Contracts - should they be unbreakable?

[Super Tourer]

In the off-season, contracts are busy being penned, but all too often they end up being worthless as the lure of the cheque book seems to penetrate so called 'watertight' contracts.

I thought we could canvass opinion on contracts. The arguments for and against seem to to run thus.

For breaking contracts.

Commercial reality, anything can be bought, if a team wants to throw enough money at a contract to break it - more fool them. Creates a false supply and demand position, which some teams/drivers can profit from.


Benefits - enables a driver who has made a poor career choice to get out of his contract and obtain a better drive, rather than waste 3 years sat in a poor car.

Increases value of key personnel like designers, who can simply sit and wait for the best offer - despite being under contract. Good revenue stream for small teams who have good team personnel/drivers under contract, which they can profit from by selling contracts.



Against breaking contracts

A contract is a contract and teams/drivers should live by their decisions, 9right or wrong) and not be able to throw money at lawyers, to get what prove to be poor decisions reversed.

The benefits - more security for drivers who are bound by a contract, more stablity for teams as key personel are not poached mid contract which detracts from their performance and increases the skill base of their competitor. Discourages short termism, which is arguably too much of a factor in F1.

[Sodemo]

I know it does seem like in todays F1 contracts mean nothing.
Quite reguarly an F1 team/manufacturer denys a story about a driver only for it to be confirmed as true 2 months later for example JV's leaving BAR.
Contracts now mean nothing.

[ASCII Man]

You mean like.. Bruce Willis 'unbreakable'?

[climb]

Breaking contracts is not that pity if the two counterparts find an agreement on that, whatever the conditions necessary to get it.

[MrBluesman1]

Originally posted by climb
Breaking contracts is not that pity if the two counterparts find an agreement on that, whatever the conditions necessary to get it.

I agree with you climb, as long as both parties agree to it what does it matter.

[DriverT]

I think most contracts have a buy-out clause anyway, so according to the usual meaning of a contract, most contracts are nothing more than paper.

[RWC]

Engineers contracts should be ironclad.If an engineer is contracted to team a for one and a half more seasons and wants to change teams-he can't take several months leave (paid!!!) and then take off as now happens.
Idealy he would NOT be allowed to work for another f1 team untill his contract is up.If he doesn't want to work he gets no pay.dead simple.



Driver contracts should have a buy out clause (and as driverT says,they probably all do now).It gets the great drivers into deserved cars faster.
It's nowhere near ideal though-if f1 was completely fair they would all be rotating drivers between teams from race to race.Drivers would have to prove themselves in all manner of cars,we'd get to see what drivers capabilities and fighting spirit are REALLY like and the big teams would have no money advantage in picking drivers.

Mind you,i'm not saying it's possible for f1 to do this,basically all the descision makers presently in f1 have to go(and there are tons of other changes to make too.)

[Nurburgring]

Originally posted by RWC
Driver contracts should have a buy out clause (and as driverT says,they probably all do now).It gets the great drivers into deserved cars faster.

It also gets great drivers out of bad situations faster too. If someone truely does not fit in to a team/situation then I see no reason why they should be forced to stay in that team/situation.

This is especially true where a driver is treated a dispensible or as second rate/string to another. Rubens may well be willing to put up with Michael being the lead driver at Ferrari but he gets a Ferrari as compensation for that. But should a driver be expected to put up with the same in a team that is no where near the standard???

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Nurburgring
It also gets great drivers out of bad situations faster too. If someone truely does not fit in to a team/situation then I see no reason why they should be forced to stay in that team/situation.

That of course works the other way too. If a driver is not doing the job, the team usually has a performance clause which means they can get rid of the under performing driver.

Contracts in F1 don't seem to be worth the paper they are written on, but that seems to suit most people involved.

[Nurburgring]

Originally posted by Mr V
Contracts in F1 don't seem to be worth the paper they are written on, but that seems to suit most people involved.

Neither are technical rules and regualtions in some categories, which seems to suit a few governing bodies just fine also (but that's another topic altogether).

There always seems to be room for grey area in everything these days, but so long as no party becomes the loser in a contractual break-up then I see no problems with it.

[Super Tourer]

Welcome to ten-tenths Nurburgring !

[NiceGuyEddie]

F1 is influenced by a bucketload of circumstances. The circumstances which lead to closing a deal, can change over a fortnight. Of course, a deal is a deal, but once stepping out of a deal, with or without the consent of the counterparty, his in your own benefit, people will step out and leave it to their well paid lawyers to sort out the mess. Besides, I suspect a Formula1-contract is a huge document, filled with all sorts of clauses which make it possible for a team (who will always be the party with the best position in negotiation) to break out of it. Its just legal reality.

[Nurburgring]

Originally posted by Super Tourer
Welcome to ten-tenths Nurburgring !

Why thank you very much Super Tourer, I'm honoured to be here among your larger than life community.