Giedo Van Der Garde takes Sauber to court

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The press release above shows that they have employed a PR firm to project him as the good guy throughout this saga. Two things jumped out at me that should not have been included, one because it is subjective and the other because it is not true; they both come from one paragraph:



I have no personal opinion on his race driving abilities; I leave that to others to debate, because I have not watched his career.

However, his claim that he put an end to the court proceedings because of the potential danger to the team, the other drivers, to F1 and finally the directors, is pure fanatasy. It was the judge that told both sides to negotiate outside of court, but the message he sent was directed most at vdG. It was him, and his legal advisers, that were quoted on camera outside of court, prior to the judge telling them to go away and talk, that were actually going to ask the judge to jail MK and possibly others for contempt of court.

He says that he is walking away from F1; I think that it is F1 that is shunning him and his backers.

From all accounts and conclusions that can possibly be drawn from this mess, I think it is vdG that has been shabbily treated here, and the mess and misuse was by Sauber, 7 court decisions in his favour would seem to indicate in his favour!

I think he was very keen to drive F1, and had paid at least $8M to do so, so it would seem obvious that he would want his money back!
If he had not taken Sauber through the courts I really doubt he would have got his money back.

Another small point is that Sauber would have had to agree to the original mediation for it to have been held in the first place.

I can see no way that Sauber weren't entirely to blame in what transpired over the weekend.

I think that Sauber thought they could run all over vdG and his sponsors, and they seriously miscalculated what they were up against!

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by wnut

From all accounts and conclusions that can possibly be drawn from this mess, I think it is vdG that has been shabbily treated here, and the mess and misuse was by Sauber, 7 court decisions in his favour would seem to indicate in his favour!

I think he was very keen to drive F1, and had paid at least $8M to do so, so it would seem obvious that he would want his money back!
If he had not taken Sauber through the courts I really doubt he would have got his money back.

Another small point is that Sauber would have had to agree to the original mediation for it to have been held in the first place.

I can see no way that Sauber weren't entirely to blame in what transpired over the weekend.

I think that Sauber thought they could run all over vdG and his sponsors, and they seriously miscalculated what they were up against!

Agree 100%. I thought the last paragraph of the press release the most telling; there's shady maneouvering and then there's trying to con $8 million openly. The team have behaved quite disgracefully and have brought F1 (I hesitate to call it a sport) into disrepute. However I also think the FIA, the CRB and Bernie could all have done more to avert the situation.

[steve nielsen]

Originally Posted by bella

i'd laugh at anyone in wec and elsewhere that touched him after this, particularly if kolles found him some room. bit late to be taking the moral highground!

Kolles already has 3 drivers: Luizzi,Trummer and Kaffer

[knighty]

I think its only a matter of time before VDG gets a seat at Manor, as they are saying Mehri has no funds and is driving for free......whereby VDG is a lightly experienced F1 race and test driver, with 8 million Euro burning a hole in his pocket......both aspects are highly attractive to Manor in their current state.......seems a no-brainer to me

[steve nielsen]

Originally Posted by knighty

I think its only a matter of time before VDG gets a seat at Manor, as they are saying Mehri has no funds and is driving for free......whereby VDG is a lightly experienced F1 race and test driver, with 8 million Euro burning a hole in his pocket......both aspects are highly attractive to Manor in their current state.......seems a no-brainer to me

he already said he is done with F1

[knighty]

I just read his statement and he mentions WEC and DTM, but he does not specifically rule out F1......also it seems he has 15 million Euro......I can Imagine Jon Booth from Manor is hammering VDG's phone......just in case he could be tempted back

[steve nielsen]

Originally Posted by knighty

I just read his statement and he mentions WEC and DTM, but he does not specifically rule out F1......also it seems he has 15 million Euro......I can Imagine Jon Booth from Manor is hammering VDG's phone......just in case he could be tempted back

he does rule out F1

http://www.gpupdate.net/nl/f1-nieuws...droom-is-over/

translated that says "F1 dream is over" and Giedo says he realises his F1 career has ended.

the same can be read in several Dutch newspapers

http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1020/Formule-...-is-over.dhtml

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

From all accounts and conclusions that can possibly be drawn from this mess, I think it is vdG that has been shabbily treated here, and the mess and misuse was by Sauber, 7 court decisions in his favour would seem to indicate in his favour!

I think he was very keen to drive F1, and had paid at least $8M to do so, so it would seem obvious that he would want his money back!
If he had not taken Sauber through the courts I really doubt he would have got his money back.

Another small point is that Sauber would have had to agree to the original mediation for it to have been held in the first place.

I can see no way that Sauber weren't entirely to blame in what transpired over the weekend.

I think that Sauber thought they could run all over vdG and his sponsors, and they seriously miscalculated what they were up against!

You may well be right, but equally you may not be. As I said earlier, Sauber have maintained a dignified silence, and have not use megaphone diplomacy to make their point. In fact, none of us on this forum will be aware of what transpired between the two parties last year, what arrangements were put in place or what offers or counter-offers were made. And, because Sauber have not issued any information on the legal dispute between the two parties, you and others are relying solely on GvdG's version of events, whether they are correct or not.

According to reports in the media, the first legal manoeuvre took place last year in a court in London. As I wrote previously, we don't know whether that action was arranged ex-parte, meaning only one side was present. Judges sitting in English courts often hear cases ex-parte and in chambers, which means that not only are the other side possibly unaware that the case is being heard, but also that the hearing is not being held in public. This may or may not be the case here, but if it was, then it may be likely that any legal action that followed would take it's lead from the initial hearing. As for the action in the Swiss court, again, we do not know what happened or if indeed both sides were involved.

Might I suggest that before we all start vilifying Sauber and holding up vdG as a martyr, or vice versa, that we wait till we hear from both sides, and then we can form our own opinions.

[JABWOA]

Piquet Jr hasn't done poorly since his flaming exit from F1 - VDG will bounce back too, somewhere else.

[chillibowl]

So the settlement was for almost double what GvdG gave them in the first place?

Of course we may never know what happened but from the size of the settlement wouldn't it be fair to infer that Sauber were clearly in the wrong and that their silence was probably just following legal advice to not risk purjuring or defaming GvdG in public?

But in the end still a storm well weathered by Sauber. They achived one of their best professional results this past weekend and have a new sponsor in Singapore Airlines.

[Hawkwood]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

You may well be right, but equally you may not be. As I said earlier, Sauber have maintained a dignified silence, and have not use megaphone diplomacy to make their point. In fact, none of us on this forum will be aware of what transpired between the two parties last year, what arrangements were put in place or what offers or counter-offers were made. And, because Sauber have not issued any information on the legal dispute between the two parties, you and others are relying solely on GvdG's version of events, whether they are correct or not.

When caught out trying to screw someone over it is often best not to run your mouth.

We're not "relying solely on GvdG's version of events", we're relying on the outcomes of court cases.
Even if you don't want to take what VDG said as truth, various courts decided his contract was valid.
That is it.
That is all that was going on.
Sauber signed a contract.
And while they were trying to ignore that contract they got caught out.

I'm not sure why you think there is more going on?
If Sauber had anything to refute the contract they signed they would have presented it.
The fact that the contract stood as valid means that Sauber had nothing to show, which in turn means that they were in the wrong.
A lot of the time, it really is as simple as that.

[Michael24]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

You may well be right, but equally you may not be. As I said earlier, Sauber have maintained a dignified silence, and have not use megaphone diplomacy to make their point. In fact, none of us on this forum will be aware of what transpired between the two parties last year, what arrangements were put in place or what offers or counter-offers were made. And, because Sauber have not issued any information on the legal dispute between the two parties, you and others are relying solely on GvdG's version of events, whether they are correct or not.

According to reports in the media, the first legal manoeuvre took place last year in a court in London. As I wrote previously, we don't know whether that action was arranged ex-parte, meaning only one side was present. Judges sitting in English courts often hear cases ex-parte and in chambers, which means that not only are the other side possibly unaware that the case is being heard, but also that the hearing is not being held in public. This may or may not be the case here, but if it was, then it may be likely that any legal action that followed would take it's lead from the initial hearing. As for the action in the Swiss court, again, we do not know what happened or if indeed both sides were involved.

Might I suggest that before we all start vilifying Sauber and holding up vdG as a martyr, or vice versa, that we wait till we hear from both sides, and then we can form our own opinions.

Dignified silence? From what I understand and believe is backed up by the outcome, is that an aspiring driver with a budget, was told: pay now and the drive is yours.

Then they locked him out.

Did he then grab the bullhorn? No. GvdG quietly went through all the appropriate channels. First the team: no response. Then the courts in Switzerland and the United Kingdom. They sided with him. Not with Sauber. Did he trumpet his victory? No, he stayed quiet and kept pushing Sauber to uphold their part of the bargain, with a court order to do so, in hand.

Sauber did NOTHING! (I could cynically refer to this as a dignified silence)

When everything else failed and he had no other options or avenues to get back what was rightfully his. He then took up that final court case in Australia: give me the drive you owe me! Now!

Sauber again played the 'dignified silence' card. Guess they had no other choice, since the only excuse for ignoring earlier court verdicts, was generally dismissed by all as a load of crap.

Did GvdG then seek publicity? No, he again kept quiet. All journalistic noise was based on court statements and rumours.

Now he has responded and if this is a cynical marketing move, it was well written and felt quite emotional in content.

I will say it outright: whether you like GvdG or not, you don't take people's money without delivering what you owe them. It is called theft! Sauber were caught red-handed, stood in the dock and the best they could do, was: he won't fit in the car.

The mere fact that what is generally well hidden (the compensation), is now out in the open pretty much proves to me, they are so guilty, they couldn't even get a confidentiality clause in.

I don't want to offend anyone and I love a good debate. Especially when it concerns motorsport. If the above is passionate, you're reading it as I intended it (pretty much how I read GvdG's statement). It is not intended as a personal attack.

[2GRX7]

^^THIS^^! Couldn't have said it any better.

At first, I'll admit, I thought it was a "sour grapes" thing going on, but when you hear employees talking about wanting to punch him if he came back, I thought that was messed up, ESPECIALLY considering that his sponsors basically cropped up Sauber for the 2014 season!

I am curious to see how this will affect future contracts with "pay drivers". Will this cause hesitation in the contracting of pay drivers, longer stays for the pay drivers, or the decline of the pay driver due to fear? I can only imagine the crap that occurs at the mid-field, and back-field teams with these guys. UGLY!

[Mike Harte]

To answer Hawkwood and Michael 24, who basically raise the same points. I am not defending Sauber, but at the same time I cannot say with any justification that GvdG has right on his side either.

The only factual facts that have emerged since this fiasco caused all the headlines was that the case started in London, went to Switzerland, and eventually ended up in a court in Melbourne. What we don't know is what transpired prior to the hearing in London, nor has a transcript of that hearing been made public. Following that, we do not know what transpired before the case was heard in Switzerland, and again we do not have a transcript of that hearing.

Now, the results of these two hearings was that Sauber should honour the contract that the courts had seen. It is as though an injunction had been issued, which basically stops an action about to happen, and is usually put in place until a full hearing to determine the facts can be conducted at a later date. What we don't know, because neither we nor the media have seen the transcripts of the hearings, was whether Dauber was even at the hearings or if they were, were they able to put forward a defence.

Before this all hit the fan, things had been happening in the background, but because of confidentiality elements surrounding the dispute, silence had been maintained by Sauber. It then appears that GvdG broke those confidentiality elements, which led Sauber to terminate their contract with vdG, and he then announced to the world that he was taking his case to a court in Australia. Having been appraised of the fact that Sauber had been instructed to honour the contract by a foreign court, the court in Melbourne ordered that the orders of the previous courts should be upheld. What they did not do was to examine the rights or wrongs of either parties position.

My reading of the final hearing, held after the Appeal Court had returned the case to the original judge in Melbourne, was that the judge had possibly read some of the underlying issues behind the cases heard in Europe, and so it was that he "knocked their heads together" and to resolve the matter outside of the court. My feeling is that that is what Sauber had been trying to do, but vdG's camp may have had some ulterior motives in pushing this through the courts so that it might gain maximum publicity, and possibly do Sauber some financial harm which might have been to their advantage - I doubt that we will not really know about that for some considerable time.

Based purely on the one fact that Sauber have released to the public, that they terminated his contract at the beginning February because he had breached his contract by breaking the confidentiality clause in the contract, this backs up my assertion that Sauber have maintained a dignified silence throughout as required by a binding contract that they were a signatory to. It would seem as though the other signatory to that contract was unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of the contract.

[GTRMagic]

From a paydriver's perspective, the contract should be easy. Make sure a small up front payment is made as a show of goodwill, and that future payments happen every second month, by which time the team may be so hungry for the dollars that they may even accept a discount....

Its been done before...

[steve_r]

I'm not sure "dignified" is a term to use about Saubers behaviour. Their very weak argument about not being able to fit him a seat in Australia and about him being a danger because of a lack of preseason testing really makes me side with VDG. You can't hang a court case defence on that.

I also wonder what is happening with contracted driver no. 4 Sutil. Is this just round 1?

[SWCRacing]

I'm sorry, but have you actually read the appeal court judgement? One very interesting part of it is noted below. It is from the section "Resolution"


12

The trial judge dealt with these matters, re-agitated again before us, at

Reasons [7] and [20]–[22]. When one reads the Award, particularly at [331]–[338],
the trial judge’s conclusion that all concerned are well aware of the nature of the

dispute and its resolution is well founded.


From this, its quite clear that the Australian court had access to the Award granted by the Swiss court. And as noted by the Appeal Court Judgment, the judge in the initial hearing stated that "All concerned are well aware of the nature of the dispute and it's resolution is well founded"

Sauber tried to screw over GVdG, got caught, and are now seen as a bunch of shysters by a great many people....

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I also wonder what is happening with contacted driver no. 4 Sutil. Is this just round 1?

I suspect he may not have paid up front for 2015 like GvdG and is therfore not in the same position. He may had a contract but is not out of pocket so the situation might not be the same.

[GTRMagic]

Sauber Are Not Amused..

..but have apparently moved on..

[SWCRacing]

A little bit too late to try and grab the "moral high ground"....

[maximus]

Are Sauber for real!? Whoever wrote that statement and whoever approved it is a muppet of the highest order.

[knighty]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

he does rule out F1

http://www.gpupdate.net/nl/f1-nieuws...droom-is-over/

translated that says "F1 dream is over" and Giedo says he realises his F1 career has ended.

the same can be read in several Dutch newspapers

http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1020/Formule-...-is-over.dhtml

You seem to be quoting statements from the motoring press......in VDG's actual personal statement he does not specifically rule out a return to F1, he actually says "This dream has been taken away from me and I know that my future in Formula One is probably over".........the key word being "probably" which could mean anything could happen.....at the end of the day, money talks, and 15 million will create flies around a turd situation.......plus if McGregor (his main sponsor) want significant brand exposure on a worldwide platform they will not get it in the DTM or in the WEC, it seems without mcGregor he dosent race, so I think they will have the final call.......will be interesting to see where he does end up.

[bella]

is mcgregor not where his father in laws money comes from? and all his sponsorship comes from his father in law one way or another now...

[chillibowl]

that raises an interesting question:

will GvdG pay his sponsors back, will his father in law take the money back or does GvdG keep the money as a personal settlement? and even if he gives it back he still has an extra 7mil to keep or to give to another team.

[steve nielsen]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

that raises an interesting question:

will GvdG pay his sponsors back, will his father in law take the money back or does GvdG keep the money as a personal settlement? and even if he gives it back he still has an extra 7mil to keep or to give to another team.

they did'nt pay 8 million, they payed 13 million

http://www.dpa-international.com/new...-44309188.html

they payed 8 million in 2013 for a Caterham seat, a Sauber seat costs more