Sauber F1 Team 2015

[Manoah2u]

I think it is wrong for a court to force a team to accept a driver it does not want. drivers should be treated as any other athlete, which include losing your seat/position as long as ample restitution is payed.

this.

nobody was of opinion Sauber acted in a uncivilized manner to put it mildly against GvdG. this entire issue, though.....is of a whole new level.

curious to hear what will follow.

No way Guido will actually sit in the car. He can say what he want, that won't happen. Thus, it will be money compensation in the end either way.

I'll admit tho, i did not expect the 'verdict' to be ruled in favor of GvdG. still, Sauber is in place to appeal iirc. so, this isn't over yet by far.

[kooleracer]

Giedo Van der Garde doesn't need money! His father in law who has financed his whole career is worth 1.3 billion Euros. People need to stop thinking that his is in this for the money. If Van der Garde doesn't race, I can assure you that Sauber isn't racing either. Marcel Boekhoorn his father in law is a no BS kind a guy.

Marcus Ericsson and Nasr have both paid millions upfront so the exclude one of them from the line-up will be really hard. With the precedent set by the Australian court its likely that other judges in other countries will follow the ruling.

[Manoah2u]

Giedo Van der Garde doesn't need money! His father in law who has financed his whole career is worth 1.3 billion Euros. People need to stop thinking that his is in this for the money. If Van der Garde doesn't race, I can assure you that Sauber isn't racing either. Marcel Boekhoorn his father in law is a no BS kind a guy.

get your facts straight. Van der Garde's business is in dozens of million dollar debt.

[bdr529]

how about some reports of this case ruling, and sauber's reactions to this

A statement on the court's Twitter page revealed the verdict and said the full judgement would be posted in due course.

[Per]

I said that I think it is wrong for a court to force a team to accept a driver it does not want. I also said that drivers should be treated as any other athlete, which include losing your seat/position as long as ample restitution is payed.

Well, naturally. The fact that this has gone to court though, tells me that the restitution has not been paid and Sauber just shoved GvdG to the side, perhaps hoping that he wouldn't want to take them to court in fear of harming his own reputation. Too bad for them he did have the balls and now Adrian Sutil is following his example...

As said above, this is probably still about establishing principles so van der Garde secures his compensation. Rightly so, drivers are not cattle and if Sauber really broke contracts without paying the relevant compensations, it is even cheating. Wonder what the FIA would make of that if this turns out to be the case and they stick their nose in.

@Manoah2u: both of you are correct of course. Marcel Boekhoorn has admitted in the past that he was supporting GvdG for the happiness of his daughter, so him being a billionaire is a relevant element. GvdG's business has a debt of more than 20 million euros but I think that's more of an administrative matter - all of these expenses were planned well in advance (especially since the numbers which are publicly known are referring to 2013). Nonetheless, being a billionaire doesn't mean you'll just gladly part with a couple million because some F1 teams tries to screw you (which seems to be the case, although we haven't seen the final part of this story yet).

[kooleracer]

Giedo Van der Garde doesn't need money! His father in law who has financed his whole career is worth 1.3 billion Euros. People need to stop thinking that his is in this for the money. If Van der Garde doesn't race, I can assure you that Sauber isn't racing either. Marcel Boekhoorn his father in law is a no BS kind a guy.

get your facts straight. Van der Garde's business is in dozens of million dollar debt.

Thats for tax purposes, those aren't Van der Garde real business. Its just a BV that pays his F1 career. He has nothing to do with that. Like i said his sugar daddy is his father in law and his is worth 1.3 billion and has funded his whole career through that BV (LLC in the US).

[PhantomPoster]

How many dogs, cats, wives or cars Mr. Van de Garde owns is totally irrelevant. Sauber is resonsible for its employees not Giedo van de Garde because he is also an employee like the other 300 you just mentioned. Why are the jobs of the mechanics more important then the job of a F1 driver. If you are so emotional about the employees, why does Van de Garde doesn't get your support. Talking about double standards.

Because VdG can afford to live without a job. You just said he doesn't need the money. The employees most likely can't. They might have to sell houses and remove children from school. It's not double standards, it's just not being ignorant and realizing F1 is more than the drivers.

[Richard]

I'll admit tho, i did not expect the 'verdict' to be ruled in favor of GvdG. still, Sauber is in place to appeal iirc. so, this isn't over yet by far.

I expected it. The court was assessing if VDG had a valid contract or not, I think most people thought he did have a contract.

The next step is if he can get an injunction to stop Sauber racing without him. That's were the court might exercise pragmatism and agree the relationship is irrevocably broken down.

[kooleracer]

How many dogs, cats, wives or cars Mr. Van de Garde owns is totally irrelevant. Sauber is resonsible for its employees not Giedo van de Garde because he is also an employee like the other 300 you just mentioned. Why are the jobs of the mechanics more important then the job of a F1 driver. If you are so emotional about the employees, why does Van de Garde doesn't get your support. Talking about double standards.

Because VdG can afford to live without a job. You just said he doesn't need the money. The employees most likely can't. They might have to sell houses and remove children from school. It's not double standards, it's just not being ignorant and realizing F1 is more than the drivers.

So because VdG is "well" off he doesn't deserve to be treated right? That is your argument? You do understand that our whole society is based on contracts right? Without a contract life like you enjoy wouldn't exist. I'm also the part off 99% of the population that hasn't got a glamorous life, but even I can understand that someone's personal wealth shouldn't interfere with justice. Those employees are screwed by Sauber if it comes that far and not by VdG. They have made a mess off it and not him.

I would love to hear your comment. If your boss decides to cut in favor off cheaper labor when you have contract on 6 weeks notice and decides not pay any retribution whatsoever. I'm sure you would be calling you lawyer too!

[Richard]

Because VdG can afford to live without a job. You just said he doesn't need the money. The employees most likely can't. They might have to sell houses and remove children from school. It's not double standards, it's just not being ignorant and realizing F1 is more than the drivers.

Yup, life's tough. Sometimes firms mess up their contracts and have to lay off staff. The fault lies firmly with the company that messed up it's contractual negotiations.

By the way, leave the personal stuff out of this please. Saying VDG is a rich kid is just another form of fanboy ying yang that we could do without.

[bill shoe]

Some econ perspective here. I'll use example figures, but I believe they're in the ballpark for accuracy in the GVDG/Sauber case.

Sauber and GVDG arrived at a mutual signed agreement in June 2014. GVDG agreed to purchase 2015 seat time in an F1 car at the then-current rate of $15 million per season. Both parties understood that the market-clearing price could subsequently go up or down, but that was an intrinsic uncertainty that they both accepted when they signed the agreement at a fixed price.

Later in 2014, the back of the grid collapsed. This reduced the supply of purchased seats in F1. Therefore the market-clearing price rose to around $25 million per season. At this point GVDG had a locked contractual agreement that gave him $10 million in surplus value beyond any original value he expected out of the agreement.

Sauber looked wistfully at the later offers and decided to accept two of them at $25 million each. Simple violation of contracts, rule-of-law, whatever. True that a judge would be unlikely to force Sauber into taking GVDG as driver. Question is, what is GVDG owed by Sauber for violating the contract?

First, he is owed the surplus value of his original contract at the time of signing (June 2014). The status, prestige, and fun of being an F1 driver for a season must have been worth more than $15 million or GVDG would not have signed at that price in the first place. Difficult to value the original surplus but it was obviously not zero.

Second, he is owed the additional surplus value that he achieved when the market-clearing price rose by $10 million. This is simply an additional $10 million.

Third, he is logically owed some amount of punitive damages from Sauber due to them baldly violating the agreement. This might range from $1 to $30 million depending on your perspective, mood, etc.

I hereby scratch my chin and decide that these three categories easily total $20 million. Yet Sauber broke the GVDG agreement for a gain of $10 million. So Sauber either got it wrong, or GVDG will never recover much of what he is owed.

I think if GVDG gets less than $20 million then it's pretty straightforward to say he came out a loser due to Sauber's shenanigans. If Sauber has to pay more than $10 million then Sauber came out a loser due to their own shenanigans. This does leave a range where they can both come out losers (if GVDG recovers between $10-20 million).

I hereby scratch my chin a second time and predict that Sauber will probably never pay GVDG anywhere close to $10 million, so even though it's frustrating from a rule-of-law perspective, Sauber and Kaltenborn seem to have got their sums right. But it's only a prediction. Tomorrow's ruling is the first in many installments in this soap opera. Enjoy.

[kooleracer]

"We are disappointed with this decision and now need to take time to understand what it means and the impact it will have on the start of our season," team boss Monisha Kaltenborn said. "What we cannot do is jeopardise the safety of our team, or any other driver on the track, by having an unprepared driver in a car that has now been tailored to two other assigned drivers."
Read more at http://en.espnf1.com/sauber/motorsport/ ... Ev52G3U.99

Kaltenborn still keeping up the bogus argument about safety. The guy raced for Caterham 2 years ago for Christ sake. And the guy did the in-season test for Sauber on the 9th of July of 2014. How the hell is he not ready to drive? If Roy Nissany and Aderely Fong can drive a Sauber i'm pretty sure that VdG will be oke.....

[Manoah2u]

How many dogs, cats, wives or cars Mr. Van de Garde owns is totally irrelevant. Sauber is resonsible for its employees not Giedo van de Garde because he is also an employee like the other 300 you just mentioned. Why are the jobs of the mechanics more important then the job of a F1 driver. If you are so emotional about the employees, why does Van de Garde doesn't get your support. Talking about double standards.

Because VdG can afford to live without a job. You just said he doesn't need the money. The employees most likely can't. They might have to sell houses and remove children from school. It's not double standards, it's just not being ignorant and realizing F1 is more than the drivers.

So because VdG is "well" off he doesn't deserve to be treated right? That is your argument? You do understand that our whole society is based on contracts right? Without a contract life like you enjoy wouldn't exist. I'm also the part off 99% of the population that hasn't got a glamorous life, but even I can understand that someone's personal wealth shouldn't interfere with justice. Those employees are screwed by Sauber if it comes that far and not by VdG. They have made a mess off it and not him.

I would love to hear your comment. If your boss decides to cut in favor off cheaper labor when you have contract on 6 weeks notice and decides not pay any retribution whatsoever. I'm sure you would be calling you lawyer too!

would it be reasonable to get the law executioners to close/lock down Sauber @ melbourne if they don't grant him a seat?
that would definately end any of sauber's prospects and indeed then would have significant consequences for the struggling team members. One can care less about team leadership/ownership. The actual 'working force' in the team is a whole different story. Finding a solution for compensation versus barricading the doors because you have an issue with somebody are 2 different issues.

I do wonder FIA's and Bernie's response to this all, and to whom they are going to point their arrows. Knowing bernie, i'm expecting him to point poison dart arrows at Guido. I seem to recall there's some rule against 'damaging' or harming f1's 'name' or reputation. Then again, bernie has such odd moves he could keep completely out of this issue.

[Richard]

Kaltenborn still keeping up the bogus argument about safety...

Negotiators throw out chaff all the time to distract and use up the opponents energy. Look for the reason behind why she might say that. I suspect Sauber are prevaricating so they can get to FP1 and say "oops we don't have a seat, we'll make one and it'll arrive on ... Monday".

@bill - Great explanation, thanks.

[bill shoe]

OK, ruling is already here. Now it gets interesting. The Australian court has simply printed a piece of paper that says "GVDG should drive for Sauber". That by itself is useful to wipe your butt with and nothing more.

Will the Australian court choose to enforce it? Do they have any functional authority to enforce their decisions within the paddock of an F1 race? Will Bernie chose to let Australian court officers into the paddock? Will the court officers actually stand in front of the Sauber garage door and block the cars? These are the relevant questions.