From the quotes I've been hearing, VdG publicly stated that he is not accepting compensation - "he wants to race". I have no idea to what degree this had a bearing during the ruling or not, but from what the verdict said by the Australian court, it does seem to me that they are giving Sauber very clear indications that VdG should be in that seat. Perhaps the Australian court in this case is merely upholding the verdict by the Swiss Arbitration Court - however, that verdict is not yet legally binding (at least as far as all the reports that I have read). I'm assuming this is because Sauber is in their right to appeal that decision and the process is still ongoing.TheRMVR wrote:1. The judge is not forcing Sauber to do anything, and it is certainly not setting a precedent. The judge only confirms VDG has a legal and binding contract. It will most likely have a clause and a sum to pay him and his financial backers to get out of it. Thats also why Sauber had to prepare a list of assets, for the VDG team to claim those as a way of compensation. The court is not forcing Sauber to run VDG, they clearly have the option to pay him off. The Australian court is only confirming the earlier decision by the Swiss court in Geneva that also came to the same conclusion.
No, I never said it was ok not to honour a contract - I said for these instances you usually had clauses that determine compensation. These clauses are in pretty much any contract we sign now days - even if only mentioned in the "terms & agreement" part. They are to protect in case the contract, for whatever reason, isn't honoured by either party.TheRMVR wrote:2. "nothing and no-one is bigger than the team" / "if that individual isn't wanted by the team"
What you are saying here basically is that it is ok not to honour a contract if it might harm the team and/or the if the team changes its mind and can find someone else who is better its fine to one-sidedly terminate a contract. Luckily the reality doesn't work that way.
As for this has luckily never happend.... Of course it does. Last time it happened, was when Ferrari got Alonso on board and payed Raikoennen a very generous "compensation" (Raikoennen had a deal for 2010). Contracts [in general] are broken quite often. The relevant question is how many contracts are broken without any form of compensation or damage being compensated?
No, I'm saying that Sauber effectively put the business and their employees first when they decided to terminate their contract with VdG and Sutil. Obviously, there's room for a lot of speculation here, since we haven't seen these contracts, which I think we can all agree on are very complex, so I'm not sure to what degree we can state that Sauber did not rightfully terminate those contracts or to what degree they are obliged to honour those agreements (despite compensation), inspite the very real chance of going into administration. That quite depends on what is in the contract.TheRMVR wrote:3. "If Sauber had not created this 'mess' by signing Nasr and Ericsson and honoured an agreement with VdG, chances are high that they may not have made the 2015 grid". So, wait, you're saying, they had to create this mess to be able to start at the grid this year?? That is completely and utterly ridiculous. That is like saying, we had to commit fraud or steal money to keep our business afloat. That Sauber found themselves in dire straits does not justify in any way shape or form what they have done to Sutil and VDG. It is absolutely absurd that you would even suggest this. Lets not forget that they still have a binding 2-year contract with Sutil. So in essence they have 4 drivers for 2 seats. And if I remember correctly they still owe Hulkenberg money...
The hard fact is that sometimes, circumstance do play a role. They play a role when suddenly bills can't be payed anymore and staff has to be reduced. VdG's case is special because to a degree he is a "customer" and not an employee (like someone else pointed out). As I said, we don't know what is in that contract. Maybe there is some form of compensation but VdG is simply refusing them and arguing on the stance that F1 is unique and a lifetime opportunity that was promised but not delievered (or something to that extent). We don't know. What we do know however is that Sauber has been ordered by the Swiss court to "refrain from taking any action the effect of which would be to deprive Mr van der Garde of his entitlement to participate in the 2015 Formula One Season as one of Sauber’s two nominated race drivers".
The elephant in the room to me is that if they had honoured the agreement, they likely wouldn't be on the grid now and VdG would not be driving at all regardless. While that doesn't give any entitlement to commit fraud or steal money - I think the verdict on that at least is still open as long as the case is in process and more detail surfaces. We don't know what has been payed by VdG and his backers (and what has been returned). Perhaps this whole mess isn't to do with payments made in 2014, but really because VdG was promised a seat (through activation of one of those clauses in the 2014 contract), eventually lost out, refused settlement and now wants to fight for his seat?
Isn't this a bit like being fired from your job, but even upon being offered a compensation, you are taking legal steps by the court to have you reinstated in a company that no longer wants or requires your services? I can't for the life of me see the sense in that. If that is true for one party, what is stopping an employer forcing an employee to come to work after he quitted? If a court said yes to that, what's stopping the employee coming to work and doing absolutely nothing? If it's not enforceable realistically in both directions, I'm not sure how it can or should in either instance.
#ClarksonFracas