If you can see this message then you are on the new server.
The site is now available via a secure URL: https://cliptheapex.com
Discussion in 'Drivers' started by Josh, Aug 26, 2014.
Do the rules stipulate that there can only be one person in the car?
No riding on the side pods..
Think of the precedent this sets. Someone has actually decreed that a Formula 1 contract really means something!
And won't somebody please think of the children!!!!
I can't imagine what Sauber will do. If they put him in the car, they can't just abandon any chance at points but the thought of them trying to help him on the track seems not likely, either. They should just give him some money and send him on his way.
Apple smoked cheddar cheese, yum bloody lovely...
It totally won't be suspicious when Giedo is found dead Friday night...
Sauber don't have any money! Thats why they signed two other drivers in the first place. Paying him off could be the difference between the team making it through the season and doing a Caterham.
Surely though an F1 driving contract has a clause in about the team being able to drop a driver if he's not good enough though right? Couldn't they just run him for one session and drop him for being slow?
This pleases me greatly.
Is the vdG decision binding worldwide, or does he have to individually sue Sauber in every country that they visit?
That would be a bizarre and distracting interlude.
I can't blame the guy for taking them to court.
If he had a contract then Sauber should honour it or come to some sort of agreement with him.
Totally agree. If contracts aren't honoured, then why bother with them.
If there was no contracts, drivers could go self employed renting their services to teams on a race by race basis.
Back to the days of team hopping like Fangio used to do.
I'm not sure teabagyokel. I would have thought that, given Sauber is a Swiss registered company he would have had to have taken the case to a court there.
There is one precedent that I can think of which is when Lotus tried to get the ban on the Lotus 88 running. They lodged their case in the US after the car was black flagged from free practice at Long Beach. The US Courts rule the car legal and that it should run. (the courts decision was announced after the race). FISA stated that the ruling only applied to races on US soil as that was the jurisdiction of the court. So, based on that case, VDG would have to take the case to each national court.
How much is Giedo's contract worth ? Surely nothing compared to $15m or so both Ericsson and Nasir bought to the team. All Sauber might as well pay him off and put him on garden leave .
Would be acceptable that Sauber just give him runs in the practice sessions .. there is no stipulation that he must be one of the drivers on race day
This is some great drama. It doesn't impact a team most of us care about but definitely adds to the excitement of the weekend
I must say I find this whole thing ridiculous. And I cant help but think the Australian courts were all too aware of the drama and intrigue this story would add to the event that Mark referred to above. If this ruling had come down a month ago then fine, but to throw a team into disarray just days before the season opener is a little too much. It's not like this is unheard of in F1, and is this really going to have any affect on the Teams' conduct going forward?
Well, yeah but it's not the job of the australian courts to take the starting date of the F1 season into account. Like any trade dispute anywhere, legal proceedings take as long as they take.
More speculation, and one that I never thought about.
Giedo has what he believes is a contract of employment signed and agreed which Sauber must honour.
The weird situation is he is bringing the money in rather than being paid by Sauber which would make it straight forward case of simply paying off
but how do find you Sauber liable if he is not on their payroll and bringing in money?
Separate names with a comma.