Will Buxton on NBC was suggesting that Giedo is actually quite a popular man in the paddock right now for this reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Printable View
Will Buxton on NBC was suggesting that Giedo is actually quite a popular man in the paddock right now for this reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
I fear he may be the Curt Flood of F1 however. Of course his situation was different, but it pretty much ended a great career! :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/1844945/
Quote:
Flood v. Kuhn (407 U.S. 258) was a 1972 United States Supreme Court decision upholding, by a 5–3 margin, the antitrust exemption first granted to Major League Baseball (MLB) in Federal Baseball Club v. National League. It arose from a challenge by St. Louis Cardinals' outfielder Curt Flood when he refused to be traded to the Philadelphia Phillies after the 1969 season. He sought injunctive relief from the reserve clause, which prevented him from negotiating with another team for a year after his contract expired. Named as initial respondents were baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn, MLB and all of its then-24 member clubs.
Although the Court ruled in baseball's favor 5-3, it admitted the original grounds for the antitrust exemption were tenuous at best, that baseball was indeed interstate commerce for purposes of the act and the exemption was an "anomaly"
I think this situation is a bit different; in that case, Curt Flood was challenging already established (if arguably unjust) law and the well understood rules. In this situation, Giedo is merely asking Sauber to uphold commitments made in a contract that they freely entered into (and in respect of which they already took his money...).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
But it still had to be challenged. I mean Catfish Hunter was the first recipient when gardening leave was rightfully excluded as if one team refuses vto pay his salary, another does!
I'd been surprised at the amount of local press this situation has gotten. Even led some headlines.
I think it may not be insignificant as far as Giedo's future prospects go that he actually won his case. That is to say, when the arguments were examined by more than one independent group of arbiters, they concluded that he was right.
Starting a big legal fight and then being judged to have been wrong all along would have been more damaging...
Why is Peter Sauber keeping this rolling nightmare, Monisha Kaltenborn, as team principal? Political correctness or is she writing a check to the team, kind of like a pay driver: Pay Team Principal? The biggest joke is that she had been mentioned as Bernie's replacement. The only worse choice for that that I can think of would be Tony George. I would say Bernie Madoff, but I guess he'll continue to be "on vacation" until he's worm's food.
A better question might be "how can he fire her when the team is third in the constructor's championship?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
However, I agree that as a lawyer, she had to see this coming. I can't imagine how she got herself into that position unless she was just so desperate for funding that she was willing to risk it.
Maybe the problem is less with the entrants and more with the system that makes the rich even richer and the poor even poorer. You will do a lot of crooked things when your survival is on the line.
Like Bernie never got into $100 million of legal trouble?Quote:
The biggest joke is that she had been mentioned as Bernie's replacement.
Or anyone who ran champcar onto the reef.Quote:
The only worse choice for that that I can think of would be Tony George.
At least Kaltenborn hasn't done what a nameless team boss who departed and came back used to do ie. blame everyone else in the team, state that he knew nothing about it and can't be expected to know every little thing that goes on at McLaren *(oops I mean in his team) and shrug it off as someone elses problem. It is her mess and at least she has stood up with it and answered 'Geidogate". I am not for an instant defending her actions in hiring 3 (or 4?) pay drivers for two seats, but as Doc said you take risks when your survival is at stake and maybe Geido's cash is the reason Sauber could develop a decent car and are now competitive, so maybe it was a risk worth taking? And if Sauber goes on to have a good season due to the extra money they had pre-season, maybe she will come out of this looking better than she does now.
Depending on her financial stake in the team, it should be rather easy: "You're fired." Sauber is using Ferrari engines. If he needs suggestions or ideas, Peter could call the HR dept. at Maranello and I'm sure they could explain to him how to do it. ;) A lucky (and temporary) 3rd place in the WCC means little when your team was this close to having its assets seized because of the actions of this slickster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Austin
From the description of the circumstances I heard, it sounds like she's running something akin to a racing Ponzi scheme over there.Quote:
However, I agree that as a lawyer, she had to see this coming. I can't imagine how she got herself into that position unless she was just so desperate for funding that she was willing to risk it.
True enough, the distribution of income in F1 is skewed. But many of us have faced hard times. And yet, we didn't use that as an excuse to go crooked. I accept that they need pay drivers. But you don't sell the same seat multiple times and then keep people's money. She's lucky she didn't wind up in steel bracelets for contempt.Quote:
Maybe the problem is less with the entrants and more with the system that makes the rich even richer and the poor even poorer. You will do a lot of crooked things when your survival is on the line.
Given his positive contributions to the sport over the decades, I'm willing to give the dwarf a pass every now & again. Kind of like if Satan helped an old lady across the street once or twice a year. Apart from her gender, I can think of no reason why Kaltenborn's name was ever mentioned for such a position.Quote:
Like Bernie never got into $100 million of legal trouble?
Jargon Joe Heitzler, Tony George or Monisha Kaltenborn... who would I LEAST want to run my racing team (or series)? Tough choice. Really tough choice!Quote:
Or anyone who ran champcar onto the reef.
I liked Tom Walkinshaw. But he was also a crook. So even though I liked what he did in racing (especially with Jaguars), I never denied that he was as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Kaltenborn appears to be a crook, and she hasn't accomplished anything of note in racing to balance it out, IMO. The sooner she's gone, the better.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118116
""There has been a lot of speculation in the media over the past week, so I want to set out clearly that my sponsors paid the sponsorship fee related to the 2015 season in its entirety to Sauber in the first half of 2014.
"This was simply in good faith and to help the team deal with its cash problems at the time. Effectively, it was my sponsor's advanced payments that helped the team survive in 2014.
"
It's very disappointing. As this unfolded I really didn't want to believe Sauber was wrong, but it appears they simply sold VDG's seat right out from under him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
If I have the numbers correct, VDG paid something like $8 million for the ride, and the settlement was something like $15 million. VDG is walking off with another $7 than he started with, so he could easily turn that into a season of Indycar. Then again, with that kind of money in hand it would be hard not to run down to Cosumel for a couple of years of hookers, Tequilla and blow.
While we are talking numbers, why would Sauber pay $15 million to settle an $8 million dispute? My guess is that they hosed the other two drivers down for more money, and that squeezed VDG out because he was cheapest to get rid of. Still, what kind of sense does it make to keep the money for a year and only have to pay it back nearly double? Maybe this kind of math is what got Sauber in such money trouble to begin with.
With this finally settled hopefully Sauber can have a decent year. If you set everything else aside, it is hard not to cheer for Nasr after the blistering race he had this weekend, and even Ericson looked reasonably decent. They could easily have a banner year and pull themselves back into decent shape.
Finally, formula One used to have a contracts recognition board that ruled on these sort of things. As far as I can tell, they still do, but through this whole thing there was never any mention of it. I wonder if this was such a stickey mess that the FIA just opted to stay out of it. Formula One needs to be above this sort of thing.
Word!
Don't get me wrong... I was very happy to see Nasr do so much better than I expected. He proved himself to be much sounder than I'd given him credit for.
And Doc, the numbers you saw are in the same range as the ones I've seen. I have no idea if the amount going to Giedo includes his legal fees, but she'll get stuck with those too, I'm sure... in addition to the fees for her own lawyers. If this was a financial move on her part, looks like she wound up paying about 100% interest for the use of his money. So while she had use of some needed money last year, she now has to pay it back times two this year. I doubt any Fortune 500 companies are going to put her on their short list for a CFO position.
I like Peter Sauber. I've liked him since his Sauber-Mercedes days at Le Mans. I just wish he'd take his team back from this charlatan before she totally ruins his reputation and the goodwill he's built up over the years.
It's funny you say that when in this whole saga I've been thinking it's like Sauber have prostituted their seats to the highest bidder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Austin
Adam Cooper mentions it in his article here http://adamcooperf1.com/2015/03/12/n...izure-of-cars/Quote:
Finally, formula One used to have a contracts recognition board that ruled on these sort of things. As far as I can tell, they still do, but through this whole thing there was never any mention of it.
Stranger things have happened. Though it doesn't make sense to most of us and obviously has to do with money, if the team wants to survive they have to do what they have to do. It could well be that buying out the contract VDG had was the only thing keeping them financially viable,
Life obviously got a lot tougher for the team after losing BMW money and really in the past one of the things the team had benefited from was solid drivers. With costs going crazy due to changes in regs being almost constant in recent years, I think they have done well to hold their own. If you look back in the Ferrari years before they went to BMW, the team wasn't performing much better than they are now in an era of some big teams (Lotus, Mercedes, McLaren, etc) struggling so much with development rules that some cars barely run at season start.
I hope the Nasr form continues, and can lift them to a solid season. The single year that Kimi drove for the team (along with quick Nick) was the best finnish the team had with Ferrari power. When you look at the BMW powered years, sure they did better, but among the drivers they could afford to pay for are now two WDCs, Heidfeld, and Kubica. Big money and talent brought them results.
Although I don't like all the drama over the VDG seat, it appears to have been settled out of the courts. I really don't quite understand why people view Kaltenborn as such an evil. This is Formula 1 and we've had teams give car plans to other teams, dictated spins for race fixing, blatant team orders when they were banned. espionage on a huge level, and protests on just about any change known to man. After all that has happened in recent years, I just fail to see Monisha as the pure evil in F1.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I reckon it is because most people here are with me when I say there isn't enough protection for employees of a company and most at one time or the other have probably wanted to take their employer to court. Here I guess they see an employee who did everything by the book and got fucked over by an employer. This is certainly the way I look at it and I would have had no problem with Sauber being made a sample of really. As for Monisha, they essentially committed to a contract took money and didn't hold up their end of the bargagain, so, to me, that is tantamount to fraud and I think she deserved to go to jail and VdG deserved to get his seat.But they ahve gotten away with it by the skin of their teeth from the looks of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
I´m glad that Marcus still got his drive, that my only take on this dreadful story. And, I Think he will score some Moore Points for Sauber!
Though I speak from experience only in the US, in most of the modern world if a person gets screwed by an employer it's only because they allowed it. Employee rights are plentiful in the modern western world, and if people don't roll over, it's fairly hard for a company to really shaft someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight
In this case, most likely VDG would have been a contractor legally which is another whole set of rules. I hold contracts on a number of people that work for the company I'm employed by, and they can be terminated at will legally. We make it policy to treat them more like regular employees, but in the state I live a regular employee can be terminated at any time without cause. That may give the former employee rights to collect unemployment, etc but it's still legal.
If people want a 100% guarantee of steady income and no chance of losing a job, they should work for themselves and find out why at times people have to be let go. If business was that easy nobody would want to work for someone else and share the profits of their work. If a person went to jail every time they didn't perform for their income, the world would need many more jail cells. Both employees and contractors screw people on a regular basis, so there has to be protection for both sides of the relationship.
And being that the entire settlement took place out of the courts, I'd hardly say anyone got off by the skin of their teeth, was facing jail time, etc. Without knowing the details of the contract, nobody can really pass judgement other than the courts who deal with such contract, and I haven't seen any assets being seized, or arrests being made.
As I understand it , both sides of this could have handled it better .
Giedo's side knew Sauber had named two other guys , and knew why , but chose to dig in , rather than look elsewhere , with , potentially , a buyout of the contract in his pocket .
And , one might imagine that they were likely informed that , to keep the seat , they could come up with an amount greater than either Nasr or Ericsson could provide .
It would , for sure , feel like a simple shake-down move to Van der Garde , and it's little wonder the episode ended in a payout , but , sadly , it won't make him look any more employable in the paddock .
Negotiations should have taken place a long time ago , or , at least in the background , like the Sutil case .
Giedo is talking a little much about it , I fear , as Sauber has mentioned that they have answers to many questions , but will keep them confidential , as was agreed .
That is likely a direct reference to Giedo speaking publicly earlier , which was apparently one reason they believed his contract may already have been voided by Giedo , himself .
It's never simple , and it's always expensive .
I'de be a little less likely to hire VDG knowing he has such a crack legal team. I would also be a little less likely to buy a drive from Sauber knowing they might show me the door and make me sue them to get my money back. Of course, as long as you conduct a good faith kind of business, you minimize the chances of this kind of thing happening.
VDG is probably right that his F1 career is probably over. There are enough buy drivers out there that teams don't have to risk taking on one that already as this kind of record of litigation. VDG is not helping himself by running his mouth all over social media and trashing Sauber............
Sauber baffled by van der Garde's accusations
Come on Giedo. You almost doubled your money and here is your chance to walk away in a dignified manner. By trashing Sauber now, you are not making yourself look like a good hire. Winning nearly double your money in the courts proved you were right, and it would look a lot better if you let that talk for you instead of trying to start media mudfight.
Do people really think Sauber, after demonstrating they are dis-honest and have no business ethics, will actually pay up the Million$ the court says Sauber now owe to Giedo?
Having a court say it has to be paid, doesn't automatically mean it will be paid.
It depends on the pair of balls possessed by the employee. It's all well and good saying "if they allow it" but if an employee's contract is terminated and they take their former employer to court, then future employers may be less inclined to hire them if they see that this guy is willing to sue them should things to amiss somehow. So really it's an employers world. It's like VdG. Who in F1 is going to employ him now? It may be that someone will but I find it highly unlikely. The same goes for a regular employee.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
So while, yes, if you are being screwed you have plenty of protection, it doesn't protect you against future employer's judgement on whether they want to employ you. This is why employers have the high ground because very few employees will challenge them as to do so could potentially jeopardize future opportunities.
It would be a good way to stay out of jail and keep their equipment from being seized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nem14
The courts can't bleed a turnip, but they can lay down serious alternatives. In Australia those alternatives were serious enough to get Sauber to negotiate with VDG and find a solution. Now, negotiating time is over and it's pay up time. If that fails it will be consequence time.Quote:
Having a court say it has to be paid, doesn't automatically mean it will be paid.
How far does the reach of the Australian court extend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Austin
Australia, is my guess. ..... the same Australia they go to next year for the Australian Grand Prix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nem14
equipment may be safe until next yearQuote:
Originally Posted by Doc Austin
but Monisha Kaltenborn that is another story
Extradition law in Australia is the formal process by which a fugitive found outside a jurisdiction is surrendered to the jurisdiction where an alleged offence has taken place for trial or punishment, under Australian law. This may include a process done within the country or one between Australia and another country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradi...w_in_Australia
Well... If they don't pay, depends how far are you prepared to go in seeking justice. For example Sauber's assets can be confiscated if they disobey the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nem14
Fortunately, they settled it, so seizing cars or arresting people isn't going to happen unless Sauber doesn't pay up. They would be crazy to drag this out any longer. The negative press and reactions have already been way too bad. Sauber really need to put this away.
I doubt that really matters much. Few outside the ranks of F1 enthusiasts will have the slightest idea of what's gone on. van der Garde has been treated extremely shabbily, but will it damage the team? I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Austin
I think some people are too wrapped up in the drama created over the entire thing. They want raids, seizing of equipment, and to burn Monisha at the stake!Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Being more of a classical traditionalist, I was more in favor of throwing her from the Tarpeian Rock. But if there's a stake and a can of gasoline nearby, I'm OK with that too. I'm not that picky.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/2679...d-almost-done/
"Lawyers for the Dutch driver and his former team Sauber asked the Supreme Court of Victoria to suspend an order it made allowing Mr van der Garde to race with the team for the rest of the F1 season."