I don't know if it is or if it isn't, or it has more veracity than other sources we are aware of, so I feel I have to look at it with the same weight as other "news reporting".FittingMechanics wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:43 pmIt looks to me as purely speculative comment from Otmar.mwillems wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:34 pmIt seems the "if" is not about the fact the CRB is saying that his license is only valid at Alpine (According to Otmar), so this seems to be favourable to Alpine if the CRB have said that he might have a contract elsewhere but he can only drive for Alpine in 2023. It means he has to come back to Alpine (He won't) or Mclaren will have to pay them off. That doesn't mean it is the outcome that Alpine wants, but it is certainly not the "Cleared to race for Mclaren" reporting we had heard.
It seems to be up in the air in terms of what the outcome will be and I suspect some important details are yet to be revealed.
He said they have no way to force him even if CRB rules in their favor. Which is technically true as no one can force a drive to sit in a car or drive fast. So he says that if that happens (CRB rules in their favor and Piastri does not want to drive), they have to go to civil court and sue for damages. So Otmar says that they will probably go to court.
I don't think that comment means CRB ruled in Alpine favor in any way. Maybe they will, but I doubt it. Otmar is giving us an excuse why they want to go to court.
But if the license is with Alpine then simply suing Piastri for Breach of contract won't allow him to drive the Mclaren next year, it means that Mclaren would possibly have to pay for that transfer.
This is quite different to how it has been reported in the past and there is nothing to suggest he is wrong at this point. In fact the reporting in general seems to agree that the CRB did say that both contracts are correct.
Very few people really know what the devil is happening here, I'm just really surprised at this turn of events as the odd little twists do not stop coming.