Chaparral wrote:Rob Im just getting clarification on the deal structure as I was given from the journo so bear with me - will post when he replies which could be a few days if hes willing to have me publish it.
Cool. Please do. I'd like to know. Although I'm not really sure a journalist could tell use anything surprising which any number of people working in F1 (like my friends) could. Respect to your friend but I rarely hear anything from journalists in F1 which isn't primarily about getting attention for their articles and with accuracy and fact verification resigned to a distant second in priority.
Chaparral wrote:Having worked for a Japanese company for a period yes they do have to comply with strict redundancy policy.....
...a fair whack of the redundancy would have been paid to Button ($25 mil pa)...- does that make sense
OK.. I hear you on Japanese companies. For that reason alone there is zero chance they operated as one. Since most
of the employees were based in Brackley in the UK we know they didn't.
Re: Button being entitled to a 25 mill redundancy etc. Sorry but on this point you're making stuff up. Drivers are not
employees nor are many of the key staff in all teams. They are contractors and like contractors in all walks of life they are entitled to basically nothing if a company closes up shop (other than what is due).
If a team folds, it folds. They can walk and not pay anyone anything if they like - same as any other company in the world. As Richard_Leeds correctly pointed out in the above post, F1 teams are arranged as separate entities, 'fire-walled' from the parent company (Even McLaren and Ferrari's team are) as anyone who'd done first year commercial law would advise for a multitude of reasons - one of which is mitigating potential liabilities of the parent company.
Also as Richard_Leeds mentioned 'sell on'
clauses are commonplace in the sporting world. This would absolutely be the case when you're talking about one of the most long-term globally successful companies in the world. Since it is absolutely standard practice I'd say in absence of evidence otherwise we should assume it to be the case. I've yet to see a single piece of evidence or even a quote from someone involved which makes me think Honda walked and also offered a free lifeline of money while apparently expecting nothing.