussness

[KeiKo403]

I forget 100% the wording used but following the original arbitration hearing it was deemed that Sauber must not do anything to revent GvdG from participating in the F1 2015 World Championship. This was last week now? That should've been enough time to re-instate and request super-licence.

Sauber failed to prepare for the obvious outcome, beried their heads in the sand and and made obsurd claims about the safety of other drivers if GvdG takes to the track. Ergo, if GvdG can't race even if Sauber says he can, Sauber are now, still in contemp?

[turbof1]

Going from Adam Cooper's tweet: https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status ... 8019129344
The reinstation of the contract is the responsibility of the driver. So Sauber cannot be held responsible for that if it goes wrong.

[Jonnycraig]

Going from Adam Cooper's tweet:
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status ... 8019129344


The reinstation of the contract is the responsibility of the driver. So Sauber cannot be held responsible for that if it goes wrong.

Sauber can be held responsible for terminating it though, in defiance of the Arbitration ruling.

[Phil]

First some explanation what the CRB really is: It's a part of the FIA and checks driver contract legality. Also, and this may be very important to note, is that they settle disputed contracts.

That's some very good info there Turbo.

About the CRB; I wonder at which point do they handle contract disputes. Is it up to them to make sure that only 2 drivers can have a 'valid contract' for race seats? Or can there be realistically multiple drivers signed in which a team can decide which drivers actually get to drive the car? How are test-driver contracts handled? Or is it from the CRB view simply a third valid contract and its up to the team to determine who is test and who is race driver?

From all the information that is available, I think one can slowly draw up a time scale of the events that led to this crisis. From the top of my head:

- mid 2014: active drivers: GUT + SUT + VdG (Testdriver), Sirotkin (Testdriver)
- mid 2014: plan for 2015; VdG + Bianchi (for engine deal with Ferrari)
- end 2014: Bianchi crashes, becomes unavailable = no engine deal
- end 2014: Marussia goes into administration - many suppliers want upfront payments
- end 2014: Ericsson + Nasr are available with lots of money
- November 2014: Sauber decides to make contracts with Ericsson + Nasr to secure the financial stability of the team
- February 2015: VdG takes Sauber to court at the Swiss Arbitration Court on claims to have a valid contract for '15 and wins
- February 2015: Sauber (probably aware that the Swiss court said the contract is valid) goes to CRB to terminate that contract or his entry there
- February 2015: I assume; Sauber appeals Swiss Arbitration verdict (in process) - so verdict is not legally binding yet
- March 2015: Sauber shows no intentions of racing VdG despite initial verdict because verdict is not legally binding yet
- March 2015: VdG goes to Australian Court to get Australia to honour the Swiss Arbitration verdict and enforce it on the GP - wins
- March 11th 2015: Sauber appeals - but loses
- March 11th 2015: VdG doesn't have a valid superlicence because there is no valid contract at CRB due to it being terminated in Feb by Sauber

Did I miss anything? Perhaps someone else can fill in some more loops or has the exact dates...

From the above, I deduct that Sauber felt they did not have a valid contract for VdG for the 2015 seat, but that the contract (which was activated by clauses or accepting payment) was made with VdG backers - so perhaps, there was never a reason to go to CRB *before* the Swiss arbitration verdict came through saying that the contract is in fact legit. Hence why they acted and went to CRB to terminate the contract. Perhaps this big mess came about because Sauber felt that their standpoint is legit, which was then ruled against them in court.

I forget 100% the wording used but following the original arbitration hearing it was deemed that Sauber must not do anything to revent GvdG from participating in the F1 2015 World Championship.

The problem with that verdict is, is that it is not yet legally binding because, AFAIK and understand, Sauber have appealed that verdict. From my basic legal understanding; It only becomes legally binding if it is either the last instance (the highest court makes the verdict) or if none of the parties have launched an appeal. Then it becomes legally binding. So because it's a trial that is still in process, I'm not sure if what has been said is already in effect?

[turbof1]

Going from Adam Cooper's tweet:
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status ... 8019129344


The reinstation of the contract is the responsibility of the driver. So Sauber cannot be held responsible for that if it goes wrong.

Sauber can be held responsible for terminating it though, in defiance of the Arbitration ruling.

Sauber defended that by stating vd Garde leaked things to the media. I don't know if that is true, but a breach of such a clause would remove that responsibility.

But Sauber has lied about things like safety; difficult to trust them on this.

[lotus7]

Yes. But I'm doubtful he would have found a different seat, much less an actual guaranteed race seat, if it weren't for Sauber who signed him because of the financial backing. Who is left? Perhaps Marussia who made it to the grid against all odds... But apart from that, I don't see where he would have raced if he hadn't lost those two years.

Added to that , where will he race next year , even if he does race the Sauber this year - at least till they fold ?
Any possible takers after these events ? Haas ? I doubt that very strongly

[Richard]

All this paperwork will need Sauber's input.

• VDG can't get a contract approved by the CRB without Sauber saying "Yes, that's the right contract". The CRB will then say "So which of the other two driver contracts are you going to say is void?"
• VDG can't get a super licence without Sauber saying "Yes, he is our nominated driver" and the FIA are going to say "which of the other two drivers is going to have their licence cancelled?"

The judge in Australia said that Sauber must not delay the above. So if the FIA and CRB say they can't complete things in time the judge will say it is Sauber's fault for being too slow.

Then the court has two options:

1 - Believe the paperwork can be completed in time, so they stop Sauber racing until that is done.

• If Sauber are able to get the paperwork then VDG will drive in Melbourne.
• If Sauber are NOT able to get the paperwork then Sauber can't turn a wheel in Melbourne and its their own fault.

2 - Recognise that the paperwork can't be completed in time

• They could stop Sauber racing, but these is nothing to be gained by this. The downside is that this might cause them to collapse and VDG will never get damages or a race seat.
• They could allow Sauber to race without VDG because it'll mean they'll still be around to pay the court's bills and there will be a seat for VDG in Malaysia. Possibly impound Sauber assets after the race.

Remember the court's objective is to ensure VDG has a place on the grid, so they have to balance forcing that issue without causing the team to collapse. I expect Sauber to plead poverty and that stopping them racing will cause the team to collapse, hence VDG will get nothing. Will the court believe them?

[bdr529]

A friend from Australia sent me this, It's corny but somewhat apropos

Judge asking the lawyer representing Nasr and Ericsson for some clarification

[nokivasara]

This whole mess seems quite fitting for the modern farce called Formula1, there's absolutely no winners in this

The long term effects are even worse, Van der Garde will never get a seat in a better team after this (possibly not before either, he's not the next Senna tbh). I quess it's his sponsors that are driving this forward with their own money as the #1 reason, not to actually get VDG to drive the Sauber.

Maybe Sauber will fold and get bought by Honda as a junior team

[aral]

This whole mess seems quite fitting for the modern farce called Formula1, there's absolutely no winners in this

The long term effects are even worse, Van der Garde will never get a seat in a better team after this (possibly not before either, he's not the next Senna tbh). I quess it's his sponsors that are driving this forward with their own money as the #1 reason, not to actually get VDG to drive the Sauber.

Maybe Sauber will fold and get bought by Honda as a junior team

His father in law is his sponsor via the McGregor brand label. The aim seems to be to destroy Sauber and to create a new team called McGregor. After all, what driver in his right mind would go to the steps that Van Dr Garde has gone, to try and hold on to his seat? Especially as you say...he is no Senna, and not even a Maldonado, or a Magnussen.