Sauber F1 Team 2015

[efuloni]

What one thing has to do with another? Sauber comitted a terrible act. Immoral and ilegal, and thats why they were facing court actions.

And VdG was disrespectfull with his colleague. He should not have done that.
Apples and oranges.

[bdr529]

What one thing has to do with another? Sauber comitted a terrible act. Immoral and ilegal, and thats why they were facing court actions.

And VdG was disrespectfull with his colleague. He should not have done that.
Apples and oranges.

So your saying that he should just give up the $8 million and move on, I wouldn't mind know what you think might have been the best thing for him to do on Friday morning

[r_b_l]

And VdG was disrespectfull with his colleague. He should not have done that.
Apples and oranges.

The team and/or VDG could have taped over Ericsson's name, yes. But I am sure & I think most people would be thinking at the time that Ericsson was preoccupied with other serious matters...... like talking to his lawyers or preparing for FP1.

I don't think something like this would cause an adult professional sportsman to have a sissy fit over a suit, unless he is like that kind of bloke, they are after all, a Team.....aren't they?

[Moxie]

Strategically creating a spectacle in the end has only hurt GvdG and his business and associates imho. Bernie had to intervene and bernie is generally not a happy man when he needs to do these things. In other words; you don't make friends with Bernie like that, and what you want is Bernie as your best friend. Meanwhile no team has any interest in his services ever again. And, he now gave up his racing seat for the melbourne weekend, so all that brawl and brag ended up in absolutely nothing.

Bernie didn't intervenr because VDG put on Ericsson's overalls. Bernie intervened because without Sauber Motorsport, he was looking at a starting grid of only 13 cars. Bernie has his own contractual obligations to worry about, and if he did not post a minimum number of cars (I'm not sure of the exact number) then he would have lost a lot of money. When VDG's lawyer made arrangements to have Sauber Motorsports assets seized, Bernie's shorts turned brown.

[FW17]

If VdG said he paid 8 million for 2015 he is in breach of Contract


Anyway word is that he has lost the case

[bdr529]

I had gotten the $8m from an early post that may be incorrect, though the dollar amount is not the concern and would have no bearing on this case, personally I would have charge him more then 8m.

Anyway word is that he has lost the case

I haven't seen anything on that so I can't really comment on it.
I do know that this started last Dec. and there's been more then enough time to have sorted out before Friday morning of the first race. James Allen had said there were several team principals that were ‘furious’ with Sauber’s Monisha Kalternborn for ‘bringing the sport into disrepute’ by signing three high paying drivers for two seats.

I would love to hear what other options people think VDG had, what steps should he have taken so as not to disrespect Ericssson

[FW17]

8 million was said to be for his free practice sessions of 2014
If he paid more when the option was taken, he is entitled to that money being returned and damages
There is no talk that money changed hands for 2015 anyway

What James Allen writes is more propaganda, he should not be writing about what TP's say off the record.

[C29]

I think there's still far too much unknown about this case to accurately judge. There's too much speculation going on. Has anyone seen the actual contract? Do we know all the details about obligations for both parties and out clauses? At this point, I find it very difficult to believe that Sauber simply took VDG's money and ran away. If they did, then the team is run by idiots and doesn't deserve to compete. I think people running/owning F1 teams are certifiably crazy, but idiots don't tend to last very long or make it to the top in a business like F1. Sauber has had a pretty good reputation about these things in the past, so it's odd that this would pop up suddenly out of nowhere.

My hunch says that Sauber offered him an out (some form of compensation) due to their financial situation (perhaps within the scope of the contract, or perhaps some sort of outside 'settlement') and that VDG turned it down because he wants the race seat more than anything. When dealing with the kinds of money in an F1 contract (pay or paid driver), I suspect there's bound to be plenty of clauses, outs, options, thresholds, timelines, etc in these contracts. I can't imagine Sauber simply taking the money and then tearing up the contract without any counter-offer of compensation. Maybe they thought VDG hadn't met some of his contractual obligations, or maybe they were looking for any little clause to get out of the contract in order to sign their two current drivers. Maybe VDG HASN'T met all his obligations or maybe without thinking ahead Sauber thought things would magically sort themselves out in the end.

Either way, we aren't hearing all of the details and facts because people involved are generally good at keeping their mouths shut when litigation is on-going, and much of what we have heard are merely rumours, media sound bites, and public posturing. I suspect that there's more to this than we know at this time. Cases like these are rarely easy open and shut, black and white cases. Without knowing the actual legal details of the contract, there's no way we can judge who has or hasn't met their obligations.

[bdr529]

What James Allen writes is more propaganda, he should not be writing about what TP's say off the record.

I'v never know team principals to agree on anything, so of the 9 I can see 3 of them not to pleased with Sauber, and I'm sure a couple of them appreciated the media focus not on them and their struggles

C29
Without knowing the actual legal details of the contract, there's no way we can judge who has or hasn't met their obligations.

Yes this is true I don't know the actual contract, but 3 different judges in the individual court cases each ruled in favor of VDG, I'm not basing my opinion on anything but the results of those court cases. and it's 3-0 for VDG and it sound like it won't go back for a 4th go around, which is good,
I have nothing against Sauber, allways been a fan, I even went to the WSC race in Montreal back in 90 to see those Mercedes caars of his, I'd be lying if I didn't include the strip clubs also (the real reason everyone loves Montreal)
and if the tables were turned and all 3 rulings were in favor of Saber then I would've expected them to cover all their bases, which is what I believe VDG was doing, and nothing more then just that

[nokivasara]

I don't know were the seat fitting took place, all I'm saying is that all reports that I read all seem to agree that it was VDG having to do this to up hold his end of the contract and comply with the order brought forth by the courts.

I just find it odd that your ok with Sauber essentially taking (steeling) $8 million, but you have a issue with VDG wearing Ericsson's overalls for a 1/2 hour to long.

I could care less about VDG he's just another driver, I do care that companies and in this case drivers up hold their ends of the contracts that they signed. I would have rather seen this taken care of last year but it didn't, so I have no problem with it going to court. if it was VDG that was in the wrong then I would have no issues with Sauber taking him to court.

Ok, you don't understand why I think it was bad behaviour from VDG to walk around in Ericssons overalls. That's fine.

The 8 million was for 2014, we have no details of the 2015 contract.
I have no problems with the legal action other than that is poorly handled by Sauber.

With that said I'm out of this discussion

[Phil]

Yes this is true I don't know the actual contract, but 3 different judges in the individual court cases each ruled in favor of VDG, I'm not basing my opinion on anything but the results of those court cases. and it's 3-0 for VDG

That's a pretty simplistic argument here. As it stands, there has been one ruling, that by the arbitration court on if VdG is entitled to a 2015 race seat or not. We don't know more than that - we don't know how much money is involved, or what clause in that 2014 test-drivers contract was activated on supposedly June 28th of 2014 that nominated him for the seat. We also know more or less that said contract wasn't with VdG himself but with his backers, although the judge in Geneva found this to be irrelevant.

Australia is a different matter, as the Australian judge only ruled if the ruling by the Swiss Arbitration court can and should be upheld in Australia. There's no reason to believe that the Australian court went through all the paper work of the supposed contract to reach any kind of verdict. So the argument that it's 3-0 for VdG is not very accurate, they are at best two different cases; One about the entitlement to the race seat, the other two (case & appeal) on if the first ruling is applicable in Australia.

As has been mentioned numerous times; The relevant verdict by the Swiss Arbitration court is not legally binding yet. This is pretty standard procedure when a trial or case is in process. I believe without that ruling, VdG would not have had any chance in Australia in the first place.

[FW17]

was the swiss arbitration about VdG is entitled to a drive as sauber had a contract with VdG's company and not with him personally?

[AnthonyG]

As has been mentioned numerous times; The relevant verdict by the Swiss Arbitration court is not legally binding yet. This is pretty standard procedure when a trial or case is in process. I believe without that ruling, VdG would not have had any chance in Australia in the first place.

That's irrelevant, two parties make a contract and say any disputes should be handled by that Swiss Arbitration Court. It's only logical that VdG goes to an Australian court and says Sauber is not respecting the ruling it agreed to by the contract.

If he would go to an Australian court saying he had a contract for a driving seat this and that... Sauber (ironically) just says the Australian court is not allowed to rule over the mather since both parties agree to the arbitration verdict. And the court would follow Sauber in this argument and dismiss the case

[Phil]

From what I understand yes, because Sauber tried to argue this point in the case in Australia, but to no avail. I think what also adds a bit of complexity, is that it was a clause that was activated that gave him entitlement to the seat, not an outright direct race-seat contract. Not saying that this makes it less binding, but it IMO does show the complexity involved.

That's irrelevant

No it isn't. The contract dispute is still an active on-going case. It's well within Saubers right to appeal and as long as they do, the verdict isn't final. So in regards to the talk if Sauber was in their right or not, is still left to be seen. Imagine if they take it further and the verdict in turned around - this would change the whole dynamics of any talks in this very topic.

[aral]

there are reports that the case has now been settled and that sauber are to return 15m€ to VDG. This is the amount of money advanced for 2014 and 2015.