Sauber loses appeal against van der Garde judgement

2015 Australian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Sauber’s attempt to overturn an Australian court’s ruling that Giedo van der Garde must be allowed to race for them has failed.

The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the team’s appeal in a ruling on Thursday afternoon. Sauber was also ordered to pay van der Garde’s legal costs.

However the race weekend entry list issued by the FIA did not include van der Garde. Marcus Ericsson and Felipe Nasr remain Sauber’s nominated drivers.

2015 F1 season

Browse all 2015 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

233 comments on “Sauber loses appeal against van der Garde judgement”

  1. Has he picked a number?

    1. He already had one from FP1 running/Bahrain testing for the team last year, doesn’t he @rjoconnell?

      1. @rjoconnell @bascb He used number 36 in Bahrein last year.

        1. That was a team assigned test/reserve driver number. All the teams got two after the drivers picked their numbers. It is the reason will Stevens is racing 28 this year despite using 46 at Abu Dhabi.

        2. That same list shows Felipe Nasr using 40

          1. I wonder if that gets rescinded if his contract is found to be invalid.

    2. @rjoconnell Last year he said on twitter he’d like 55, but Sainz has taken that already.
      @bascb @paeschli Corey is right, those were assigned numbers for last year. Someone on the forum last year went after it (can’t find it now), and all these replacement, reserve and test driver numbers were fitted after the gaps left by the numbers chosen by the racing drivers.

      1. Ah, right, forgot about that. I guess we will have to wait and see then!

      2. What happens when they run out of double digit numbers? Between last year and this that must be at least 25% used up

        1. If a number is not used for two consecutive years, it will become available for other drivers.

          I guess just to new drivers tho, e.g. when Sutil’s 99 becomes available again in 2017, a rookie could pick it, but a driver that already has a fixed number could not. This however is pure speculation.

    3. Is 69 still available :)=

  2. ColdFly F1 (@)
    12th March 2015, 5:50

    I hear Mrs Kaltenborn has lost her seat.

    I was argued that she was a safety risk to the team, and did not have a seat belt that fitted.

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      12th March 2015, 13:05

      lol – good one!

    2. Now, I don’t care about Kaltenborn. It’s all about Sauber’s survival at the moment.

      1. sauber will survive under new ownership. This is all part of a big play to buy sauber at cute rate prices by forcing them into administration. This is not about one selfish driver getting his seat – he’s part of a group of backers you know right?

        1. GB (@bgp001ruled)
          12th March 2015, 19:45

          interesting theory! would explain some of the things going on…

        2. It’s also that Sauber have got themselves into this hole for someone ( backer) to be even able to think about a takeover , if that’s what’s really going on

  3. “Hey guys my tyres are going off I need to come in”
    “Nah look don’t bother mate”

    1. @mickey18 LOL reminds me of that Days of Thunder scene

      – I’ve got to pit.
      – No, we’re busy now. We’re eating ice cream. You can come in and get one, but it wouldn’t impress NASCAR.

      1. Haha haven’t seen that one, I could wax lyrical about Talladega Nights though, for a long time.

      2. Yeah mate, Days of Thunder scene is awesome!

      3. Happened to a driver named Benny Parsons.

        1. el presidente
          12th March 2015, 20:38

          yes i also thought this was a real story rather than a film-scene.

    2. They wouldnt say something like that to one of the owners of the new sauber.

  4. Letting him race would still be against the contracts in place for Ericsson and Nasr. They have to break one of the three.

    1. True the need to sort something out. The last guy could claim Sauber acted in a fraudulent manner by signing him for a seat when they were both taken. TP’s have been getting away with raw deals for too long…

    2. Yeah, but if they had a valid deal with VdGarde (as they have with Sutil) then its questionable whether those deals are even valid. Off course it also means that Sauber would be in for legal action from them.

      1. @bascb Yep, they are in a big mess, I’m glad that VDG didn’t let them run over him.

        So basically whoever was signed last will get the boot and they will not be happy, plus Sauber will probably lose their money for the year.

        Big big mess !!

        1. Which probably means Sauber is bust unless someone suddenly steps in and picks up the bills.

      2. Actually, it’s not questionable. A Swiss arbitration board, and the Australian courts, both ruled that van der Garde has a valid contract with Sauber.

        During the Australian court case, the question was asked of Sauber: “You have three valid contracts. Which one do you intend to breach?”

    3. The end of Sauber. Implosion rather than the norm, explosion, the end is the same collapse. It’s not good for the f1 fan but it’s clear by now who’s to blame. Lame defense said it all.

    4. The thing is, Sauber seems too stupid to turn this around.

      I see 3 options:

      1) I’m sure at least one of their three signed drivers has some performance clause in their contract. It’s simple: pick 2 drivers for this Australian race, let’s say Nasr and Van der Garde. If Van der Garde finishes behind Nasr, use the performance clause in his contract to fire him. From a legal standpoint, Sauber would be stronger.

      2) Ask one of the drivers to give up his 2015 contract in exchange for a 2016 contract. Probably the cheapest/best option.

      3) Pay a lot of money to one of their three drivers: Van der Garde doesn’t seem interested in money, but they could try to work something out with Ericcson for example.

      But apparently Sauber seems obsessed with not letting Van der Garde drive this weekend. Sauber should try to be constructive and work something out with the Dutchmen but instead it seems like Monisha Kaltenborn hates him and can’t think straight at the moment.

      I don’t know the full story, but that’s how it looks like.

      1. Given that Ericcson paid them money in 2014 already to grab the seat (and make sure there is actually a car) I seriously doubt he and his backers are interested in getting money instead of the drive.
        Probably the same goes for Nasr who quit his 3rd driver role with Williams for the opportunity of a race drive at Sauber @paeschli

        1. el presidente
          12th March 2015, 20:42

          i read that Nasr bring 40million in backing, over two years, on the prerequisite that he drives. This implies his contract has already room in it to sideline him. Sauber will not be keen on it because it will mean the final nail in their coffin, but that seems the most likely.

          Even Slater from Sky said that the most likely outcome is that we see v/dGarde in the car this weekend.

      2. There may be clauses in one or more contracts that provide an escape. I’m actually a little surprised the vdGs contract doesn’t have a condition on the superlicence issue, for example.

        A 4th option is for the FIA to issue a season-long ban for some arbitrary reason. I imagine they could think of something.

        1. FIA could probably bar them for the weekend for bringing the sport into disrepute.

          1. They previously permanently expelled Andrea Moda for bringing the sport into disrepute in 1992, but Andrea Moda got that for several months of constant infractions, rather than Sauber’s single (albeit arguably larger) breach.

        2. I’m actually a little surprised the vdGs contract doesn’t have a condition on the superlicence issue, for example.

          It does, but according to vdG’s attorney, that was at least partially the responsibility of the team, and the team has been doing everything they can to block getting the superlicense– including contacting the Contract Resolution Board and telling them the contract had been terminated. Problem is, they did that the day after the Swiss board ruled the contract valid.

          Sauber has dug themselves into a serious hole right now– if they don’t comply with the courts, the Australians might seize their assets from the paddock, and possibly bring Kaltenborn up on charges of contempt.

          If they do comply with the courts, they’ll probably have to refund the backers of one of their other two drivers– and I suspect they don’t actually have that money right now.

      3. The fact Kaltenborn still insisted on this ‘running van der Garde is dangerous’ nonsense after the ruling and appealing with that same lame defence shows she isn’t thinking straight at the moment.

        Sauber are losing their way right now. They’ve made a huge mistake which they are rightfully being punished for, but I hope they can find the best solution which will keep them on the grid. That solution will be difficult to find though.

  5. Get your act together Sauber! Good on Giedo van der Garde for taking them on and winning.

    1. Yeah, it’s awesome 300 people will lose their jobs! Good on the millionaire for doing that!

      1. The millionaire team pricipal should not be congratulated for the team going under. They should make vdg team principal, atleast he honours his contracts.

      2. That is Saubers’s fault tho, not Giedo’s.

        If you sign a contract with a company that promises you a certain thing for X amount of money, and then the company simply does not deliver, you surely would not be like “well that’s fine, at least people keep their jobs”.

        What Giedo is doing is 100% fine.

      3. Not Giedo’s fault. Speak to Mrs Kaltenborn and the board that they may put Sauber in deep trouble. This is Giedo’s Career he’s fighting for to! There are no more oportunities for him after this so hes doing everything he can to prolong hes career.

      4. How would you like to be fired from your job because they found another person who brings more business and money where you work although you had a legitamte contract, which states that the firm is obliged to provide the job position for you under the condition that you do your job properly, and then, even after you sign this mutual agreement with the management, they still decide to breach the contract that is binding for both parties, while assuming that everything will just be fine and not expecting you to object to their carelessness.

        For sure they should have expected consequences. It is not Vergne’s fault that he wants to have his rights that Sauber already agreed to give him when they signed his contract, it is clearly and simply the fault of the person who made the decision to sign two racing drivers when they have already signed one. So what you claim about 300 people losing their jobs is simply not Vergne’s fault, it is complete non sense to say so, you have to criticize the person who decided to sign 3 racing drivers. I think that the responsible person earns so much money from the team that if she left her position for the sake of saving the jobs of 300 people, the saved amounts of money will be more than enough to support the innocent people working at Sauber.

        1. You’re right that it definitely isn’t Vergne’s fault!

          But you’re also correct with the assertion that Sauber are completely out of line for how they’ve acted. Breaching contracts with such carefree disregard should be punished. It looks a true possibility that VdG’s father-in-law may end up running the team with the latest news Sauber’s assets will be seized if they don’t comply ith the verdict!

      5. So you think those 300 have some kind of job security working for a company that breaks contracts at will?

        I can’t believe people make this argument, it shows just how endemically corrupt people’s attitudes to business and life are. Ethically it’s the same as saying, look, you’re fired, we’ve found someone who’ll do your job for less money. But hey, don’t sue us, take a hit for the team, we’ll be better off, and the other 299 (and your replacement, who now has a new job! be thankful for that) and we won’t badmouth you when you go looking for work elsewhere, OK?

      6. I have no idea what van der Garde’s finances are like– but the reality is that 1 of those 330 employees shafted the other 329 by attempting to walk away from a legally binding contract because it was fiscally expedient, and doing so in the worst possible manner.

        Had they gone to the table with van der Gard’s management and said “Look, our first driver choice is in a coma, we’re in a financial hole, we’d like to negotiate a way forward that doesn’t involve the team going broke”, I’d have some sympathy for Sauber.

        Instead, they ignored him, announced they’d hired two new drivers, said contracts are meaningless, ignored the decision of a Swiss arbitration board, told the CRB that vdG’s contract was terminated (AFTER the arbitration said it was still valid), and appealed the Australian decision on the most asinine grounds possible.

        As my granddad always said… if you’re at the bottom of a hole… QUIT DIGGING.

        1. @ grat: hehe, clever granddad of Yours and the saying is spot on Saubers situation;-) Everyone with just a little knowledge of F1 knew right away that Saubers excuse was lame and utterly embarrassing.

        2. It’s not even like the negotiations grat suggests are unprecedented in F1. Jordan and Brawn both did so with their drivers when they were in trouble and in both cases it helped them continue long enough to find the best buyer they could under their respective circumstances. Sauber could and should have done the same.

      7. You can easily turn it aound…. Ms monica is actually endangering the other 300 with her actions! And she is part owning sauber. Let het borrow the money or sell her share!

    2. The same 300 people who presumably only have jobs at all this year thanks to the money that GvdG gave to Sauber last year, as part of this contract? Oh yeah, he’s a real scumbag..

      1. So what were Sauber meant to do? Just go bust and cause some employees to lose their incomes and possibly homes? Or take the money that would save them? What would you do?

        The moral high ground is easy to take when you’re on the outside.

        The same money wasn’t enough to run in F1 the way it’s being run currently. The big teams get plenty, the small teams comparatively nothing. They were facing bankruptcy again ,and again had to find more money to survive. Ok, they did it by screwing VdG, but it saved a lot of people who aren’t so well off.

        VdG being fired ‘unfairly’ won’t cause him to starve at night. It might just however be the case for the others in the team.

        1. GB (@bgp001ruled)
          12th March 2015, 19:54

          very few brain cells…

        2. Hi Gary, I really need a Ferrari, can you give me your address and let me know when you will be out so I can steal all your stuff, I’m sure you’ll be OK with this cause I really need it.

          1. I’m not sure what your counter argument is? Perhaps that’s becuse it doesn’t make sense.

          2. No one really needs a Ferrari.

        3. @Gary308: Facing bankruptcy has never been a legal excuse for breaking the law by violating contracts, weather You are an F1 team or other type of company. Its that simple actually. And by the way: Stupidity, as exemplified by Saubers management, isn’t an excuse either. I guess the outcome will see Kaltenborns career in F1 come to an abrupt end.

        4. Im sure if you were in VdG shoes you would do the same. A bit unfair to blame him on all this.

        5. And a team which cannot afford to negotiate a settlement with one of its three drivers isn’t going to survive a whole season anyway.

  6. VDG is trying to get payback on Sauber for not signing him this season, which is wrong.

    1. They did sign him this season!

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        12th March 2015, 7:06


    2. Actually, VDG is trying to get payback on Sauber for signing him this season, since they then proceeded to sign two more drivers to take his place, which is wrong.

      According to BBC: “Van der Garde originally brought the case after he was dismissed from his role as a test driver, saying he had proof he had been offered a race seat.”

      And now VDG’s won the case, so.

    3. Let’s pretend that you are at some moment in time unemployed.You go to an interview(VDG probably also came with sponsorship) and you are told you’ve got the job and you sign some sort of agreement towards it.Because you have a signed agreement you stop looking for work.
      The day when you are supposed to start work your employer says they don’t need you and that they have already filled the position.
      Considering you have signed a contract already, would you just let it go, seeing as by that time you are unable to get a job with another team for a whole year?
      I think he was right to take it to court, teams should be responsible for the agreements they make and the contracts that are signed.Sauber should have handled this before signing the third driver for the two seats.I understand they were in a tight spot financially but you cannot go at it like children.

      1. actually it is more like they fire you after you have spent a year working for free as an intern.


    4. @warner16 Problem is, they’ve signed him.

      Otherwie Giedo would lose.

    5. @warner16 you obviously have no idea, he has a contract, actually he was the first of the 3 to have a contract for this year.

      1. In terms of precedence he should be the second driver, as Sutil had a two-year contract at the start of 2014. Thankfully for the sanity of everyone involved, Adrian has decided he maybe doesn’t want to be driving in that particular mess any more…

    6. What a mess. Three drivers with valid contracts… only wisdom can lead us to a gracious exit.

      1. … cut one of the cars in half?

        Ask Bernie for permission to run team Legal Necessity Sauber Ferrari?

    7. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      12th March 2015, 13:09

      @warner16 – you have no idea how difficult it is to prove something in court and how emotionally costly it is – courts are ultra lenient on the fraudulent party – I would have torn Sauber the proverbial new one.

      They should build a statue of Giedo VanDerGarde in front of the FIA’s offices! In my opinion this fight far surpasses any achievement we’ve seen on the tarmac.

  7. Well, it appears they have signed this season :-D

  8. Robert McKay
    12th March 2015, 6:27

    I’m sure round about now the whole 3-car concept is much more appealing to Sauber than previously :-D

  9. Well it’s contempt of court and a criminal offence if they don’t run him. Arrest, stuff like that. So I think they will.

    1. ColdFly F1 (@)
      12th March 2015, 7:09

      actually Giedo is now back in court asking judge to “freeze on Sauber’s assets in Aust.” because Sauber is (allegedly) acting in contempt with Swiss arbitration court order.


      Judge asked straight out whether Sauber intends to comply with order. Lawyer said it will, but refused to say what it’s done so far.

    2. Another nice tidbit of info about the case – Sauber asked for having the appeal NEXT WEEK, after the race. LOL.

      1. LOL indeed. Nice try, Sauber.

  10. Is this tweet serious? If so that would be another twist in the whole battle
    @f1fanatic_co_uk Sauber nominate 3x drivers, FIA reject & confirm first 2 drivers listed (E&N), thus FIA prevent vdG racing not Sauber

    1. Tweet from Ben Evans ‏@bencommentator

    2. Now Van der Garde can battle the FIA decision in court …

      1. Would that not be too late then? only has 1 day left before FP1

    3. I am pretty sure that changes can be made during the friday – if I remember right, the cutoff is somewhere between FP1 and Qualifying (see case where Glock broke something and Toyota couldn’t run Kobayashi anymore because it was after either FP3 or Qualifying.)

      1. As of this season, cars are considered to be under parc fermé at the beginning of qualifying.

  11. Glad for Van der Garde, shows everyone that you can’t treat your drivers like garbage.

    The team needs to bring Peter Sauber back, he was a proper team principal.

    1. It is definitely a game changer for the future for all teams that require pay drivers.
      1. Team will review their contract and will ensure that there is an easier way out within the contract and for new contract they will make amendments.
      2. Other drivers are more likely to go to court now as well and referring to this case if they will be pushed aside like this.

    2. Seems the first driver has also spoken out in his support – Perez.

      He mentions case of drivers not having been paid for years (see his teammate Hulkenberg, and most likely Glock is still owed some 300k by Virgin/Marussia/Manor) and dumping drivers without regards for contracts (still upset at how he ended up at FI instead of McLaren?).

      Making a good point that all contracts should be honoured and respected.

      1. I love how this story is unfolding, here’s something from a Motorsport article:

        Van der Garde’s senior barrister, Jim Peters QC, indicated he would press for seizure of the cars and Sauber team principal Monisha Kaltenborn’s passport if the team did not comply, but that it would not ask for her to be jailed.

  12. First day in Australian it was revealed that by vdGs lawyer that both drivers Marcus & Felipe have in their contract stated that they can be replaced by another driver in every race. That should have been a give away. We are dealing with crooks’

    1. I’d be surprised if his lawyer knew the ins and outs of Ericsson’s and Nasr’s contracts. Still, could be in theory true which would logically oust Ericsson since Nasr clearly paid enough to repaint the car.

  13. According to Joe Saward, GvdG might have failed to apply to get his superlicense renewed… Awkward if true.

    1. Interesting Twist:
      His race start in Australia is highly unlikely,” said Auto Motor und Sport correspondent Michael Schmidt. “The Dutchman is not in possession of a valid super licence.

      “The relevant national automobile club only applied for the licence on Wednesday, March 11, and the process generally takes 14 days,” Schmidt added.

      1. Having said that, Adam Cooper, who followed this pretty closely, wrote before that a) team is responsible for the super license application; b) in case of emergency process can be done in 48hours.

      2. Australia is only one race though, there are 18 (or 19?) others

    2. I saw this from Saward as well, he seems to be of the impression that the VdGarde team is trying to achieve something completely different (a hostile take over seems to be a paddock rumour)

      Kate Walker seems to be of the same impression, even mentioning VdGarde supposedly timed things to come at the most embarresing moment, after having won court cases in the UK in November and in Switzerland in early December. Quite how that fits with earlier information that he recived the verdict of a Swiss arbitration institute only last week is unclear, I have seen neither of these things confirmed with documents.

      However I think its important to note that Dutch journalist Linda vd. Heide mentioned that yesterday she and Adam Cooper were the only F1 journalists actually IN the court.

      The case certainly is messy, and I get the impression that both sides in the conflict are trying to work the media to get their story (see clearly opposed views and conflicting information from several “sides” of the paddock media)

      1. @bascb

        He may have won court cases back in late 2014, but that also means that Sauber could have put in the effort to put him in the race seat by now. I’m guessing they are in the Australian court because VDG now knows that Sauber has no intention of honoring the contract even after the Swiss courts ruling.

        1. Yes, I doubt he would have gone to court in the UK, then in Switzerland and then again to arbitration in Switzerland if Sauber was going to act on the ruling @dpod.

          With my post I just wanted to highlight that there are many facts that we as fans haven’t been given any clear info about and that the sides involved seem to both work the media in their favours (for example who really knows how to apply and who applies for a Superlicence?)

          1. That is true. I guess we can only get info from journalist and/or rumors. Interestingly, Adam Cooper has written a piece on the license situation quoting VDG, but what I gathered from it is that Sauber needs to help with final touches of the application. I can see them dragging that out until it’s way too late. @bascb

      2. Kate Walker appears to have her timeline a bit off- the Swiss Arbitration board only handed down it’s decision on March 4th.

        1. CRB has acted twice regarding this case. The actual court case was in November (which led to the Swiss Court of Arbitration case because that is the CRB’s appeals court), and the CRB then modified the paperwork regarding its record of Sauber’s contracts last week.

      3. However I think its important to note that Dutch journalist Linda van der Heide mentioned that yesterday she and Adam Cooper were the only F1 journalists actually IN the court.

        Thanks for that @bascb

  14. Ive read that VDG doesnt have a valid F1 license at this time.

    1. No he doesn’t, but it was Sauber’s duties to provide him one, so it all falls on them again.

    2. He doesn’tbut that is also Sauber’s fault. A team has to apply for one on behalf of the driver apparently. The driver also has to apply , GvG did his part in holland, but Sauber did not apply to the FIA for a superlicence for him bcs ofcourse they didn’t expect him to race

      1. I read that a Super License was requested on Wednesday but it take normally 2 weeks to process. It can be fast tracked under ‘force majeure’ however then it still takes 2 days. Will be tight deadline for Giedo.

        1. He might have to just sit out the Friday practice sessions then, and possibly Saturday practice.

  15. Is it just me or does this remind you of van der Garde’s fellow Dutchman (and 2015 F1 debutante Max’s Dad) Jos Verstapppen’s own battle with his former team Arrows? We all know how that ended up for Arrows.

    1. @geemac For the younger fans here, would you mind to explain how that ended? ^^

      1. Do you still see Arrows on the grid @paeschli? Exactly.

        1. @bascb You didn’t even need two sentences for that.

    2. Well, here’s a suggestion for F1 team principals… Don’t try to screw people out of contracts when they can afford to hire a better legal team than you can.

  16. Although this is a huge mess, the thing I am most sure of is that he won’t drive for them in the Australia GP, and most likely for the rest of the season. Has someone pointed out, he is not even “approved” by FIA.
    I also think that even though VDG acted correctly and has the law on his side as the courts have decided, it is also wrong if he drives, as the relation is broken, the car and team are not ready for him and as Sauber correctly putted it is a safety risk!

    I am still surprised why money compensation, that seems to be the only solution possible for this argument, has not been properly mentioned (I only follow F1Fanatic on a regular basis, so not sure of what the other media is saying about this).

    1. Sauber correctly putted it is a safety risk!

      Seriously? This guy has driven in the 2013 season with Caterham and has done a few practice sessions with Sauber last year. I’m sure he’s less of a ‘security risk’ than the new rookie guy for Manor that hasn’t driven a F1 car yet.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        12th March 2015, 7:14

        He probably has more KM’s than Nasr & Ericsson combined (Caterham season + Sauber testing)

      2. The security risk is not his inexperience but that he does not have a seat made for him. As far as I know every driver needs to go to the factory to have a seat made specifically for them. He has not driven the current car so for sure he has none. How can he drive the car in full safety?

        1. Again, it’s Sauber’s fault: they should have done seat fitting.

          1. Of course it is. I never said VDG is at fault!
            I just think that even if he is legally entitled to race, it is wrong that he does race with such short notice, and also he will be racing in a team that does not want to work with him, so assuming a pretty bad working environment.
            If it was my case, I would not want to race myself in such conditions but would pursue the compensation from them since they broken the contract!
            Compensation could be a stake with the team, the manager or team principal gone, thus resulting in the correct conditions for me to race again ;-)

          2. We don’t know whether the mechanics want to work with him or not though. They might be more understanding with his situation and will have no issue with him driving. They might be more disappointed with the Sauber top brass than van der Garde.

        2. The reason monetary compensation has not been mentioned is because Sauber don’t have any to give! Why do you think they signed three (actually 4 when you count Sutil) pay drivers in the first place?

        3. @bakano

          but that’s not the argument about safety they are making. They know they can make him a seat very quickly.

          Here’s the logic:

          Sauber: “It’s unsafe for him to drive.”
          Court: “Why?”
          Sauber: “He doesn’t have seat.”
          Court: “Why doesn’t he.”
          Sauber: “We haven’t made him one.”
          Court: “Then make him one.”
          Sauber: “We can’t.”
          Court: “Why?”
          Sauber: “It’s unsafe for him to drive…”

          It’s easy to have a new seat made, but this stuff about the chassis, etc makes it seem more baked in. “We can’t change the chassis.”

          There is NO safety issue with him driving.

          1. @uan, And to back that point up, Button has now publicly stated that there are no safety issues with letting van der Garde drive – if anything, he seems to be slightly annoyed that Sauber are throwing “safety” concerns about and effectively devaluing the idea of driver safety in the process.

            In reality, seats can be fabricated extremely quickly and easily – let’s not forget that Manor have been able to fabricate two seats (one each for Merhi and Stevens) in the past day or two, with Merhi’s seat being constructed in the pit garage.

            In fact, overall it is actually quite easy to change a car over for a new driver. Bear in mind that, back in 2011, Sauber were able to change a car over from Perez to de la Rosa between the first and second practise sessions in Canada – that was done in only a couple of hours, and nobody raised any safety concerns at the time.

        4. He had a sauber seat last year, I doubt that the new car is so different in the very precisely regulated cockpit area that it cannot very quickly be adapted to the new car if Sauber are willing.

      3. @paeschl and @coldfly, my previous comment was the clarification to you 2, on my perception of the security risk.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          12th March 2015, 12:07

          @bakano, actually Sauber themselves said “driver-specific changes are done quickly.

          And the judge ordered them this morning that “the team should be taking steps in preparation for van der Garde to race, in case it loses the appeal.” (which we now know they did lose)

    2. I heard that Sauber hasn’t even bothered negotiating with him, that is why he took them to court. They really sound dodgy, very dodgy.

      Now of course it’s too late for them to get him ready, but they should not have acted this way.

      1. I believe that is the only logical explanation for the all court thing.
        Contracts are broken or not fully respected everywhere. No one should be forced to do something they don’t want to do, just because a contract was signed, but when one part does not adhere to it, compensations is due.

        I think the biggest issue for Sauber is that they don’t even that the money to settle this with VDG. He won’t race, I am 95% sure of that, so Sauber items might be seized by the authorities during the weekend. If that happens, Sauber will be firmly walking the long road to ruin, unfortunately!

        1. What ? Dont sign a contract unless you are prepared to follow through !

          Lets say you @bakano sign a contract with me to repair your house and give me $20,000 up front,

          and I dont do it !, would you still feel i should not be forced to do it?

          A contract is a legally binding document supported by relevant authorities, not a school yard promise :)

          1. I think I was not clear.

            If you don’t want t do it you are nto forced but then you have to pay me back, and most likely with interests and compensation. Like I worte “compensation is due”!

          2. @greg-c in the particular example you provided, if you didn’t do the repair work in the first place I would not want you to go and do it later. Because you would be a crook and I would want another person to do it, and the only thing I would pursue in court from you was money back with interests!

            This has happened to me before actually (but not related to house repairs).

        2. Contracts are broken or not fully respected everywhere. No one should be forced to do something they don’t want to do, just because a contract was signed, but when one part does not adhere to it, compensations is due.


          This is exactly why contract exist! So that people adhere to agreements and terms of agreements, even when it doesn’t suit them, not only when it suits them.

          1. This is F1. Contracts don´t mean that much here, though it isn´t the 80ies/90ies anymore (where stuff like that happened nearly every season). Maybe this court case might further narrow the gap between interpretations of the word “contract” between F1 and the rest of the world, and while that may be a good thing for people involved, it would certainly be bad for entertainment.

          2. You do not understand, you might sign a contract and then change your mind. You are not obliged to follow it but for sure you will have to pay compensation for breaking the contracts.
            Everyday everywhere contracts are broken. Even a marriage is a contract and people get divorced, but need to pay the proper compensations for that!

        3. i think he will race, otherwise Sauber would have put out some panic media release today. i think they molded his seat today (apparently the whole process takes just 3 hours), or reused one of his testing seats. they will have to make their money the old fashioned way now, by getting better results (very likely this year), and by getting more sponsors (also likely after a few races of good results).

          1. that would certainly be the sensible outcome, however it is looking more and more like they will not race this weekend.

  17. Williamsf1forever
    12th March 2015, 6:51

    Someone call Olivia Pope :p

    1. Best comment I’ve read on this subject!

    2. who is Olivia Pope?

      1. I don’t know either, but there’s a Wikipedia article if you’re interested …

  18. So Sauber now has to let him race, or at least start to take the steps necessary to let him race, or they will get their assets seized in Melbourne the court has said.

    Serious stuff !

  19. They should make a reality show about sauber

  20. I see they’ve taken the “smile” (that’s what they were calling it) off the nose of the car…
    Maybe they’ll put it back on the other way up.

    1. Another subtle but excellent choice of picture for the circumstances by F1F!

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      12th March 2015, 12:10

      witty (@bullfrog)

  21. Basic maths lesson for Monisha … three into two won’t go!

    1. With all the engineers they have, they should be able to do some basic maths.

    2. three into two won’t go!

      Internet has ruined me…

  22. I reckon that the legal office of Sauber should get sacked immediately. How can they have not thought about it!? Right or wrong, these things are extremely embarrassing for any organisation. VDG did the right thing to protect his own contractual rights and Sauber looked a bit unprepared…

    1. Unprepared ? or in denial ?

  23. If vdG doesn’t race, there is a serious risk that Sauber will fold.
    If vdG does race, there is a less serious risk that the same contract shenanigans for one or both of the current two nominated drivers will cause Sauber to fold.
    If the reported “allow a replacement driver at any track” clause really exists in the current two driver’s contracts, maybe Sauber will be forced to run three drivers.

    On the plus side, and I’m clutching at straws, at any given venue Sauber could run 2 out of 3 drivers based on how their style suits the track. That information may not be available, of course. Maybe by splitting practice sessions between the three?
    Also, since Sauber’s drivers are not likely to be challenging anyone for the Driver’s Championship, the team is just interested in maximising the chance of getting points. It does Sauber no harm to have three drivers.

    On the downside, they would have three sets of seats, three preferred set-up styles, loss of continuity, three drivers giving (maybe wildly different) engineering feedback and requests for changes.

    It could work. Let’s hope it doesn’t set a precedent.

    1. they look to have a good car, it is best theystick with 2 drivers. each of these 3 drivers are up to the job.

    2. Obviously there is no such clause in VdGs contract or he would not have grounds to enforce his right to drive in Melbourne.

  24. It’s being said here in Brasil that McGregor’s owner – Marcel Boekhoorn, VDG’s father in law – wants to get control over the team and they are using this case to fulfill that objective.
    The text here, which explains the whole situation anda background, is in Portuguese:

    1. To me it also looks like they are using this strategic/tactical approach to gain full control over the team!

      What’s interesting about this all is how well prepared the vd Garde team is. They seem to have silently working on this for months. They are well aware of the financial situation of the team, they knew that Sauber put themselves in an extremely difficult position and probably also know which steps are required in a given scenario in order to get what they ultimately want – full control! Now that there is no settlement it’s a fact that vd Garde wants the seat and not the money. They will now take Sauber management down and work towards takeover!

      It doesn’t make sense to fight for a seat so hard that you ultimately kill the team including your own seat! There definitely is more to it!

      1. Meh … I don’t belive this conspiracy.

        What I do believe, is that VdG has a lot of money, has good lawyers and is well prepared for this from a legal standpoint (a lot better than Sauber anyway). He wants a race seat and he’ll do everything to get it.

        I’m all for more teams in F1 (it’s a shame we only have 10 this year) but I won’t miss a team who signs four drivers for a single F1 season and who treats them like garbage.

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      12th March 2015, 12:25

      Article is probably a bit off the mark.

      If Sauber were to go into administration vdG BV (if awarded a financial settlement) would be a normal creditor just as all the other companies Sauber owes money to.
      No ownership would change hands, and Boekhorn/vdG BV have the same chances as any other potential ‘investor’ to pick up the team.

      Nice conspiracy theory, but probably more driven by the shared nationality of NASR and the news source, than being close to reality.

      1. @coldfly, I found it odd that the only place I´ve read this story was there. But this site usually have great and reliable information sources. A lot of other issues were correctly reported by them before other local sites.
        Anyway, I guess we all have to wait to see how this matter unfolds…

      2. whats not a conspiracy theory is that vdG’s financial backers have been shopping for an F1 team in the last 2 years. Yes their shots are as even as the next guy if Sauber goes into administration, but they are ready to pounce, if thats the case, you’d have a weak argument that they didnt engineer this situation. Do you think billionaires just wait for opportunities? They make them.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          12th March 2015, 20:55

          Doesn’t make it a conspiracy though.
          The investor has a track record investing in related industries:
          – Spyker Cars (used to own F1 team);
          – Football Club;
          – Zoo ;-)

    3. Another brazilian site reporting this possibility:

      Sorry for the Portuguese texts posted here, but as far as I´m concerned, they are the only ones considering this explanation for the case.

    4. It’s an interesting theory, I think it is equally likely that the Brazilian Bank may take ownership.

  25. Just saw a piece on australian abc news, judge compelled sauber to provide a list of australian assets, and Monisha looked like someone just strangled her cat….

    1. Do have the link, would love to see inside the courtroom

  26. What a dirty mess! Although G VdG will earn nothing from it, but he has a right to drag Saucer to the court as contracts are meant to be abided if there’s not a breach of an exit or release or termination clause.

    The situation won’t help the driver or the team but the driver is correct.

    I wonder what F. Nasr or M. Erricson would be doing. Total mess!

    1. G VdG will earn from it, he will race in F1 once again.

  27. Im attending the Grand Prix, and my hotel is opposite the Supreme Court. This was the view from my balcony this afternoon.

      1. Great picture – love the way you have the Supreme court plaque in shot!

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        12th March 2015, 12:27

        @davids, its a money shot mate!

        PS welcome to Melbourne

      3. +1 great photo! So good it looks fake, thats when you know it’s money.

  28. van der Garde is my new favourite driver, Manor are my favourite team! Go underdogs! :)

    1. I feel if Manor can get a 2015 spec car ready even after selling assets to HAAS, then Sauber should be able to squeeze Guido into the seat :)

      1. I love it – 2015 season hasn’t even begun and we’ve already got some tremendous stories.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          12th March 2015, 12:31



          1. all those wont save dreary racing….

  29. Till now Hulkenberg, Massa, Button & Perez have spoken out in support of van der Garde.

    Hoping that others will speak up.
    We know the team principals & directors will keep their mouth shut.

    1. Specially those in McLaren since they like to scrap drivers with no notice.

  30. In all of this, I can’t believe Kaltenborn is a lawyer…

    1. I checked the Wikipedia article on Kaltenborn, I didn’t know she owned a third of the Sauber team.

      It will be hard for Peter Sauber to fire her if he wants to.

      1. I notice you used the past tense “owned”, technically premature but no doubt effectively correct.

  31. Guys, VDG just did it because Sauber declined his Millionaire father-in-law (McGregor) offer to buy whole team and not because he really wants to drive.
    He could look for another team and I am pretty sure that any team would accept his services with that amount of money but his millionaire father-in-law ego denied it.

    1. Do you have any evidence for this?

    2. if it is true, why did they decline the offer? they need someone to invest. an offer is not a “ego” issue.

      1. Peter Sauber had some criteria to be met by the buyers, mainly, the name stayed sauber and they must keep the base of operations – keeping the main team employed, ect.

        1. If you wanted to make those changes why buy Sauber and not Marussia or Caterham?

          1. Marussia/Manor is no longer for sale and Caterham no longer has a valid F1 entry as it didn’t pay its entry fee in time.

    3. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate)
      12th March 2015, 14:38


    4. I don’t think so .
      Guido did this because he had a contract
      Sauber reneged

  32. Sauber needs a miracle to survive now.
    What Sauber did last year is not admirable but is common in F1.
    Does Sauber deserve the death for this case?

    1. They made their own bed. Now they have to sleep in it. Seems pretty fair to me.

      1. Yeah, it was all the engineers who decided to sign VdG. They deserve to lose their jobs.

        1. Blame Bernie for that, not VdG.

        2. Even more to the point, VdG saved their jobs last year, now it is their turn to save his.

    2. I don’t think this common , sure there may be examples , contracts generally get dissolved by mutual agreement ,

      I would bet your last dollar that if Ferrari wanted Teflon Fred to drive his last 2 years of contract
      ( without suitable escape clauses ) then Fred would be in a Ferrari

      1. To add . Guido may have contracts with his backers that make him responsible for delivery of product ,
        In that case , if Guido doesn’t deliver then he may ( most likely ) would be liable for the money Sauber ( allegedly ) goggled up ,
        Also of interest is what sort of retainer the top dogs at Sauber have drawn ?

    3. It’s not a question of what Sauber deserves, rather a question of what is possible given what Sauber has been caught doing.

  33. Extracted from Wikipedia:

    On December 15, 2006 van der Garde was confirmed as the Super Aguri Formula One team’s test and reserve driver for the 2007 season.[7]

    On February 1, 2007 van der Garde was unexpectedly announced by Spyker F1 as the team’s test and reserve driver.

    On February 2, 2007 Super Aguri confirmed their belief their existing contract with van der Garde was still in force, stating “Super Aguri F1 Team has a valid contract with Giedo van der Garde to drive for the team in the position of Friday and Test Driver for the 2007 FIA Formula One World Championship. The contract was submitted by the SAF1 Team to the Contracts Recognition Board on 23rd January 2007.

    However, on June 20, 2007 van der Garde tested at Silverstone with Spyker, indicating the contract dispute has been resolved.

    Spyker originally intended van der Garde to be the team’s Friday driver at the Australian Grand Prix, but he failed to obtain the necessary superlicence from the FIA in time

    1. Whatever point you’re trying to make here might need a little more explanation

      1. Read the court decision:

        Fair warning its lengthy, but GvDG won then too!

  34. i foresee an appearance at the FIA’s own court for Sauber. what a mess – 3 drivers signed to race – and free practise is tomorrow. which 2 will drive? with the superlicense issue, giedo might only appear saturday.

  35. This article suggests that without taking immediate sponsor payments from Ericsson and Nasr, Sauber would have collapsed last year.

    Faced with the choice of collapsing or going back on a prior undertaking makes Sauber’s situation a bit more understandable. Maybe it doesn’t excuse what they’ve done, but I can understand why they did it even if I don’t agree with it.

    In their situation I’m not sure what I would have done differently.

    1. @guy Oh yeah, I think it is, to an extent, understandable. Basically out of desperation and faced with the reality of the team folding, the only way they could see to raise money to continue was to get lots of pay drivers to sign contracts and hand over cash. Presumably the intention was to sort the mess out at a later point, once the team was a bit more stable. But realistically what they’ve done is run a scam. They’ve scammed a number of drivers out of money on a false pretence. If the consequence of that is that the team folds, well that’s just the way it’ll have to be unfortunately. I feel desperately sad for all the people who work there, tirelessly, who have had nothing to do with the actions of the senior team management, and who will probably now lose their jobs.

      This whole situation is a consequence of the fact that teams have consented to allow a tyrant to extract all of the money from the sport, while deliberately restricting its appeal to a very niche market. All of this is directly the fault of CVC and Bernie Ecclestone. It doesn’t excuse what Sauber have done at all, but that’s the reality of it. The fact that so many within the sport are making out like this is something that van der Garde has done wrong tells you everything you need to know about where the problem lies. They are seemingly happy with this situation, and happy to continue allowing Ecclestone and CVC to cream millions out of the sport to line their own pockets, while the teams struggle for survival.

      I honestly think this will come to a serious head very soon, once teams realise that they need to take legal action, collectively, against Ecclestone and CVC. Or simply leave the sport en-masse and set up a rival championship.

      1. @MazdaChris I agree. It almost sounds like a Ponzi scheme with F1 seats. It would be very interesting to find out exactly what Sauber did and when as I’m wondering if they tried to get enough money from the new drivers to also buy out the old ones, or if they just thought VdG and Sutil would just go away.

        1. It almost sounds like a Ponzi scheme with F1 seats.

          Brilliant analogy @velocityboy

      2. This is exactly and I mean EXACTLY how I feel about the situation @mazdachris couldn’t have wrote it better if I tried

      3. Sorry, but no-one forces the teams into F1. Ecclestone’s business model has worked well for many years and whilst it’s obviously not the most ideal one given current market forces, the fact is that F1 would most certainly not be where it is today without Mr Ecclestone.

        This isn’t a vital health service, it’s an entertainment package which nobody forces anyone to join, is not a charity and not a retirement home for talentless would-be team principals.

        Haas isn’t an idiot – he is a shrewd business man. Did someone force him to join up?

        How the teams act is nothing to do with Mr Ecclestone, Nothing like this ever happened when he was a team principal or a team owner, and far from “creaming millions” he actually distributes millions in accordance with contracts that all the teams willingly sign, so quit with the “poor teams” vibe.

        1. @baron

          Ladies and gentlemen – Bernie Ecclestone’s one fan.

        2. Once a team is in F1, it’s contractually bound to be there until 2020. So you can’t just drop out in 2014 because of the exit clause penalties imposed by the Concorde Agreement contract amalgam (a compensation payout but for companies instead of employees, and from what I gather, sized to try putting manufacturers off the notion of wandering in, taking a quick megabucks championship/being a total disaster and strolling right out again). This is why entry rights have value despite there having been a spare slot on the grid for the past 20 years.

          A lot can change in two years. A decision that made perfect sense then can come back to bite you. As it has done for practically every team that didn’t get CCB payments.

          (Strictly speaking, it is CVC that creams millions, not Bernie, but Bernie is CVC’s spokesperson and previously was the one doing the creaming, so it is an understandable confusion).

    2. Yeah, lack of money and not being able to get the planned discount on the engines for running Bianchi in 2015 was the reason Sauber had huge problems making it through the year. Money however was also what got VdGarde his seat as test driver and the agreement to become their 2015 racing driver (money his backers gave the team).

      Its certain that Sauber was incredibly close to having to go bust altogether last year, and its very likely that Ericcson being able to pay up front got them through the winter. However that is no reason to just ignore their existing contracts, and then sign another driver who brings cash. At that point, Sauber should have arranged a termination of the agreement with VdGarde (or rather asked his backers for more money if they wanted a car to be on the grid to drive with Sauber) and should have settled with Sutil as well.

      Sauber apparently did nothing the like, seemingly only tried to “buy time” with delaying the inevitable, dragging out having to obey the courts etc.

      Off course the real issue here is the fact that a team that has been in business for 20 years and until recently was able to get podiums is now in the dolldrums, as is another team that has finished 5th for 3 years in a row now and a team that was winning races in 2013 as well, not to mention Marussia and Caterham, while at the same time the sport is raking in more money than ever.

      1. @bascb

        I think the other critical blow which can’t be underestimated is the dismal season they endured in 2014. Ending up with nil points and tenth in the standings has serious financial implications for them. I want to feel sorry for Sauber – they’re a team for whom I have no end of admiration, and Peter Sauber’s contribution to top level motorsport puts him among the greats. If this really is the beginning of the end for them (and some may argue they have been in terminal decline for some years now) then this is a very regrettable final chapter for one of F1’s great independent teams.

        But understanding why they have done what they have done does not excuse their actions. These acts, borne of a desperate struggle for survival, are a step too far and will leave an ugly black stain on the history of the team. F1 is the world’s top tier motorsport – for all the financial problems, the commercial mishandling, it is, and must necessarily remain, an arena in which the absolute best in the world compete. It isn’t a sport where the weak will ever be able to survive, and nor should they.

        What really concerns me however is this. Sauber are a great racing team with a great history; their name carries prestige, and they have demonstrated time and again their ability to produce great performing cars using a fraction of the resources of their rivals. They have all the talent and technical ability to justify their position amongst the other teams, and yet, for whatever reason, they cannot afford to continue competing. The question really is why? Why is it so hard for them to attract sponsors and investors? Yes, we are still seeing the effects of a global economic crisis, with some of the world’s emerging markets, upon which a huge amount of faith was place, faltering and shrinking against all predictions. While five years ago, Brazil, Russia, India and China were touted as the big emerging players on the financial scene, now at least three of them appear to have fallen into decline. But despite this, one thing you can say for certain that the world has no shortage of, it’s billionaires. No matter how bad the global financial crisis gets, there are always people who hold a disproportionate amount of the world’s wealth at their disposal. In fact, it could be argued that it is at such times that the mega-rich become ever more prosperous. So why then are all these billionaires so reluctant to put what would seem to be fairly small (by their own astronomical standards) amounts of their money into going motor racing?

        I don’t know the answer to that. Perhaps it’s because of the toxic political situation in F1, giving the impression that this sport in particular is a hole into which money is thrown for absolutely zero reward. As with Steve Wynn’s classic adage that the only way to get rich in a casino is to own it, perhaps these business people are savvy enough to know that for them, the best way to be involved in F1 is at the CVC end, rather than the HRT end. But even then, where are the eccentric philanthropists who would spend money simply for the sheer joy of it? Could it be (and this is painful to even contemplate) that motorsport is no longer interesting or exciting? Has it actually become a symbol of yesteryear, with the glitz and glamour of the Hotel Monte Carlo and Grand Prix racing appearing as an archaic throwback set against a world of consumer hyper-technology? Has F1 allowed itself to become so stuffy and stagnant by chasing the Rolex generation, that it has failed to realise that the billionaire philanthropists all wear glossy black Apple Watches now?

        I don’t know. But food for thought.

        1. ahem. I meant of course the Casino Monte Carlo..

        2. Yes, I think their dismal season certainly put another nail into the coffin @mazdachris.

          As for F1 and companies not wanting to be a part of it, I am sure a large part of it is the shady image of F1 (i.e. Flav being around too often/long, Bernie himself, the countries and way the sport do business with them). The biggest brands in the world do not want to, and often cannot afford to (due to laws but also customer preassure and shareholders having rules) be part of that.

          Maybe if F1 had done a better job of promoting that they run almost as fast as before but do so with over a 3rd less fuel companies like Apple, Google, Tesla, Virgin, etc would think about it. Now even the long term sponsors are walking away from bad image combined with declining viewership.

          Unless F1 shakes itself up, the FIA starts making rules and we get a promotor that actually does something positive to promote the sport, its unlikely the trend will stop.

          1. @bascb

            I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said there. I wish it wasn’t so, but it is. I think there’s an inevitability to it.

        3. I definitely feel like the image F1 portrays is the wrong one to investors.

          Stick your name on a good car and the sports competitors complain how the dominant team is winning all the time, how the sports boring, how we need yet another rule change. Maybe a rule change that changes things forward, maybe a change that winds things back. It varies from week to week.

          Conversely, stick your name on a poor car and your lucky if the TV coverage bothers to show your car on TV. Arguably Marussia got more press coverage from the Jules accident than they’d ever received in 4 years of competing in the sport.

          I’m still at a loss as to why Pirelli stick around in the sport after the absolute gubbings they’ve had to suffer from everyone else in the sport complaining their tires are too soft, or too hard, or the wrong colour, or too grippy, or not grippy enough.

          Our reigning world champions Red Bull came across as bad sports anytime they started losing but not to put the blame solely on them the other leading teams like wise called shenanigans because Red Bull would beat them weekend after weekend. Even if they did have flexi wings it was more a case of being outsmarted than flat out cheating.

          Then the sport had its best resurgence in a long time back in 2009 and CVC responded by pulling it from Free to View TV. Why would you invest millions into a sport as a UK business to reach maybe 2 million Sky viewers? You could put an advert on TV and achieve better.

          1. And just to further my point, we see the return of a manufacturer this year in the form of Honda.
            The big push has always been to get the manufacturers back.

            So to welcome them back the sport tries to limit them on development and immediately sets about ensuring they don’t get the chance to get upto race speed off the bat.

            Meanwhile another manufacturer thats arguably had better days in the form of Renault gets its name dragged through the mud by 2 of the teams it supplies, the most vocal of which being Red Bull. Lotus atleast had the decency to say the car was as much a problem as the power unit.

  36. I’m waiting for the Thursday in F1 pictures article for today, where the Sauber hierarchy look like a bunch of bulldogs sucking on lemons and vdG is pretending to be unaware whilst grinning.

  37. I’m in two minds about this, and surprised to see so much Sauber hate. Sure they broke the rules, but breaking the rules is the name of the game in F1, teams constantly gamble with pushing and stretching the rules (including laws) to their limit. Sure Sauber lost the gamble on this occasion, but with F1 in the state it is in I’d hate to see any team disappear, let alone one of the teams with a great fighting spirit like Sauber.

    Interested to see the result, I hope it doesn’t end in Sauber disappearing.

    1. Mismanaging your affairs does not give you the right to swindle others in order to continue your lifestyle.

    2. Committing crime, as a general rule, is not the name of the game in F1. There is an implicit notion of which rules may be gambled with and which not. Until now, everyone knew not to gamble with something as fundamental as driver account.

  38. Interestingly,VdG said:”The only thing is you had to be quiet, and this we did, we never said anything to anybody, and this is a nice reward”

    Obviously, they hid their movement from Sauber until last week. Is this all about justice or respect for contracts?

    1. Obviously, he says the they didn’t want to start slinging mud in the public, by using tabloid media to shout nonsense at each other. I’m pretty sure they were in contact with Sauber. After all, you can’t really take someone to court without them knowing, or just phone them the same day and tell them to come to court.

      1. I don’t agree.

        you had to be quiet, and this we did, we never said anything to anybody, and this is a nice reward

        I understand keeping “quiet”(secret) is important for the “reward”. “Anybody” is definetly not the media because the media could help them in one way. They could have some contact with Sauber for more legal interest while they still could hide their movement and intention from the careless female lawyer

        1. You forget that he did take them to court in December and won. After that he had to wait until the moment that the verdict will likely to be breached by Sauber, which is in Australia. In the mean time he had to be quite indeed and dont spill any rumours into the media. I think Giedo has played this not only smart but also quite respectful. As he could have rated things out in public, something we see happen in many cases everywhere.

        2. He did not hide anything from Sauber as you are suggesting. The Swiss Arbitrary that had taken place late last year is done in confidentiality, so neither party is allowed to go public with the information coming out of the ruling of that court. That is what Van der Garde is referring to. He knew on December 3d that he had won the case there and so at that same point did Sauber know that they had to comply with the ruling and give Van Der Garde his seat. However Sauber has been disregaring the ruling and have been in contempt ever since by not making any effort to allow Van Der Garde to drive. All the time Van Der Garde had to be quiet about it, even though he had won the case and he would have preferred to shout out loud that he was entitled to get the drive. The only thing he could do was continue asking Sauber to comply with the ruling of the Swiss Arbitration Court.

    2. Well, yes. Because he has a clause in the contract with Sauber that bars him from negatively commenting on the team @park.

      Its not even about him not wanting to sling mud as Biggsy mentions, its most likely a contractual obligation. Breaking it would suddenly make it easy for Sauber to dismiss his claims for breach of the terms of the contract!

      1. How do you know what is in his contract, do you have a copy of it somewhere? :)

        No it is simple, Giedo follows his advice of his lawyer which ask to be patience and dont say anything util the right time. Which is the time where Sauber was likely to breach the ruling for the first time (in Australia GP) Even if Giedo made noise during the pre season test he would not have any grounds based on his contract because probably his contract stated that he was 1 of the 2 race drivers for Sauber and nothing reverring to testing.

  39. He did not hide anything from Sauber as you are suggesting. The Swiss Arbitrary that had taken place late last year is done in confidentiality, so neither party is allowed to go public with the information coming out of the ruling of that court. That is what Van der Garde is referring to. He knew on December 3d that he had won the case there and so at that same point did Sauber know that they had to comply with the ruling and give Van Der Garde his seat. However Sauber has been disregaring the ruling and have been in contempt ever since by not making any effort to allow Van Der Garde to drive. All the time Van Der Garde had to be quiet about it, even though he had won the case and he would have preferred to shout out loud that he was entitled to get the drive. The only thing he could do was continue asking Sauber to comply with the ruling of the Swiss Arbitration Court.

    1. I always liked this guy and it must have been hard to play it as cool as he did, too many drama queen drivers these days. Sauber was obviously between a rock and a hard place, I don’t wish them misfortune but they made this bed as the saying goes. If Sauber comes out of this with new owners perhaps that is best then anyways seeing how they run their ship as is.

  40. It is always interesting to see how many race fans get passionate about an argument based on hearsay and speculation without any real knowledge of the facts. I am not saying I know any better, but at least I know how to spell Giedo van der Garde. If you are going to get involved in this argument at least get the known facts right; so far we have someone who seems to think Vergne is the driver in question and several mention a Guido whoever he is.

Comments are closed.