May the best man win
Title Showdown 2014
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
Horner: Fallows made his own decision
McLaren Mercedes
Screen Shot 2014-04-20 at 14.49.36
Posted By: Justin Hynes  |  20 Apr 2014   |  3:47 pm GMT  |  98 comments

Christian Horner has insisted that aerodynamicist Dan Fallows’ decision to rejoin Red Bull Racing was his own and that the technician had not been induced to return to the Milton Keynes squad, as had been suggested by McLaren boss Ron Dennis before today’s Chinese Grand Prix. Horner added that if McLaren “want to get lawyers involved, that that’s what will have to be done”.

In the run-up to the race in Shanghai, Dennis questioned Red Bull’s actions in taking Fallows back as Head of Aerodynamics after the technician had late last year signed a contract with McLaren.

“We’re obviously not happy to be contracting people in a correct and professional way, only to find that those contracts are disregarded,” Dennis told Britain’s Sky Sports television before the race in Shanghai. “What I’m particularly uncomfortable with is that people just don’t change their minds, they induced to change their minds. People being induced to break contracts, it’s just wrong.”

Horner, however, said that Fallows’ decision to return to the Milton Keynes squad had been entirely his own and had been made against the background of “the changes that have happened at McLaren”.

“The situation with Dan is very clear,” said the Red Bull Racing team principal after the race. “Dan decided that he was going to leave Red Bull for reasons of his own but with the changes that have happened at McLaren he decided that he didn’t want to join, and it was 100 per cent his choice to approach us and see if there was a situation still open. So it was his choice. Getting lawyers involved, if that’s the way McLaren want to act then that’s what will have to be done.”

Horner added that the recruitment of Fallows did not bring into question the ethics of Red Bull and that the new aero chief could not be made “to do a job against [his] will”.

“I don’t know how this can question the integrity of the team, as it’s the choice of the individual,” he said. “I don’t think anyone can be forced to do a job against their will. Situations change, as Ron well knows, probably more so than others, with the vast amount of experience he has. Situations change. The situation in his team changed. Therefore, Dan is with Red Bull, has been with Red Bull for a couple of weeks and will be there for quite a while to come.”

Dennis has suggested that he has an “open mind to discuss anything” and one possible compromise in the dispute could be that McLaren would drop any potential legal action in return for the early release of Peter Prodromou to begin work at the Woking team.

The former Red Bull Head of Aerodynamic’s contract with the Milton Keynes outfit runs until the end of this year and when the announcement of Fallows’ appointment at Red Bull Racing was made a just under two weeks ago, the team announced that Prodromou had been placed on ‘gardening leave’. An early end to that period in the wilderness early might ultimately be McLaren’s goal.

Featured Video
JensonTrialthlon
Sign up for Jenson’s Triathlon today!
Featured News in mclaren
MORE FROM McLaren
LATEST FROM THE MCLAREN MERCEDES COMMUNITY
Previous
Next
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
98 Comments
  1. justafan says:

    Ron playing politics again. Very interesting.

    1. J.Danek says:

      Wow, so insisting on abiding by contract law and respecting one’s legal obligations is now “playing politics”?

      Really?

      1. justafan says:

        Ron’s hanging on a lawsuit in exchange for getting an aerodynamicist. That’s the political connection.

      2. TMax says:

        It is all about Peter Prodromou and nothing to do with Dan. Dan is just the noise , Peter is the end goal for Ron. Given that McLaren was lapped in China, he would be even more desperate.

        It just seems like McLaren got lucky in Oz. Oz 2014 is just an abberation , otherwise McLaren is just continuing their 2013 form. I am a little surprised at this because the regulations were changingnin 2014. McLaren had a head start because they were not fighting for the championships from early 2013. On top of that they have a rock solid engine. Even Force India and Williams seem to be doing better than them.

        Time for Ron to bring about big changes.

      3. Toleman fan says:

        Remind me how Ron demonstrated his respect for employment law when Adrian Newey signed a contract to leave Mclaren and join Jaguar.

        Then tell me about his integrity.

      4. David Ryan says:

        Adrian Newey and Bobby Rahal (who was in charge of the Jaguar F1 at the time) have since confirmed that while Newey and Jaguar had agreed terms, Newey had not in fact signed the contract. The political machinations at the time, owing to Ford’s involvement with the team, deterred him from completing the deal. There is an article on Motor Sport Magazine’s website about it here: http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/halloffame/adrian-newey/adrian-newey-and-bobby-rahal/. Had Newey signed the contract, the position would have been very different indeed, but employment law requires either (a) a signed contract or (b) an agreement which is acted upon by both sides followed by a written statement of terms. Without one of these, Newey was free to do as he wished. Whether the position is the same for Fallows is something which is as yet unclear.

      5. Toleman fan says:

        @David Ryan

        Owned. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

        (In my defence, I don’t remember this being reported correctly at the time. But then again, I should know better by now than to be too trusting of published reports).

    2. Gudien says:

      Welcome to the piranha club Ronnie. Fernando and Martin send their best wishes.

      1. Dave P says:

        Errr…its the other way around..

      2. StevenM says:

        I think Ron is the president emeritus of that club…

      3. Kshitij Gopal says:

        +1

      4. C63 says:

        Are you referring to Ron Dennis? I only ask as I can’t believe you could be – he has been involved in F1 for 48 years! It’s a bit late to be welcoming him to anything, isn’t it?

    3. Alec Tronnick says:

      Since when is Ron Dennis in a position to lecture anyone on ethics!

      1. Toleman fan says:

        +1. See my comment above about Adrian Newey & Jaguar.

    4. W Johnson says:

      A signed contract is exactly that. What had Ron done exactly? He didn’t force Fallows to sign for McLaren. Either Fallows or Red Bull are guilty in the eyes of commercial law.

      1. I know says:

        How could Red Bull be in breach of any civil law in this case? They didn’t sign a contract with McLaren, and they certainly aren’t bound by any contract that Fallows may have signed with McLaren, which Red Bull aren’t party to.

  2. DanzNan says:

    I think Ron is right to question Fallows/Red Bull’s ethics; why bother to sign a contract and then hypothetically tear it up?

    1. JDanek says:

      I think Ron is right to question Fallows/Red Bull’s ethics; why bother to sign a contract and then hypothetically tear it up?

      I agree.

      And Horner’s swipe at Ron’s own ethics does nothing to delegitimize the validity of McLaren’s complaint in the current situation.

      Just b/c Dennis was responsible for the team’s copping a huge fine and loss of constructor-points doesn’t mean they still can’t suffer loss due to unethical or even illegal behavior on the part of another, now.

    2. Alec Tronnick says:

      I think the two big questions here are:
      1. WHY did Fallows change his mind?
      I’m guessing because he thought he was in with a chance to become lead aero guy, then he found out Pomodorou?
      was going to Macca too, so Fallows thought he had a better future at RB
      2. Why is Ron threatening to sue RB?
      Because he’s full of bull…. The contract was with Fallows not RB
      PS Horner should tell him to report to Woking tomorrow and design a pig for Macca (sorry, they’ve already got one)

      1. W Johnson says:

        [mod] Fallows signed a contract. Unless there is a specific clause that gives Fallows a reason to terminate, he will have to provide reasons/ justifications.

        I would treat Christian Horner’s comments with a pinch of salt after his media excuses for Vettel’s behaviour with respect to Webber.

      2. J.Danek says:

        2. Why is Ron threatening to sue RB?
        Because he’s full of bull…. The contract was with Fallows not RB

        b/c if RBR induced him to break his contract, they could face some form of liability for that illegal conduct.

        PS Horner should tell him to report to Woking tomorrow and design a pig for Macca (sorry, they’ve already got one)

        Wow, so your response to possible serious violations of contract/employment law is to encourage more law-breaking and deceptive practices?

        Thankfully you’re atypical of the readers who usually comment here.

      3. I know says:

        I can’t see anything illegal in Red Bull’s behaviour. Inducing a prospective employee to work for them is not a crime, even if that employee is under contract with another company. It happens all the time in business and R&D.

        Unless there is a contract that F1 teams have signed up to which prohibits them from headhunting each others’s engineers, there is nothing illicit in their behaviour. Whether or not Fallows is in breach of a contract with McLaren is entirely between him and McLaren, it does not prevent Red Bull from hiring him.

  3. jmv says:

    Sounds like Newey wanting to join Jaguar and Bobby Rahal´s management team at the time, and Ron Dennis *induced* Newey to change his mind and prolong his stay at McLaren.

    Maybe Jaguar should have sued McLaren for *inducing* someone to change his mind.

    This case is completely laughable.

    1. me says:

      One is a signed contract
      The other was an non legal verbal agreement.

      1. vic says:

        A verbal agreement is completely legal, at least in my country and I guess than in UK too, because if not, will be the equivalent of saying “we britain are people without word”. The difficult part is to prove you had a verbal agreement in court when people disagree, but if Newey had a similar situation (verbal or written) then is the same case.

      2. Toleman fan says:

        +1.

        Also the little matter of the $1m in compensation paid to Jaguar by Mclaren, although that obviously didn’t get anywhere close to the damage done. Probably the best bargain in F1 since Ford bankrolled the DFV.

      3. David Ryan says:

        A verbal agreement for an employment contract, like any other contract, is only valid and enforceable where there has been consideration – that is to say, one or both parties have acted in accordance with it. In the case of Newey, that would have meant either Newey reporting for work at Jaguar or Jaguar making a payment to him in accordance with the contract. Neither of these happened; therefore, there was no consideration and so no contract. The claim of £1m being paid to Jaguar as part of a settlement was denied by both McLaren and Jaguar at the time in a joint statement.

    2. J.Danek says:

      This case is completely laughable.

      It’s only laughable if you have no respect for contract law and think that cavalierly disregarding one’s legal obligations (whether induced to do so or not by a third-party) is funny.

      1. I know says:

        You don’t understand that contract law only binds the parties that sign a contract. Red Bull does not appear to have signed any contract with McLaren, so McLaren have no case against them.

    3. aveli says:

      can a thief not report a robbery?

      1. Toleman fan says:

        A good question. IMO, the answer is clearly that yes, he is entitled to do so.

        At the same time though, if he were a convicted thief, he might be smart not to lay on the moral outrage too heavily unless either a) he’s relying on people having short memories or b) he’s prepared to be thought of as an hypocritical asswipe.

  4. Kramgp says:

    Fallows is aware of maccas woeful performance and deals better the devil you know

    1. JDanek says:

      @Kramgp:

      “Fallows is aware of maccas woeful performance and deals better the devil you know”

      Too bad that “better the devil you know [than the devil you don't]” is not a valid excuse for reneging on a deal to which you’ve committed in terms via a signed, enforceable contract!

      McLaren may not be able to “force” Fallows to work for them, but they can certainly deny his labor to RBR and also pursue compensation.

      So really, the only thing left to determine now is the exact scope of Red Bull Racing’s role in subverting the binding employment agreement, and how much they and Fallows will have to pay to indemnify McLaren for the obvious loss.

      I’m glad Ron Dennis publicly questioned Red Bull’s ethics, because Horner’s limp-wristed response and failure to unambiguously defend what they did (not to mention misrepresenting “who” Fallows signed a contract with) would seem to confirm RBR’s liability and give substance to Ron’s accusation!

  5. Gaz Boy says:

    Dan Fallows has obviously had a change of heart – can’t say I blame him on a technical level!
    Personally, I would imagine Red Bull are a much more balanced bunch of lads and lasses to work for: I may be wrong but I always get the impression that the atmosphere at Woking is a nervy, paranoid and dare I say slightly robotic one?
    Perhaps if I am right that is why Lewis abandoned ship? Yes, Merc offered him a nice big salary, the promise of this years new turbo-car integrated package, a massive budget to play with and so on, but I guess Ross tempted Lewis above all with the promise that the Brackley bunch are first and foremost straight talking no nonsense racers who work hard, play hard and enjoy their success?????
    Well lets turn the question on its head: who would you rather work for: Milton Keynes or Woking? Christian and Adrian or Ron and………er, who is actually head of technical affairs at Macca these days?

    1. JDanek says:

      Probably not a good idea to suggest you know or understand what people are like, or how is the environment in which they work, if all you’re doing is purely speculating b/c you’ve never even been inside the place.

      Just saying…

      1. Gaz Boy says:

        In all fairness, my musings are partly formed from the last 5 years, and a few opinions.
        Since the beginning of 2009, Macca have been in a gentle technical and operational decline (mire?) which has manifested itself on the track in the last year and a half……
        Have you noticed McLaren is the only English/British F1 team not based in the “Motorsport Valley” of the Oxon/Bucks/Norths area? Of course, nothing wrong with Woking, and Ron and co can have their team HQ where they want, but it does show that Ron and co do like to be “different….”
        If you think I’m being unreasonable, ask Adrian about his time at Macca – he says he felt stifled and was annoyed at the constant managerial interference…………..

      2. Harvey says:

        Look at the talent that keeps draining from McLaren: Newey, Alonso, Hamilton, Lowe. And where’s the half-second a lap that Dennis the Menace promised after Oz? Must be keeping it in his pocket for the European season!

    2. Cliff says:

      You miss the point! Fallows was hired to help rebuild the technical department, If he is as good as his reputation suggests, a job at McLaren should be ideal. However, if he does have a contract (signed, not verbal or implied)and decided to stay at RBR, McLaren will have a valid claim under contract law.

      1. jake says:

        “McLaren will have a valid claim under contract law”. Pity it is against Fallows, what are McLaren going to do, sue him, force him to work for them. The guy changed his mind, tough luck.

      2. J.Danek says:

        ok, one more time – McLaren’s primary interest is to determine if Red Bull Racing induced Fallows to break the contract, and based on RBR’s evasiveness and refusal to respond satisfactorily to Macca’s solicitors’ direct, specific questions, that’s very likely.

        Punishing Fallows or forcing him to work for McLaren is not their primary goal, or a realistic one. Rather, they will seek to prove violation of legally-binding agreement to force RBR to release Prodromou early from his gardening leave en lieu of financial compensation (or perhaps in addition to?) or in exchange for dropping the matter entirely.

        I mean, it’s written above in the article:

        “Dennis has suggested that he has an “open mind to discuss anything” and one possible compromise in the dispute could be that McLaren would drop any potential legal action in return for the early release of Peter Prodromou to begin work at the Woking team.”

      3. Breton says:

        If you sign a contract you can’t say tough luck I’ve changed my mind!!!

        What planet are you from.

        I don’t like this house, I know I’ve signed a contract to buy it but that dosn’t count because I’ve changed my mind!!!!!

      4. James Allen says:

        Conveyancing law isn’t the same as employment law

      5. JoeP says:

        “McLaren will have a valid claim under contract law”.

        Pity it is against Fallows, what are McLaren going to do, sue him, force him to work for them. The guy changed his mind, tough luck.

        Yes, this is why Horner is trying so hard to blame this exclusively on Fallows and why they’re (RBR) being so evasive (according to Dennis) in response to McLaren’s lawyers’ inquiries.

        Placing exclusive blame on Dan may limit McLaren’s complaint to one turning on simple employment law (breach of contract), whereas if McLaren can show that RBR knowingly encouraged Fallows to break his contract, it would be a more serious matter of fraudulently or tortiously interfering to induce the breach of contract (which may also permit remedies that aren’t necessarily accessible to the Court in simple matters of contract law – such as punitive damages. But plz note: I write as an American who hasn’t trained in or studied the British courts!)

        Still tho, very serious claims by Dennis, and an evasive response by Horner imo.

        But, hopefully it can be sorted semi-transparently (yeah right!).

    3. AuraF1 says:

      Having family and friends who work at McLaren I can say its nothing like the robotic, impersonal, paranoid culture you imagined here. Yes Dennis is a hard case and runs a very different atmosphere than Whitmarsh engendered but your musings about Lewis leaving are wrong. If you don’t believe me ask Lewis – as he said himself it was almost TOO familiar and familial an environment at McLaren – he wanted to be in with a new atmosphere as much to shake himself up as anything.

      1. Gaz Boy says:

        Fair enough, but ask Adrian why he left Macca to join what was at the time the mid field mediocrity of Red Bull……..
        Yes, he wanted a new challenge, and yes Red Bull gave him a huge salary increase – but Adrian felt stifled at Macca, he was driven to distraction by the managerial interference and he was annoyed he couldn’t be “hands on” at Woking…………….
        And look at the results over the last 5 years!

      2. AuraF1 says:

        Adrian left because he wanted shares and not to be an employee. But if you’re argument is that red bull is just a chilled out work environment where everyone is happy go lucky you’d have to explain why Peter And Dan both were desperate to leave and go back to McLaren – turns out they don’t even want to work together – there is no laid back F1 environment in any team. It’s very high pressure everywhere. Yes Ron Dennis does have an OCD and generally more clinical approach but he isn’t in the offices watching over the shoulders of the engineers. To be honest the main difference with mclaren is the cleanliness! It’s run more like an intel factory than some of the others – but there are no ‘old fashioned racers in the garage’ atmospheres left sadly.

      3. Gaz Boy says:

        RE AuraF1: I wouldn’t doubt that the Woking factory is so spotless you could eat your dinner off it!
        Perhaps I should clarify: I’m not implying that Milton Keynes is more relaxed, god no, that would be foolish. You’ve actually hit the nail on the head – Ron does have OCD and an almost computer like approach, where as Christian is an ex-driver and perhaps has an empathy with what a driver requires from his team, and has managed Red Bull accordingly.
        I actually know people, who, like yourself have worked in the British F1 industry – the people I know have worked in catering during the Euro season. And the old cliche is true – an F1 army does march on its stomach!!

    4. W Johnson says:

      Stereo typing comments about McLaren being robotic is rather tedious!

  6. JDanek says:

    “Fallows is aware of maccas woeful performance and deals better the devil you know”

    Too bad that “better the devil you know [than the devil you don't]” is not a valid excuse for reneging on a deal to which you’ve committed in terms via a signed, enforceable contract!

    McLaren may not be able to “force” Fallows to work for them, but they can certainly deny his labor to RBR and also pursue compensation.

    So really, the only thing left to determine now is the exact scope of Red Bull Racing’s role in subverting the binding employment agreement, and how much they and Fallows will have to pay to indemnify McLaren for the obvious loss.

    I’m glad Ron Dennis publicly questioned Red Bull’s ethics, because Horner’s limp-wristed response and failure to unambiguously defend what they did (not to mention misrepresenting “who” Fallows signed a contract with) would seem to confirm RBR’s liability and give substance to Ron’s accusation!

    1. Rubinho's Keyfob says:

      “McLaren may not be able to “force” Fallows to work for them, but they can certainly deny his labor to RBR and also pursue compensation.”

      You (and we) don’t know that unless we’ve seen the contract. The contract might be full of holes that give McLaren no such power at all. If you have seen the contract, please do expand on this.

      1. J.Danek says:

        Of course you’re correct and I thought it was implicit in my two previous comments that I understood McLaren’s case is dependent on RBR being shown to have induced Fallows to break the contract, or some other provable violation of contract law having been committed that caused loss & harm to McLaren.

        And this is what McLaren suspects, and Horner’s evasiveness and failure to defend RBR’s ethics certainly raises suspicion!

      2. ReV says:

        Most of the contracts would have enough clauses to help them kick the guy out of the team if the management wants to do so before the contract ends. Ferrari did it with Kimi in 2009. Most likely, there might be some compensation amount that would be associated with early termination, like when Ferrari terminated Kimi’s contract in 2009 to get Alonso.

        I agree with others that it looks like Ron thinks he can go to court and force RBR to release Peter earlier. RBR would probably be okay to pay the amount associated with early termination rather than hand them Peter early so that McLaren-Honda can enter the next season as title contenders.

        With Martin sacked early this year without his contract expiring, there is every chance McLaren contracts has enough grounds for early termination. If Ron goes to court for Fallows, may be Whitmarsh should also go to the same court asking him to be reinstated as team principal since his contract has not expired. It’ll be difficult for Ron Dennis to defend both cases without contradicting each other.

      3. JoeP says:

        Placing exclusive blame on Dan may limit McLaren’s complaint to one turning on simple employment law (breach of contract), whereas if McLaren can show that RBR knowingly encouraged Fallows to break his contract, it would be a more serious matter of fraudulently or tortiously interfering to induce the breach of contract (which may also permit remedies that aren’t necessarily accessible to the Court in simple matters of contract law – such as punitive damages).

        i’d need to read up on the english law and courts tho to be able to say more…

    2. jake says:

      What is the obvious loss? Other than the cost to recruit him McLaren have not suffered any measureable loss.

      1. J.Danek says:

        Durr, the loss of his services, if proven that Fallows is in violation of his contract, and/or RBR proven to have induced his breaking it – plus based on what Dennis implied, the contract contained indemnity clauses, b/c he suspects that RBR offered to pay the break-fee on Fallows’ behalf.

      2. JoeP says:

        punitive damages?

        idk…sue everybody!

  7. Jez Playense says:

    Ron decided a long time ago that he is always right. The Newey situation years ago, the Alonso contract, the Spygate disaster (that was so bad he ha to resign) – list list goes on and on. Not that he is unique in this respect, I hasten to add!

    Ron is making a smoke screen to turn our eyes away from something else, possibly something at McLaren, and perhaps something outside of his team but important to F1. One day we might find out what that is…

    1. StevenM says:

      James said on it on the article. Ron is paying this to get Prodromou released from his gardening leave early. Macca needs him to get working on the 2015 car

    2. JDanek says:

      Or it could be a simple case of standing behind one’s principles on a matter of contract law…

      1. Jez Playense says:

        Your point has merit. However it would be odd that someone who clearly does not respect contracts to suddenly react in this manner. Rather like Lessat bemoaning the drinking of blood?

      2. J.Danek says:

        I can’t speak to your allegation that Dennis induced someone else to break a legally-binding contract and then denied responsibility for this or otherwise refused to accept a judgement in a matter of contract law that went against his or McLaren’s interests…

      3. Toleman fan says:

        @ J Danek

        A million dollars paid by Mclaren to Jaguar kind of implies that that first allegation might have been true on at least one prior occasion. (And the latter allegations not so much).

      4. Jez Playense says:

        Wasn’t the Spygate fine -on Rons watch- a 100million?

      5. Toleman fan says:

        @Jez

        In fairness to Ron, (and speaking as not one of his biggest fans), I would not want to argue that the size of the fine was a reflection of the degree of guilt or culpability in that case.

        There was I believe a lot else going on politically around that case, and (rightly or wrongly) a feeling of scores being settled in the verdict. Without delving into the details, I’ll just follow Mike Lawrence in comparing the scale and extent of Toyota’s cheating in F1 with Mclaren’s on the one hand, and their respective punishment on the other.

  8. Senna Forever says:

    Ron Dennis is in this weeks Autosport magazine talking about how he was trying to get Ayrton Senna to break his contract with Williams and stay with McLaren for 1994.

    Funny how it’s fine if it’s Ron doing it but unjust if the boot is on the other foot.

    1. Gaz Boy says:

      Indeed.
      Why can’t they just sort it out, man to man, in a quiet room eh?
      If you want my opinion, contracts are not worth the paper they are written on – ask Frank about how apparently Jenson had an “iron” contract to drive with Williams in 2006…………or Kimi had an “iron contract” to drive for Ferrari for the 2010 season….
      See what I mean?
      A gentlemen’s handshake is better – does it now imply a moral agreement rather than a paper one?
      Oh I don’t know Gaz Boy, that’s old fashioned……….still, it’s better than dragging lawyers, court cases and bitching into the mucky business of contracts……….

  9. Gareth Jones says:

    Obviously Red Bull spitefully making every effort to see that McLaren remain without an Aerodynamicist.

  10. Sebee says:

    What point is it for McLaren to hire a man who doesn’t want to work there.

    Re:Marco
    I know I can be slow, but I know now that Marco is the Wolf. He’s here for the clean up, that’s why his experience doesn’t matter.

    1. Cliff says:

      Absolutely no point at all!
      This is about getting PP released early from his garden leave. McLaren might even get a bit of compensation for Fallows.
      Here’s a thing, why employ someone who has expressed a wish to leave?

      1. Sebee says:

        These guys just follow the money, as most would.

        Honestly it’s more likely that McLaren poached and RBR didn’t get a chance to counter. They likely gave notice only after they signed deals, so RBR couldn’t try and retain. Sometimes employees make a mess of things.

  11. chris says:

    Maybe Dan just doesn’t want to work for the new boss at McLaren.

    1. JDanek says:

      Too bad he signed a legally-binding contract then!

  12. jmv says:

    Is RBR going to implode?

    1) Seb very unhappy and frust´d and almost Ferrari-bound
    2) Horner stepping in as Little Bernie in the near future
    3) Newey showing a taste for LMP1 cars

    F1 goes by eras of dominance that are extremely hard to replicate… same for RBR (after breaking almost every stat in the book)

    1. Matt says:

      Newey LMP1???? or Webber introducing him to the team that is going to be RBR new engine partner ????

      James – Porsche.Redbull Racing

    2. Kay says:

      1) “Seb very unhappy and frust´d and almost Ferrari-bound”

      I don’t think LdM like drivers who prize themselves above the team, which is exactly what Vettel loves doing.

      3) “Newey showing a taste for LMP1 cars”

      He only went to meet Webber (read JA’s response to this somewhere on this site), if anything I’d imagine yacht to be his next interest.

  13. Rich C says:

    A contract is a contract is a contract…

    Except for professional athletes and F1.

    Deal with it.

    1. iceman says:

      Anyone can break a contract, if they have enough money to suitably compensate the other party.

  14. Monkian says:

    The assumption is Fallows signed with McLaren on the understanding he was going to head the aero department, only to discover they had also employed his boss, thus leaving him doing the same job as before. Meanwhile the job he wanted originally had opened up back at Red Bull.

    McLaren aren’t really the losers in this situation, as they have got Prodromou, they just want to get him to start as early as possible.

  15. AuraF1 says:

    Sky also reported that Dan reversed his decision as he didn’t expect to be working under Peter again and was leaving Red Bull to achieve seniority. When he discovered he’d just be working for the same guy again he went back to red bull and said he wanted to come back as head of department.

    Interesting if true as that suggests that all wasn’t well in RBR anyway but it does undermine any legal argument regarding inducement – and places all the responsibility for breach on Dans shoulders alone.

  16. DB4Tim says:

    They had to get him back because Adrian Newey…you heard ti here first

    1. DB4Tim says:

      oops…meant to type AN is leaving red bull

      1. Toleman fan says:

        To do what / go where?

  17. Andy says:

    If Fallows wasn’t Head of Aerodynamics at Red Bull when he signed for McLaren, then how can Red Bull say they didn’t induce him back. Ron might be playing politics to get Prodromou early, but Red Bulls case at the Court of Appeal shows just how much Red Bull chance their arm when they have no case. Their ‘calibrated’ fuel flow rail was nothing more than a software calculation of what the engine thought it was using.
    I admire what Horner has done and achieved with the team, but he doesn’t hold much credibility when he speaks.

  18. Anders says:

    Kind of getting sick of Ron. Not that long ago as mentioned, Ron tried to make Senna to brake his contract… And, what abaout the espionasje they did on Ferrari?…

  19. Matt C says:

    As an employer that has had contracted employees who would rather not be there I released them with good wishes. It’s life. Yes a contract is a contract but if the employee is not delivering then you’re better off without them.

    Ron has more form than a beaten favourite when it comes to contractual shenanigans (no aspersions being cast) and I suspect the end game is a cessation of the gardening leave for his preferred player.

  20. Random 79 says:

    I’m not a lawyer by any stretch, but if Fallows signed a contract that should be a slam dunk for McLaren.

    RBR could be 0 for 2 here…

    1. Tom in Adelaide says:

      Red Bull will pay whatever damages need to be paid. The guy cannot be forced to work at McLaren if he doesn’t want to.

      1. Random 79 says:

        I think you’re right – that’s exactly how it’s going to pan out.

      2. Gaz Boy says:

        Random, I’ve posted this above but honestly, contracts are not worth the (toilet?) paper they are written on.
        Jenson………….Williams………2006 season
        Kimi………Ferrari………2010 season……

        Well I’ll be dammed, broken contracts in F1!

      3. Random 79 says:

        True.

        I can’t even remember what happened with Jenson, but Ferrari did pay Kimi quite a bit to leave early.

        I said last year (jokingly) that they might do the same again, but now I think it’s a serious possibility.

      4. PxB says:

        I agree, except that a court could rule that Fallows can’t work for Red Bull for a period of time.

        If the contract specifies an applicable notice period, I think that notice period should be enforced. Otherwise in future what’s to stop staff instantly switching teams (and teams therefore hiring staff just to buy other teams’ secrets)?

  21. kenneth chapman says:

    from where i sit it is impossible to even vaguely attempt any constructive comment simply because i am not privy to the intimate details.

    what i will say though is that i question the veracity of anything that horner says. he has form, and this was confirmed, once again by his utilisation of ‘weasel words’ when trying to absolve vettel from his blatant disregard of team orders. horner has zero spine, IMO.

  22. Justabrit says:

    Looks like Christian is continuing his training to be Bernie mark2. Not sure you can believe a word he says anymore!

  23. panagiotis says:

    This is to do with Prodromou and Fallows, a job description called head aerodynamics in two teams and vice versa. Furthermore since contracted Fallows should compensate Macca for changing his mind, and this is nothing to do with Ron, this is to do with the fact life has contracts and clauses.

  24. Steve Rogers says:

    I don’t think anyone has identified what “changes at McLaren” we’re talking about. Surely all the most recent major changes were months ago – I’m thinking Honda, Prodromou and Dennis. Has there been any change recent enough to be the one Horner is talking about?

  25. Adrian Newey Jnr says:

    The fact that several senior RB employees have even thought of leaving to the point of signing contracts suggests to me that there are cracks in the team.

  26. Tyler says:

    He saw Dennis was back at the helm and changed his mind… who can blame him

LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Top Tags
SEARCH McLaren Mercedes
JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer