Niki Lauda gets management role at Mercedes

What will he do?

Complain when Mercedes don't win.

Niki said some pretty filthy things about Lewis last season as I recall...wonder how that will go down. Hopefully Lauda won't really have any clout in so far as the racing operations...

Seriously, what will he do that no-one there currently is capable of?

What will he do?

Edited by 3011969, 28 September 2012 - 10:38.

How many cooks do they need over at Merc, anyway??

Dunno, but nobody needs a rat in the kitchen.

How many cooks do they need over at Merc, anyway??

Lauda is a legend no doubt. but what does he really have to offer Merc that they do not already have? he is opinionated and seems to relish the politik side of F1. troublemaker.

I am surprised so many people feel this was a bad decision by Daimler.
Yes, Lauda is an abrasive personality but he is also a guy who will call a spade a spade.

Team Mercedes has underperformed horribly and all Brawn can say is things will get better. There is no accountability at the team (which did pretty bad as Honda too). And I suspect that when Daimler wanted answers they found out that they lacked the knowledge to really know what the problem was. Haug is not the right man for that, his job in his own mind is to protect Mercedes teams from interference from the board. And he is too close to the F1 team as well, happy to prance around in a team jacket as he did at McLaren instead of lighting a fire underneath Brawn’s dragging ass.

With Lauda, the Daimler board has a man who is steeped in F1 and who will have no compunction in telling Brawn off if he feels the man is making mistakes or is simply past his due date as happens to all great designers and team managers (and Brawn has been in F1 since the late 1970’s).

I see Niki's role as more of an ambassadorial one... sort of Mercedes' #1 shmoozer, if you will - as they said, he helped negotiate the new Concorde for Mercedes, and may well have played a role in finalizing the Hamilton transfer. Besides, he's a highly respected and recognizable figure in the paddock. Maybe his famous cappy will actually bear the Mercedes star from soon, too.

Mercedes is preparing for the Formula 1 future: The three-time world champion Niki Lauda was appointed Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the team. The Silver Arrows gave together with the separation of Michael Schumacher announced end of the season and the commitment of Lewis Hamilton. "I've thought about that good and will approach my job in the next few weeks with full force," said Lauda, ​​"I sit as Chairman on the team and I will as best I can contribute my experience to help us as soon as possible a really fast car get"

Edited by Timstr11, 28 September 2012 - 12:34.

It seems he has helped to broker a better Concorde deal for Mercedes, but not sure what good he will do in this role.

Mercedes is preparing for the Formula 1 future: The three-time world champion Niki Lauda was appointed Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the team. The Silver Arrows gave together with the separation of Michael Schumacher announced end of the season and the commitment of Lewis Hamilton. "I've thought about that good and will approach my job in the next few weeks with full force," said Lauda, ​​"I sit as Chairman on the team and I will as best I can contribute my experience to help us as soon as possible a really fast car get"

I am surprised so many people feel this was a bad decision by Daimler.
Yes, Lauda is an abrasive personality but he is also a guy who will call a spade a spade.

Team Mercedes has underperformed horribly and all Brawn can say is things will get better. There is no accountability at the team (which did pretty bad as Honda too). And I suspect that when Daimler wanted answers they found out that they lacked the knowledge to really know what the problem was. Haug is not the right man for that, his job in his own mind is to protect Mercedes teams from interference from the board. And he is too close to the F1 team as well, happy to prance around in a team jacket as he did at McLaren instead of lighting a fire underneath Brawn’s dragging ass.

With Lauda, the Daimler board has a man who is steeped in F1 and who will have no compunction in telling Brawn off if he feels the man is making mistakes or is simply past his due date as happens to all great designers and team managers (and Brawn has been in F1 since the late 1970’s).

That's maybe part of what they missed. In Mercedes's position someone has to play Bernie's game and has to like doing it. Sorta what was a part of Todt's role at Ferrari maybe.

His designated role is very much like the one Dr. Helmut Marko has at RBR:

- to be the long arm of Zetsche/Daimler at Brackley and report back to Stuttgart
- to oversee what the Brackley operation is doing
- to also have an eye on Brawn and Bell, who are rumored to be under scrutiny
- to give ideas and "come to the rescue" (should the need arise)

So this is not the same role as Lauda's role at Jaguar. Brawn/Lauda is rather a construction like Horner/Marko, although I wonder where that puts Norbert Haug....

That's maybe part of what they missed. In Mercedes's position someone has to play Bernie's game and has to like doing it. Sorta what was a part of Todt's role at Ferrari maybe.

As evidenced by Lauda's part of settling the Concorde Agreement for Mercedes. The bosses were mightily pleased.

So a combination of Dr.Marko's/Todt's portfolio? Could very well be and would both make sense.

About Lauda: he has his Air Niki, keeps the job at RTL and becomes chairman at the supervisory board of Mercedes F1. Not a small job for a 63-year old. Looking back at his Jaguar engagement, back then he also kept his role at RTL.

I don't think many here understand the concept of a NON-EXECUTIVE Chairman of the Board. That generally means about 10 days work in a year. And definitely, it ISN'T a 'management role' as claimed in the thread title.

I don't think many here understand the concept of a NON-EXECUTIVE Chairman of the Board. That generally means about 10 days work in a year. And definitely, it ISN'T a 'management role' as claimed in the thread title.

That's generally not what is meant by a non-executive director, though it may mean that in general conversation - though you are sort of half right. Non-exec directors are actual directors of a company in the company law sense, but might not carry out an actual administrative function of their own (though generally the two go hand in hand, especially in small companies). It's has absolutely zero bearing on how much time they spend working for the company

Good drivers never become good managers, look at Prost

Sorry but that's not right, and I have had some experience of corporate governance. The whole point of non-executive directors is that they are independent from the company management on a day to day basis, and can therefore bring some sort of objectivity to board decisions. A non-executive chairman will act as a figure head for the company publicly and will if necessary act as a check on the executives if they are deemed to be leading the company in the wrong direction or failing to comply with its Articles of Association. In general, people holding non-executive directorships have other jobs, and perhaps other directorships. The time devoted to such a directorship is measured in days per year , not weeks, and certainly not months.

I don't think many here understand the concept of a NON-EXECUTIVE Chairman of the Board. That generally means about 10 days work in a year. And definitely, it ISN'T a 'management role' as claimed in the thread title.

Sorry but that's not right, and I have had some experience of corporate governance. The whole point of non-executive directors is that they are independent from the company management on a day to day basis, and can therefore bring some sort of objectivity to board decisions. A non-executive chairman will act as a figure head for the company publicly and will if necessary act as a check on the executives if they are deemed to be leading the company in the wrong direction or failing to comply with its Articles of Association. In general, people holding non-executive directorships have other jobs, and perhaps other directorships. The time devoted to such a directorship is measured in days per year , not weeks, and certainly not months.