Interesting case of rule-of-law vs power-brokers. Looks like it's shaping up to be the financial story of the week at Melbourne, even overshadowing the Manor revival which isn't easy. Actually, could also be related to the Manor revival.
I guess Sauber strategy is to prevent Swiss arbitration from being enforced in Australia. This would make it a fait acompli to start running with the two "current" drivers rather than GVDG. This would also likely force GVDG's hand into buying the second Manor seat, which weakens his hand on a practical level if not a legal level with Sauber.
And what does Manor do? Sign its second car to a driver contingent on GVDG getting his Sauber seat back? Or do a
Kaltenborn of their own and just sign lots of contracts now and worry about driver-count vs car-count later?
The two "current" Sauber drivers are issuing dueling press releases on the basis of which one signed their contract first, as opposed to any specific contract provision about what happens in the event that GVDG claims his seat back or what happens if there are more Sauber pay drivers than Sauber cars. This would have been an obvious provision to include in the two "current driver" contracts, but apparently all parties thought they were out-clevering everyone else by not including it.
Also, isn't the FIA supposed to have a driver-contracts recognition board to prevent this exact kind of silliness from happening? Did the FIA sell out the rights to enforce this in the same manner as they recently sold off their rights to make rules?
Delicious.