84 replies to this topic

[2ms]

Does anyone know how it generally works if a team has a contract with a driver, but the driver becomes disgruntled and there is a possibility that he might be a liability rather than a "teammate" for the rest of the season?

Teams are constituted of huge numbers of employees and represent huge investments by many parties. If one employee of a team starts to endanger the efforts of all the other employees, then it's a moral (along with many other) obligation of a team to attempt to remove the hazard.

Can anyone tell me what common practice related to driver contracts as far as what they say about this kind of thing and what practical flexibility teams generally have in dealing with the kind of situation?

p.s. - by remove hazard I mean remove liability, for example, keeping the driver away from the other driver during races etc, rather than necessarily "firing" him or anything else more dire than might be necessary

Edited by 2ms, 26 March 2013 - 23:22.

[trogggy]

Helmut?

[slideways]

There have been plenty of drivers fired by teams. The contract recognition board handles teams and driver contract disputes in F1 but it has never forced a team to retain a driver.

[DILLIGAF]

Sack him & pay out his contract.

[EthanM]

fire up an email to Kimi and ask.

It's a contract, you pay whatever damages are stipulated and you fire them. Unless you can prove one of the clauses that stipulate non-performance and the like apply.

Keeping the driver away from the other one in the races is a pipe dream.

[fabr68]

Does anyone know how it generally works if a team has a contract with a driver, but the driver becomes disgruntled and there is a possibility that he might be a liability rather than a "teammate" for the rest of the season?

Teams are constituted of huge numbers of employees and represent huge investments by many parties. If one employee of a team starts to endanger the efforts of all the other employees, then it's a moral (along with many other) obligation of a team to attempt to remove the hazard.

Can anyone tell me what common practice related to driver contracts as far as what they say about this kind of thing and what practical flexibility teams generally have in dealing with the kind of situation?

p.s. - by remove hazard I mean remove liability, for example, keeping the driver away from the other driver during races etc, rather than necessarily "firing" him or anything else more dire than might be necessary

Every contract has a price as proven by Raikkonen.

[undersquare]

I think driver contracts generally have a clause saying they have to obey the team management; so it's breach of contract.

Then there's normally a clause saying a breach of any of the terms of the contract voids obligations or something similar.

So for defying team orders he can just be sacked.

[RealRacing]

Flavio? It may also work if you want to get rid of someone for good...

[Zeroninety]

There have been plenty of drivers fired by teams. The contract recognition board handles teams and driver contract disputes in F1 but it has never forced a team to retain a driver.

Was that already in place when Alex Caffi took Footwork to court and forced them to put him back in the car?

[trogggy]

I think driver contracts generally have a clause saying they have to obey the team management; so it's breach of contract.

Then there's normally a clause saying a breach of any of the terms of the contract voids obligations or something similar.

So for defying team orders he can just be sacked.

I don't think he's talking about the driver who (probably / possibly) breached his contract. It's his team-mate.

[Number62]

Does anyone know how it generally works if a team has a contract with a driver, but the driver becomes disgruntled and there is a possibility that he might be a liability rather than a "teammate" for the rest of the season?

Teams are constituted of huge numbers of employees and represent huge investments by many parties. If one employee of a team starts to endanger the efforts of all the other employees, then it's a moral (along with many other) obligation of a team to attempt to remove the hazard.

Can anyone tell me what common practice related to driver contracts as far as what they say about this kind of thing and what practical flexibility teams generally have in dealing with the kind of situation?

p.s. - by remove hazard I mean remove liability, for example, keeping the driver away from the other driver during races etc, rather than necessarily "firing" him or anything else more dire than might be necessary

In every contract I've ever written there's a termination for convenienience clause which allows either party out at any time just because it suits them. It's usually the most expensive exit clause. Can be written as a percentage of the contract value decreasining over the term or a flat fee.

[EthanM]

Was that already in place when Alex Caffi took Footwork to court and forced them to put him back in the car?

well the CRB assumes the team has the money to pay damages to the driver it wants to fire, in 91 footwork was so overextended I doubt they could buy Caffi lunch

[slideways]

Was that already in place when Alex Caffi took Footwork to court and forced them to put him back in the car?

Good point, it was the same year the board was founded. I think in theory a local injunction by a driver could still achieve it at least for 1 race maybe a legal Baffin can tell us.

[halifaxf1fan]

Does anyone know how it generally works if a team has a contract with a driver, but the driver becomes disgruntled and there is a possibility that he might be a liability rather than a "teammate" for the rest of the season?

Teams are constituted of huge numbers of employees and represent huge investments by many parties. If one employee of a team starts to endanger the efforts of all the other employees, then it's a moral (along with many other) obligation of a team to attempt to remove the hazard.

Can anyone tell me what common practice related to driver contracts as far as what they say about this kind of thing and what practical flexibility teams generally have in dealing with the kind of situation?

p.s. - by remove hazard I mean remove liability, for example, keeping the driver away from the other driver during races etc, rather than necessarily "firing" him or anything else more dire than might be necessary

All they need to do is call Santander!

[EthanM]

you don't need an injunction, the contract is valid until the CRB rules. What complicates matters is sponsors etc etc which tends to create a series of contracts that all need to be dealt with. For example if a driver has a personal sponsor that pays the team X dollars for advertising space, and part of that deal is employing the driver then the CRB isn't enough, the team is still liable to the sponsor.

[trogggy]

Good point, it was the same year the board was founded. I think in theory a local injunction by a driver could still achieve it at least for 1 race maybe a legal Baffin can tell us.

Nick Heidfeld is the most recent obvious example. He tried for an injunction - which failed - and then started further legal action to retain his seat, but came to an amicable arrangement with Renault in the end.

[BlackCat]

F1 should learn this from NFL. February as Free Agency and so on.

[kosmic33]

umm.......
http://forums.autosp...howtopic=183683

[ANF]

Just send him a fax.
/Eddie

[DILLIGAF]

I don't think he's talking about the driver who (probably / possibly) breached his contract. It's his team-mate.

I thought it was obviously about Webber.

[Nobody]

In the past, some drivers have had the clause the they must obey team orders, so could possibly be found to be in breach of contract and therefore dismissed.

[Deluxx]

Like this:

"Seb, "

Edited by Deluxx, 27 March 2013 - 03:53.

[NotSoSilentBob]

If at first you dont succeed, try try again hey 2ms?

[eronrules]

ask Franz tost, cause he's about to do it at the end of 2013

[SpaMaster]

Do you really not know, or are you just lost in the whole thing? As far as I know, no driver is guaranteed a seat unless it is explicitly mentioned in the contract. The teams can pay the drivers the money they owe from the contract and say 'no, thanks' to their services. As simple as that. So a team can get rid of any driver they think as a hazard. The problem arises only when they don't want to pay money. Whether they would be able to sell the story that this particular driver is a hazard to the whole team is whole different matter, and the world would probably laugh at your face in some cases.

[nomi]

Kimi Raikkonen would know how it's done.

[Kelateboy]

If the driver is in breach of the Contract, then it is easier to get rid of him without paying a single cent.

[Sakae]

Does anyone know how it generally works if a team has a contract with a driver, but the driver becomes disgruntled and there is a possibility that he might be a liability rather than a "teammate" for the rest of the season?

Teams are constituted of huge numbers of employees and represent huge investments by many parties. If one employee of a team starts to endanger the efforts of all the other employees, then it's a moral (along with many other) obligation of a team to attempt to remove the hazard.

Can anyone tell me what common practice related to driver contracts as far as what they say about this kind of thing and what practical flexibility teams generally have in dealing with the kind of situation?

p.s. - by remove hazard I mean remove liability, for example, keeping the driver away from the other driver during races etc, rather than necessarily "firing" him or anything else more dire than might be necessary

Problems you describe are usually breach of standard contract by a driver, and team's lawyer can handle that while chewing on his sandwich. Unfortunately while that matter might be resolved, new set of troubles for the team starts, because they have to deal with post-driver operations in a new mode as team goes forward, thus one can ask, who is the winner in this, if anyone actually.

[krapmeister]

Hmmm... Sakae, are you actually saying that getting rid of Mark Webber would cause more trouble for RBR than it is worth?

Edited by krapmeister, 27 March 2013 - 06:54.

[Sakae]

Hmmm... Sakae, are you actually saying that getting rid of Mark Webber would cause more trouble for RBR than it is worth?

[Szoelloe]

Quite easily. If there is a breach of contract, even simply. IF there was a breach of contract in Malaysia, that was obviously committed by SV. RB now are obliged to keep MW, it would do them more harm than good to sack him, if he prefers to stay. Not sure that he does though. That team is monstrously effective. But they are a joke.

[undersquare]

I don't think he's talking about the driver who (probably / possibly) breached his contract. It's his team-mate.

I thought it was obviously about Webber.

Oh getting rid of Webber?

I just can't believe I didn't realise .

Who would they replace him with tho? They'd need someone, er, alongside Sebi who's decent but isn't going to 'get in his way' wouldn't they? Tricky one.

[Szoelloe]

Oh getting rid of Webber?

I just can't believe I didn't realise .

Who would they replace him with tho? They'd need someone, er, alongside Sebi who's decent but isn't going to 'get in his way' wouldn't they? Tricky one.

Rubens.

He is the most experienced No.2 driver ever. He has decent pace, is way more entertaining with the "blablablabla" statements, and is in my opinion a masochist. He would jump in happily.

ah, yes, and his initials match too...

Edited by Szoelloe, 27 March 2013 - 08:43.

[aditya-now]

All they need to do is call Santander!

Or do a swap with Lotus - Mark to Enstone, Kimi to Milton Keynes.

[undersquare]

Rubens.

He is the most experienced No.2 driver ever. He has decent pace, is way more entertaining with the "blablablabla" statements, and is in my opinion a masochist. He would jump in happily.

ah, yes, and his initials match too...

Ah Blah Blah Blah-rrichello, perfect

[ensign14]

Good point, it was the same year the board was founded. I think in theory a local injunction by a driver could still achieve it at least for 1 race maybe a legal Baffin can tell us.

Under English law it's difficult to force someone to comply with the terms of a contract. The court normally awards damages, as otherwise a contract effectively becomes slave labour - you're forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do. The contract bargain is not so much "we agree to do this" but "we agree to pay damages if we do not do this". The court can sometimes award "specific performance" - forcing someone to do it - but it's rare.

Driver contracts will have a catch-all clause allowing the team to dismiss them if they bring the team/sport into disrepute. That would be the normal way around it.

[One]

Under English law it's difficult to force someone to comply with the terms of a contract. The court normally awards damages, as otherwise a contract effectively becomes slave labour - you're forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do. The contract bargain is not so much "we agree to do this" but "we agree to pay damages if we do not do this". The court can sometimes award "specific performance" - forcing someone to do it - but it's rare.

Driver contracts will have a catch-all clause allowing the team to dismiss them if they bring the team/sport into disrepute. That would be the normal way around it.

so red bull has legitimacy to sit with vettel to discuss the validity of his contract under english law? this is an interesting view to this situation.

[SpaMaster]

This is quite funny. The OP created this thread without explicitly stating that the driver he thinks RB should get rid of is Webber (he started a thread with name specifics earlier). Now people are discussing that the driver he was thinking that should be dismissed is Vettel.

[Diablobb81]

so red bull has legitimacy to sit with vettel to discuss the validity of his contract under english law? this is an interesting view to this situation.

And with Webber also for his post race antics.

[DILLIGAF]

Oh getting rid of Webber?

I just can't believe I didn't realise .

Who would they replace him with tho? They'd need someone, er, alongside Sebi who's decent but isn't going to 'get in his way' wouldn't they? Tricky one.

Kimi maybe?

[Supersleeper]

Does anyone know how it generally works if a team has a contract with a driver, but the driver becomes disgruntled and there is a possibility that he might be a liability rather than a "teammate" for the rest of the season?

Teams are constituted of huge numbers of employees and represent huge investments by many parties. If one employee of a team starts to endanger the efforts of all the other employees, then it's a moral (along with many other) obligation of a team to attempt to remove the hazard.

Can anyone tell me what common practice related to driver contracts as far as what they say about this kind of thing and what practical flexibility teams generally have in dealing with the kind of situation?

p.s. - by remove hazard I mean remove liability, for example, keeping the driver away from the other driver during races etc, rather than necessarily "firing" him or anything else more dire than might be necessary

The first thing you do is ask the team owner if he's happy with the driver. If he says yes, then it's pretty pointless wondering how to get rid of him.

[kartinhero]

Kimi maybe?

This.

[DILLIGAF]

This.

At least i hope so. I can't dislike Kimi. He can race & he cracks me up. He'd suit the image RedBull try to promote as well.

Webber to Lotus would be to my liking as well.

Edited by DILLIGAF, 27 March 2013 - 09:56.

[SpaMaster]

I don't understand the Kimi-Webber swap. What would Lotus have to gain by getting Webber in place of Kimi?

[DILLIGAF]

I don't understand the Kimi-Webber swap. What would Lotus have to gain by getting Webber in place of Kimi?

RedBull secrets maybe? I dunno but Boullier has said he'd gladly have Mark. Was a year or two ago when he said it though. Personally i just want to see Webber continue in F1. He's never boring, has a real crack & gives a good interview. Better than many of the robots in the paddock who are more worried about their hair or too scared to say anything controversial or non-PC.

[SpaMaster]

^ I don't think Webber would know much about RB car design secrets. He is a driver. Drivers won't have much idea of aerodynamics. Sure, Boullier would have liked to have Webber, but was it alongside Kimi or to replace Kimi? I still don't understand how there would be net gain for Lotus by losing Kimi to get Webber.

Edited by SpaMaster, 27 March 2013 - 10:17.

[undersquare]

There are not enough Kimis to go round. I'd love to see him at Red Bull, but I'd hate to see Lotus lose him. Webber/Kimi at Lotus would be cool.

If RBR get rid of / lose Webber and want to protect Sebi then I'd say Kovy. If they don't mind upsetting Vettel then Hulk, please.

[nomi]

I too would love to see Mark at Lotus, Mark and Eric Boullier know each other well and Mark has said Lotus would be a very good environment to work in - more relaxed and not too much politics.

I think it's pretty certain Mark leaves Red Bull end of the year, i'd say Hulkenberg, Grosjean would get a crack at the 2nd seat.
Unless of course Hamilton begs Bernie to broker him a switch to Red Bull, depending on what exit clause are in his contract?

Vergne and Ricciardo both do not seem race winning capability yet, but i'd say Verge is the better racer out of the two.

[learningtobelost]

Why do people think that RBR would wan't Kimi? He'd cause more issues than Mark by being competitive more often.

[Cyanide]

Why would Kimi want Red Bull actually? Tons of PR and politics.