[Team] Red Bull: Unbullievable

[Tourer]

Newey to Aston? Wouldn't be surprised if other teams were circling too, as the internal RBR turmoil perhaps leads to a first unintended consequence?

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Newey to Aston? Wouldn't be surprised if other teams were circling too, as the internal RBR turmoil perhaps leads to a first unintended consequence?

I think he’s more likely to pack it in than move to another team tbh

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think he’s more likely to pack it in than move to another team tbh

Agree - I can't honestly see him going to Aston or any other team but it might give pause to the people causing turmoil at RBR - who knows, maybe Newey leaked the offer to Autosport as a subtle warning for those at RBR to play nice with each other?

[Mike Harte]

A "friend" of Horner's PA who is at the centre of the saga at RBR has given an interview to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68712864 declaring how "scared, lonely and upset" she is because she has a confidentially agreement so she can't tell the world what a terrible person Horner is!

I wonder if the "friend" could possibly be Verstappen Snr? Surely not?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

A "friend" of Horner's PA who is at the centre of the saga at RBR has given an interview to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68712864 declaring how "scared, lonely and upset" she is because she has a confidentially agreement so she can't tell the world what a terrible person Horner is!

I wonder if the "friend" could possibly be Verstappen Snr? Surely not?

Just asking for a friend....

[Skam85]

Nobody held a gun to her head forcing her to sign the NDA.

I'm sure there was a fairly generous financial package associated with the pen and scribble.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

A "friend" of Horner's PA who is at the centre of the saga at RBR has given an interview to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68712864 declaring how "scared, lonely and upset" she is because she has a confidentially agreement so she can't tell the world what a terrible person Horner is!

I wonder if the "friend" could possibly be Verstappen Snr? Surely not?

I'm no fan of Christian Horner but thanks to this un-named lady he's had his name & all of the accusations/speculations aired very publicly...

[Plantagenet]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Nobody held a gun to her head forcing her to sign the NDA.

I'm sure there was a fairly generous financial package associated with the pen and scribble.

Spot on!!! She had 2 choices - leave RB on her terms and go big with the media, or to take the deal RB offered. She has made her own bed .......

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Plantagenet

Spot on!!! She had 2 choices - leave RB on her terms and go big with the media, or to take the deal RB offered. She has made her own bed .......

We know absolutely nothing about any NDA excepting that someone, a "friend", is reported as saying one exists. That's it.

As it goes, these contracts are very very rarely agreements and almost always benefit the corporate entity and not the individual.

Think twice before blaming the apparent victim here, folks.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Greem

We know absolutely nothing about any NDA excepting that someone, a "friend", is reported as saying one exists. That's it.

Just to add to this - the BBC article does also state 'A Red Bull spokesperson said: "Both [parties] signed a confidentiality agreement on it so they both can't discuss it.".

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Just to add to this - the BBC article does also state 'A Red Bull spokesperson said: "Both [parties] signed a confidentiality agreement on it so they both can't discuss it.".

Which also happens to be the comment made by Red Bull, both the team and the corporate entity, from almost the start meaning that not even they could discuss the matter other than the official communiques that they put.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by Greem

We know absolutely nothing about any NDA excepting that someone, a "friend", is reported as saying one exists. That's it.

As it goes, these contracts are very very rarely agreements and almost always benefit the corporate entity and not the individual.

Think twice before blaming the apparent victim here, folks.

This.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Greem

As it goes, these contracts are very very rarely agreements and almost always benefit the corporate entity and not the individual.

Just to be clear. This is an "agreement". It is legally binding and if it appears inequitable then that is down to the parties who chose to sign up to it.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Nobody held a gun to her head forcing her to sign the NDA.

I'm sure there was a fairly generous financial package associated with the pen and scribble.

She might have signed an NDA before the investigation took place. Now she clearly disagrees with the investigation findings, but is still bound to silence. Or maybe not. We don't know.

As for the money associated with an NDA - again I don't think we know.

Did she lawyer up before signing, or was this NDA supposed to be part of the process of investigating the whole thing and signed innocently and naively? Again - we don't know.

[S griffin]

I think we need to wait for the truth to come out. Still too many unanswered questions at this time

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by steve_r

She might have signed an NDA before the investigation took place. Now she clearly disagrees with the investigation findings, but is still bound to silence. Or maybe not. We don't know.

As for the money associated with an NDA - again I don't think we know.

Did she lawyer up before signing, or was this NDA supposed to be part of the process of investigating the whole thing and signed innocently and naively? Again - we don't know.

If she didn't take legal advice before signing an NDA, then she'd be able to look for it to be set aside if she so wished.

[billy bleach]

Is it actually anybody’s business?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Is it actually anybody’s business?

Quite:

For the avoidance of doubt; if this is under English or common law there must have been certain elements: Offer, Agreement, Consideration (money or something of value), and authority to commit. The value of the consideration need not equate to the perceived value of the loss, it just has to be a "detriment to one and the benefit of the other".

If under french or EU law there needs to be causa but not consideration, all the other elements are unchanged.

Contract 1.01.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve_r

She might have signed an NDA before the investigation took place. Now she clearly disagrees with the investigation findings, but is still bound to silence. Or maybe not. We don't know.

As for the money associated with an NDA - again I don't think we know.

Did she lawyer up before signing, or was this NDA supposed to be part of the process of investigating the whole thing and signed innocently and naively? Again - we don't know.

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think we need to wait for the truth to come out. Still too many unanswered questions at this time

Originally Posted by peebee2

If she didn't take legal advice before signing an NDA, then she'd be able to look for it to be set aside if she so wished.

I agree with all of the above.

Richard

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by peebee2

If she didn't take legal advice before signing an NDA, then she'd be able to look for it to be set aside if she so wished.

Unlikely to be successful unless duress and/or undue influence is proven. Courts don't like striking agreements out just because one party gets buyer's remorse. However, if a breech is proven then that would mean the agreement falls away.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Unlikely to be successful unless duress and/or undue influence is proven. Courts don't like striking agreements out just because one party gets buyer's remorse. However, if a breech is proven then that would mean the agreement falls away.

I knew you'd put me straight on that! Although I know of someone who had an agreement wiped out because one party never took legal advice.

[chillibowl]

perhaps an irrelevant line of thinking on my part, but if employee salaries are counted against the cap, i would then imagine so too are severance packages, termination pay, buy outs etc would also be counted against the cap right?

so then where do settlements for work place abuses and NDA payouts fall into?

or if it is something being paid out by the parent company, then would that not be circumventing the cap system? or even if it was paid by Horner directly, is this still not circumvention...rather why doesn't he just pay Newey directly then out of his retainer which is exempt from the cap thus allowing the race team to add another employee to the 3 exempt salaries rule?

the question has been asked earlier about why is any of this our business...

i dont know what everyone here thinks is a large amount of money for a payout in this sort of situation, lets say its 1m dollars...shouldn't that money come out of the teams budget because this is after all a team created expense?

anyways, just my opinion but they shouldnt be allowed to keep hush money off the books imo.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

perhaps an irrelevant line of thinking on my part, but if employee salaries are counted against the cap, i would then imagine so too are severance packages, termination pay, buy outs etc would also be counted against the cap right?

so then where do settlements for work place abuses and NDA payouts fall into?

or if it is something being paid out by the parent company, then would that not be circumventing the cap system? or even if it was paid by Horner directly, is this still not circumvention...rather why doesn't he just pay Newey directly then out of his retainer which is exempt from the cap thus allowing the race team to add another employee to the 3 exempt salaries rule?

the question has been asked earlier about why is any of this our business...

i dont know what everyone here thinks is a large amount of money for a payout in this sort of situation, lets say its 1m dollars...shouldn't that money come out of the teams budget because this is after all a team created expense?

anyways, just my opinion but they shouldnt be allowed to keep hush money off the books imo.

I think these are good questions. The cost caps generally apply to what the regulations call "Relevant Costs" of which there is an enumerated list of exclusions. When you talk about "buy outs" if that is for something like buying out a drivers contract that would probably be excluded as driver costs are excluded from caps. Same if you were to buy out someone like Newey and he was to be one of your three staff that you can exclude from the cap. As to severance and termination pay, there is one exclusion that calls out "Employee Termination Benefits" that might apply to those (meaning they are excluded). If there is some type of overall financial penalty that is applied to the team (such as a civil suit judgement or similar) I don't see an exclusion for those and maybe that would come out of the budget?? In the current situation, I wonder if future payouts for civil penalties might come from Red Bull (not capped) vs. Red Bull F1 (capped). Potentially uncharted territory for the F1 financial regulations! I am speculating here.

I think in general the cost cap is designed to address the budget items that "make the car go fast" and excludes other things (like marketing, etc.)

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...2024-02-13.pdf

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...2024-02-13.pdf

Richard

will be honest, never bothered to look for such a document before...thanks for the share!

(j) Employee Termination Benefits:
In the event that an individual in respect of whom the exclusion at Article 3.1(x) has been applied is re-engaged (either as an employee or otherwise), to undertake any F1 Activities at any time during either:

(i) the same Full Year Reporting Period; or

(ii) one of the subsequent two Full Year Reporting Periods,

the amount of the Employee Termination Benefits and associated employer’s social security contributions so excluded must be included in Relevant Costs in the Reporting Period in which the individual is re-engaged.

so if im reading this clause correctly, then any amount paid in lieu of termination (which i am still assuming includes all forms of settlements) would not fall under the cap unless that person is rehired that year or in the next two years...seems like a sensible clause but also one that opens up a whole host of other questions...but will save that for another thread!

as for this thread, may explain that even with the NDA or settlement in place there may be an additional reason why the complainant was suspended presumably as part of the process to dismiss them in the near term?

or not...lots of ins and outs going on here!

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think we need to wait for the truth to come out. Still too many unanswered questions at this time

Agree - for example many are assuming that a requirement to maintain confidentiality is part of a settlement, but it could as likely simply be part of the company's complaints process - not at all unusual for that to be the case. A process like that requires both those complaining and those complained about to maintain confidentiality to offer best protection for all parties.