Sauber F1 Team 2015

[Phil]

Have they [VdG or GVDG BV or his backers] made that investment? I think this is pretty unclear and at this point an assumption - as nothing I have read suggests that payment for the 2015 seat have already been made and paid for (and not returned). If they haven't made this investment and simply have a valid contract for a race seat, how is that more binding then the 2 year contract Sutil received but was 'terminated'? I'm also not sure I agree with GVDG BN honoring their end of the contract... what is there to honor if there is no other alternative?

I know the hot topic is around VdG at the moment, but technically, we could be just as well speaking about Sutil's two year contract. Is Sauber entitled to terminate a contract if they feel that changing circumstance would result in them not running at all? If that isn't a legit reason to prematurely end an argument, what is? Irrevocable break-down between employer/employee (as happens sometimes in every-day life)? Inadequate (relative/subjective) performance by the employee preventing the employer from making money (or scoring points)?

The only reason VdG is at all in the news is because he has money and is somewhat a pay-driver. If he was fired because of inadequate performance, but paid a generous compensation and simply left, no one would be talking about it but rather mentioning how he had no place in F1. In reality though, following some arguments on the basis of binding contracts despite changing circumstances, anyone could sue on the basis of having a 'binding contract' and refusing wrongful termination. Or any employer could sue their employees for leaving or not performing adequatly? Everything works both ways.

[astracrazy]

are we assuming Sutil didn't have performance clauses for example which allowed Sauber to correctly terminate his contract? I don't know by the way just asking.

[FW17]

GVDG BV has 26 million euros in its account

[Phil]

I have no idea, but I would think performance clauses are very sketchy and probably work better employer towards the employee. Case in point; Vetel, as a 4 time world champion who wanted a clause in his contract that enabled him to step out if the team failed to supply him with a top 3 finishing car (or of the sort). I think it's assumed that Alonso also had a such clause in his Ferrari contract. But the other way around? I'm not sure how such a clause could be reasonably formulated since the performance of the driver is directly linked to the performance of the car. How is a team ever going to prove that the driver drove inadequatly? Perhaps in direct comparison to his team-mate, but that is always going to be sketchy, relative and subjective to a degree.

So to answer your question, yes, I'm assuming there was no "performance clause" that would have enabled Sauber to end Sutils contract prematurely as that would probably not hold up well in front of any court unless he drives way off the radar (e.g. can't even meet the 107% requirement or something).

[astracrazy]

@phil your right i never thought about it properly. Usually they are the other way round. I'm guessing to terminate a contract you would need a valid reason to do so. But hey - the convo is about vdg

[RicME85]

I heard earlier (possibly on Sky F1) that GvdG paid £8m last summer for this years seat.

I'm surprised the Sutil talk has gone quiet seeing as he was supposed to be going down the legal route too.

Kaltenborn really has made a mess if things, really want to know what Peter Sauber has to say about things.

[Moxie]

Have they [VdG or GVDG BV or his backers] made that investment? I think this is pretty unclear and at this point an assumption - as nothing I have read suggests that payment for the 2015 seat have already been made and paid for (and not returned). If they haven't made this investment and simply have a valid contract for a race seat, how is that more binding then the 2 year contract Sutil received but was 'terminated'? I'm also not sure I agree with GVDG BN honoring their end of the contract... what is there to honor if there is no other alternative?

Whether or not a specific amount of money was exchanged explicitly quid pro quo for the seat is immaterial. GVDG BV brought money to the table, and Sauber signed a contract, which put him in a racing seat for 2015. The contract language must have been pretty explicit because the appeals court has also ruled that that the contract is binding.

I know the hot topic is around VdG at the moment, but technically, we could be just as well speaking about Sutil's two year contract.

That would depend on whether Sutil's lawyers are as clever as VDG's

Is Sauber entitled to terminate a contract if they feel that changing circumstance would result in them not running at all? If that isn't a legit reason to prematurely end an argument, what is? Irrevocable break-down between employer/employee (as happens sometimes in every-day life)? Inadequate (relative/subjective) performance by the employee preventing the employer from making money (or scoring points)?

If firms can not pay for their contractual obligations then they must file for bankruptcy. Sauber may terminate a contract, but if that contract includes consequences for premature termination (buyout or penalties) those conditions must be met. Breakdown between employer and employee does happen in everyday life. I am not interested in turning this into an argument about workers rights, but understand that as a union employee in the U.S. I am also covered by a contract, which protects certain aspects of my employment. I have some experience in this matter as a firm for which I was working failed to pay me and other workers, as well as suppliers. The firm was forced to file for bankruptcy.

The only reason VdG is at all in the news is because he has money and is somewhat a pay-driver. If he was fired because of inadequate performance, but paid a generous compensation and simply left, no one would be talking about it but rather mentioning how he had no place in F1. In reality though, following some arguments on the basis of binding contracts despite changing circumstances, anyone could sue on the basis of having a 'binding contract' and refusing wrongful termination. Or any employer could sue their employees for leaving or not performing adequatly? Everything works both ways.

He is in the news, because he and his lawyers are a little more clever than Kaltenborn had anticipated, and Kaltenborn was a little more stupid than VDG had anticipated. This may well lead to the bankruptcy of a third F1 team in the last 12 months, and that is news.

[efuloni]

May I try to predict the future?
.
Considering that:
.
1. It's been reported that Nasr's contract is for two years and Ericsson's only one.
.
2. VDG and Sauber are in a completely 'unworkable' social condition.
.
3. VDG and his sponsors are rich as f...
.
4. The lawyers of both part started talking about a possible agreement.
.
5. Sauber is near of bankrupcity.
.
I would say that Nasr and Ericsson race this year, VDG sponsors (father in law) get some shares of the team and in the end of the year they become the true owners of Sauber. Next year VDG and Nasr are the drivers and everybody is happy (or not).

[George-Jung]

May I try to predict the future?
.
Considering that:
.
1. It's been reported that Nasr's contract is for two years and Ericsson's only one.
.
2. VDG and Sauber are in a completely 'unworkable' social condition.
.
3. VDG and his sponsors are rich as f...
.
4. The lawyers of both part started talking about a possible agreement.
.
5. Sauber is near of bankrupcity.
.
I would say that Nasr and Ericsson race this year, VDG sponsors (father in law) get some shares of the team and in the end of the year they become the true owners of Sauber. Next year VDG and Nasr are the drivers and everybody is happy (or not).

I think you are close to the actual reality..

[Phil]

Sauber may terminate a contract, but if that contract includes consequences for premature termination (buyout or penalties) those conditions must be met.

Yes, absolutely. But the suggestion by VdG himself is that he is not interested in a settlement or compensation, makes me think there is either no or little compensation within that contract and that VdG is successfully arguing on the simple fact that his contract is valid and perhaps on the basis of being promised that seat is a life time opportunity. I am really not convinced that the Swiss arbitration court that started all this looked at all that is involved, but merely determined that one of the options in his 2014 test driver contract was activated on June 28th and promoted him into a race seat. If that verdict is as simple as that, then technically his claim is no better than Sutils who also had a contract for 2015...

One way or another, we will find out once the arbitration appeal proceeds. Until then, the question is if they will find a solution or if they get forced to run him.

[dans79]

May I try to predict the future?
.
Considering that:
.
1. It's been reported that Nasr's contract is for two years and Ericsson's only one.
.
2. VDG and Sauber are in a completely 'unworkable' social condition.
.
3. VDG and his sponsors are rich as f...
.
4. The lawyers of both part started talking about a possible agreement.
.
5. Sauber is near of bankrupcity.
.
I would say that Nasr and Ericsson race this year, VDG sponsors (father in law) get some shares of the team and in the end of the year they become the true owners of Sauber. Next year VDG and Nasr are the drivers and everybody is happy (or not).

I think you are close to the actual reality..

Then in 2017 VDG's father in law fires him for not being good enough!

[Moxie]

Sauber may terminate a contract, but if that contract includes consequences for premature termination (buyout or penalties) those conditions must be met.

Yes, absolutely. But the suggestion by VdG himself is that he is not interested in a settlement or compensation, makes me think there is either no or little compensation within that contract and that VdG is successfully arguing on the simple fact that his contract is valid and perhaps on the basis of being promised that seat is a life time opportunity. I am really not convinced that the Swiss arbitration court that started all this looked at all that is involved, but merely determined that one of the options in his 2014 test driver contract was activated on June 28th and promoted him into a race seat. If that verdict is as simple as that, then technically his claim is no better than Sutils who also had a contract for 2015...

One way or another, we will find out once the arbitration appeal proceeds. Until then, the question is if they will find a solution or if they get forced to run him.

Let's face it, it is impossible for us to argue about specifics of a contract we will never see. The Swiss court and the appeals court have oth ruled that VDG's contract is valid. While this is an assumption on my part, I would eat my hat if that contract did not include a buyout clause or early termination penalties, as most contracts include language of this sort.

VDG and Sauber wouldn't be in this position if Kaltenborn simply breeched the contract, terminated him and paid the penalty. It appears to me that Sauber does not have the money to execute this option. Whether he likes it or not VDG had better decide at what price he is willing to settle, because if he doesn't, a court may well decide for him what the settlement value should be.

For her part, Kaltenborn has some big trouble on her hands. My prediction is that Kaltenborn will be replaced in short order, and her successor will struggle to solve this problem. Whatever Sauber does, their solution will have to be whatever gets them out of this mess as cheaply as possible. That may or may not involve allowing VDG to drive the car.

[turbof1]

Adam Cooper reports Sauber and vd Garde have reached an agreement. It's not clear at the moment what the agreement is.

[jmfdvm]

May I try to predict the future?
.
Considering that:
.
1. It's been reported that Nasr's contract is for two years and Ericsson's only one.
.
2. VDG and Sauber are in a completely 'unworkable' social condition.
.
3. VDG and his sponsors are rich as f...
.
4. The lawyers of both part started talking about a possible agreement.
.
5. Sauber is near of bankrupcity.
.
I would say that Nasr and Ericsson race this year, VDG sponsors (father in law) get some shares of the team and in the end of the year they become the true owners of Sauber. Next year VDG and Nasr are the drivers and everybody is happy (or not).

In any other year I think your scenario would work out pretty much as written.

This year... not so much.

IIRC, VDG does not have enough FIA Points in the new driver point system to qualify for the 2016 SuperLicense unless he drives in 2015 before the new point system takes effect. I saw a summary of points accrued for a huge list of drivers, and while I can't swear to the accuracy of the calculations it listed him as having only 8. He did have a superlicense in 2013, but again IIRC, that doesn't matter unless he has one again in 2015.

[Moxie]

I've been reading more about this drama and just learned that Kaltenborn herself was a corporate lawyer before becoming involved in motorsports. As contracts were her bread and butter, she has no ability to claim incompetence or ignorance in regard to her actions in this matter. In an earlier post I stated that VDG and his lawyers underestimated the stupidity of Kaltenborn. I'd like to revise that statement:

VDG and his lawyers underestimated the deceit of Kaltenborn.