Perez, The Elephant in the Room??

[TheDeuce]

patmahe said:

If Red Bull were serious about winning the constructors championship, they would have tried everything to get Sainz in that car. Perez is there because he plays well with Max and is no threat to him. This move could cost them championships and prize money this year and in subsequent years. After his abysmal Monaco display it's hard to justify this move unless there are considerable performance clauses relative to Max that give Red Bull a way out should they need it.

They're obviously not serious about WCC. Maybe they win it, maybe they don't.. if they don't it'll be Perez's fault for sure. Do they care? Probably not - its about $7m difference in prize fund, Perez reportedly carries sponsorship of $40m. The Red Bull brand doesn't have road cars to sell so WCC value is further reduced for them.

They sell fizzy drinks, the best way to do that is to have Max looking like a God, nothing else matters. The subsequent drinks sales attributable to F1 participation alone dwarf the sort of money we're talking about in F1 championship terms.

Max is no doubt happy to have a team mate he leaves for dirt each weekend. The marketing men won't mind Max being made to look unbelievably good either.

I'm sure there are multiple ways they could eject Perez over the next two years should they wish to. But it's not 'hard to justify' why they've maintained the status quo for now. It's actually very easy to make sense of how it's justified.

People just don't like it because it's got nothing to do with racing and everything to do with marketing - but that's the reality, across much of F1.

[Sandpit Steve]

TheDeuce said:

They're obviously not serious about WCC. Maybe they win it, maybe they don't.. if they don't it'll be Perez's fault for sure. Do they care? Probably not - its about $7m difference in prize fund, Perez reportedly carries sponsorship of $40m. The Red Bull brand doesn't have road cars to sell so WCC value is further reduced for them.

They sell fizzy drinks, the best way to do that is to have Max looking like a God, nothing else matters. The subsequent drinks sales attributable to F1 participation alone dwarf the sort of money we're talking about in F1 championship terms.

Max is no doubt happy to have a team mate he leaves for dirt each weekend. The marketing men won't mind Max being made to look unbelievably good either.

I'm sure there are multiple ways they could eject Perez over the next two years should they wish to. But it's not 'hard to justify' why they've maintained the status quo for now. It's actually very easy to make sense of how it's justified.

People just don't like it because it's got nothing to do with racing and everything to do with marketing - but that's the reality, across much of F1.

So he’s basically up there with Stroll and Sargeant as a pay-driver?

[Leithen]

Red Bull have made the observation that he performs better when he needs to.

I suspect that his new contract has performance clauses that include this year.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Verstappen has a different teammate next year.

[Dave200]

patmahe said:

If Red Bull were serious about winning the constructors championship, they would have tried everything to get Sainz in that car. Perez is there because he plays well with Max and is no threat to him. This move could cost them championships and prize money this year and in subsequent years. After his abysmal Monaco display it's hard to justify this move unless there are considerable performance clauses relative to Max that give Red Bull a way out should they need it.

Perez has a 100% WCC win record since joining RB. That suggests they are pretty serious.

[Dave200]

Leithen said:

Red Bull have made the observation that he performs better when he needs to.

I suspect that his new contract has performance clauses that include this year.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Verstappen has a different teammate next year.

You don't sign a two-year contract extension with clauses in place before that extension even starts.

[TheDeuce]

Dave200 said:

patmahe said:

If Red Bull were serious about winning the constructors championship, they would have tried everything to get Sainz in that car. Perez is there because he plays well with Max and is no threat to him. This move could cost them championships and prize money this year and in subsequent years. After his abysmal Monaco display it's hard to justify this move unless there are considerable performance clauses relative to Max that give Red Bull a way out should they need it.

Perez has a 100% WCC win record since joining RB. That suggests they are pretty serious.

2021?

Second in WCC

And in terms of being serious, it doesn't matter how many times a driver has happened to deliver just enough, it matters how likely it is they won't do just enough amidst growing competition.

Although as I've said, mant factors combine to suggest they're actually not particularly focussed on WCC.

[TheDeuce]

Sandpit Steve said:

TheDeuce said:

They're obviously not serious about WCC. Maybe they win it, maybe they don't.. if they don't it'll be Perez's fault for sure. Do they care? Probably not - its about $7m difference in prize fund, Perez reportedly carries sponsorship of $40m. The Red Bull brand doesn't have road cars to sell so WCC value is further reduced for them.

They sell fizzy drinks, the best way to do that is to have Max looking like a God, nothing else matters. The subsequent drinks sales attributable to F1 participation alone dwarf the sort of money we're talking about in F1 championship terms.

Max is no doubt happy to have a team mate he leaves for dirt each weekend. The marketing men won't mind Max being made to look unbelievably good either.

I'm sure there are multiple ways they could eject Perez over the next two years should they wish to. But it's not 'hard to justify' why they've maintained the status quo for now. It's actually very easy to make sense of how it's justified.

People just don't like it because it's got nothing to do with racing and everything to do with marketing - but that's the reality, across much of F1.

So he’s basically up there with Stroll and Sargeant as a pay-driver?

No, he's in the sport on merit - but for whatever reason is either not reaching to the highest level in a tio car, or specifically in the RBR car or team environment.

We can't really call any driver that brings in enough sponsorshio to cover their salary a pay driver because then we'd have to include various multi world champions in that group!

Also remember that Albon and Gasly also stalled in the No2 seat at RBR..

[TheDeuce]

Dave200 said:

Leithen said:

Red Bull have made the observation that he performs better when he needs to.

I suspect that his new contract has performance clauses that include this year.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Verstappen has a different teammate next year.

You don't sign a two-year contract extension with clauses in place before that extension even starts.

They can't put clauses in after the contract is signed

[Bo_apex]

CoolHands said:

Can’t believe they’ve extended this useless boring bds contract

Another reason to not watch!

He's does ok in wheel to wheel

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vBsnDIFbbb4

[paulguitar]

Bo_apex said:

CoolHands said:

Can’t believe they’ve extended this useless boring bds contract

Another reason to not watch!

He's does ok in wheel to wheel

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vBsnDIFbbb4

Your favourite clip, I knew what it would be before clicking on it.


The problem is that this sort of performance is very much the exception, rather than the rule, from Perez. And he needs to get what is clearly the best car into Q3 every race weekend.

[Dave200]

TheDeuce said:

Dave200 said:

Leithen said:

Red Bull have made the observation that he performs better when he needs to.

I suspect that his new contract has performance clauses that include this year.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Verstappen has a different teammate next year.

You don't sign a two-year contract extension with clauses in place before that extension even starts.

They can't put clauses in after the contract is signed

Yeah, it's a bit backwards to suggest they've inserted a clause in his existing contract as part of his future contract. That's just not how anything works.

[Adrian W]

TheDeuce said:

Sandpit Steve said:

TheDeuce said:

They're obviously not serious about WCC. Maybe they win it, maybe they don't.. if they don't it'll be Perez's fault for sure. Do they care? Probably not - its about $7m difference in prize fund, Perez reportedly carries sponsorship of $40m. The Red Bull brand doesn't have road cars to sell so WCC value is further reduced for them.

They sell fizzy drinks, the best way to do that is to have Max looking like a God, nothing else matters. The subsequent drinks sales attributable to F1 participation alone dwarf the sort of money we're talking about in F1 championship terms.

Max is no doubt happy to have a team mate he leaves for dirt each weekend. The marketing men won't mind Max being made to look unbelievably good either.

I'm sure there are multiple ways they could eject Perez over the next two years should they wish to. But it's not 'hard to justify' why they've maintained the status quo for now. It's actually very easy to make sense of how it's justified.

People just don't like it because it's got nothing to do with racing and everything to do with marketing - but that's the reality, across much of F1.

So he’s basically up there with Stroll and Sargeant as a pay-driver?

No, he's in the sport on merit - but for whatever reason is either not reaching to the highest level in a tio car, or specifically in the RBR car or team environment.

We can't really call any driver that brings in enough sponsorshio to cover their salary a pay driver because then we'd have to include various multi world champions in that group!

Also remember that Albon and Gasly also stalled in the No2 seat at RBR..

Hasn't Hamilton just taken 100 million of sponsorship money to Ferrari

[Leithen]

Dave200 said:

Leithen said:

Red Bull have made the observation that he performs better when he needs to.

I suspect that his new contract has performance clauses that include this year.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Verstappen has a different teammate next year.

You don't sign a two-year contract extension with clauses in place before that extension even starts.

Why not? All sorts of contracts have performance criteria. There’s nothing preventing that criteria applying to the period before the extension period. I’d argue that it was essential to try and prevent him under performing.

[Leithen]

Dave200 said:

Yeah, it's a bit backwards to suggest they've inserted a clause in his existing contract as part of his future contract. That's just not how anything works.

This isn’t about the existing contract, it’s about what the new one contains. Which of course none of us will know unless a clause is activated (Hamilton).

[TheDeuce]

Adrian W said:

TheDeuce said:

Sandpit Steve said:

TheDeuce said:

They're obviously not serious about WCC. Maybe they win it, maybe they don't.. if they don't it'll be Perez's fault for sure. Do they care? Probably not - its about $7m difference in prize fund, Perez reportedly carries sponsorship of $40m. The Red Bull brand doesn't have road cars to sell so WCC value is further reduced for them.

They sell fizzy drinks, the best way to do that is to have Max looking like a God, nothing else matters. The subsequent drinks sales attributable to F1 participation alone dwarf the sort of money we're talking about in F1 championship terms.

Max is no doubt happy to have a team mate he leaves for dirt each weekend. The marketing men won't mind Max being made to look unbelievably good either.

I'm sure there are multiple ways they could eject Perez over the next two years should they wish to. But it's not 'hard to justify' why they've maintained the status quo for now. It's actually very easy to make sense of how it's justified.

People just don't like it because it's got nothing to do with racing and everything to do with marketing - but that's the reality, across much of F1.

So he’s basically up there with Stroll and Sargeant as a pay-driver?

No, he's in the sport on merit - but for whatever reason is either not reaching to the highest level in a tio car, or specifically in the RBR car or team environment.

We can't really call any driver that brings in enough sponsorshio to cover their salary a pay driver because then we'd have to include various multi world champions in that group!

Also remember that Albon and Gasly also stalled in the No2 seat at RBR..

Hasn't Hamilton just taken 100 million of sponsorship money to Ferrari

Whatever the figures for sponsorship and future merch sales etc, I'm sure the total will be in excess of what he's paid. That's my point - we'd have to say he is a pay driver on the same basis we could say Perez is one.

Some drivers just carry a lot of $ value, for a variety of reasons. They're not 'pay driver' imo though. A pay driver is one that pays for a drive as opposed to a salary, or takes a token salary, and would clearly not be in the sport on merit. Or more often than not, happens to be sponsored by their own family for more than it would cost to buy a seat + their own salary combined!

[Adrian W]

TheDeuce said:

Adrian W said:

TheDeuce said:

Sandpit Steve said:

TheDeuce said:

They're obviously not serious about WCC. Maybe they win it, maybe they don't.. if they don't it'll be Perez's fault for sure. Do they care? Probably not - its about $7m difference in prize fund, Perez reportedly carries sponsorship of $40m. The Red Bull brand doesn't have road cars to sell so WCC value is further reduced for them.

They sell fizzy drinks, the best way to do that is to have Max looking like a God, nothing else matters. The subsequent drinks sales attributable to F1 participation alone dwarf the sort of money we're talking about in F1 championship terms.

Max is no doubt happy to have a team mate he leaves for dirt each weekend. The marketing men won't mind Max being made to look unbelievably good either.

I'm sure there are multiple ways they could eject Perez over the next two years should they wish to. But it's not 'hard to justify' why they've maintained the status quo for now. It's actually very easy to make sense of how it's justified.

People just don't like it because it's got nothing to do with racing and everything to do with marketing - but that's the reality, across much of F1.

So he’s basically up there with Stroll and Sargeant as a pay-driver?

No, he's in the sport on merit - but for whatever reason is either not reaching to the highest level in a tio car, or specifically in the RBR car or team environment.

We can't really call any driver that brings in enough sponsorshio to cover their salary a pay driver because then we'd have to include various multi world champions in that group!

Also remember that Albon and Gasly also stalled in the No2 seat at RBR..

Hasn't Hamilton just taken 100 million of sponsorship money to Ferrari

Whatever the figures for sponsorship and future merch sales etc, I'm sure the total will be in excess of what he's paid. That's my point - we'd have to say he is a pay driver on the same basis we could say Perez is one.

Some drivers just carry a lot of $ value, for a variety of reasons. They're not 'pay driver' imo though. A pay driver is one that pays for a drive as opposed to a salary, or takes a token salary, and would clearly not be in the sport on merit. Or more often than not, happens to be sponsored by their own family for more than it would cost to buy a seat + their own salary combined!

I think that's all of them with the exception of Ocon

[Dave200]

Leithen said:

Dave200 said:

Yeah, it's a bit backwards to suggest they've inserted a clause in his existing contract as part of his future contract. That's just not how anything works.

This isn’t about the existing contract, it’s about what the new one contains. Which of course none of us will know unless a clause is activated (Hamilton).

But would a clause in his future contract based on the period of his existing contract not be illegal in contractual law? It would effectively invalidate his existing contract.

[TheDeuce]

Adrian W said:

TheDeuce said:

Adrian W said:

TheDeuce said:

Sandpit Steve said:

TheDeuce said:

They're obviously not serious about WCC. Maybe they win it, maybe they don't.. if they don't it'll be Perez's fault for sure. Do they care? Probably not - its about $7m difference in prize fund, Perez reportedly carries sponsorship of $40m. The Red Bull brand doesn't have road cars to sell so WCC value is further reduced for them.

They sell fizzy drinks, the best way to do that is to have Max looking like a God, nothing else matters. The subsequent drinks sales attributable to F1 participation alone dwarf the sort of money we're talking about in F1 championship terms.

Max is no doubt happy to have a team mate he leaves for dirt each weekend. The marketing men won't mind Max being made to look unbelievably good either.

I'm sure there are multiple ways they could eject Perez over the next two years should they wish to. But it's not 'hard to justify' why they've maintained the status quo for now. It's actually very easy to make sense of how it's justified.

People just don't like it because it's got nothing to do with racing and everything to do with marketing - but that's the reality, across much of F1.

So he’s basically up there with Stroll and Sargeant as a pay-driver?

No, he's in the sport on merit - but for whatever reason is either not reaching to the highest level in a tio car, or specifically in the RBR car or team environment.

We can't really call any driver that brings in enough sponsorshio to cover their salary a pay driver because then we'd have to include various multi world champions in that group!

Also remember that Albon and Gasly also stalled in the No2 seat at RBR..

Hasn't Hamilton just taken 100 million of sponsorship money to Ferrari

Whatever the figures for sponsorship and future merch sales etc, I'm sure the total will be in excess of what he's paid. That's my point - we'd have to say he is a pay driver on the same basis we could say Perez is one.

Some drivers just carry a lot of $ value, for a variety of reasons. They're not 'pay driver' imo though. A pay driver is one that pays for a drive as opposed to a salary, or takes a token salary, and would clearly not be in the sport on merit. Or more often than not, happens to be sponsored by their own family for more than it would cost to buy a seat + their own salary combined!

I think that's all of them with the exception of Ocon

I think you need to read my post again - it's clearly not all of them except Ocon..

[Leithen]

Dave200 said:

Leithen said:

Dave200 said:

Yeah, it's a bit backwards to suggest they've inserted a clause in his existing contract as part of his future contract. That's just not how anything works.

This isn’t about the existing contract, it’s about what the new one contains. Which of course none of us will know unless a clause is activated (Hamilton).

But would a clause in his future contract based on the period of his existing contract not be illegal in contractual law? It would effectively invalidate his existing contract.

No, the existing contract ought to be unaffected. Just as Red Bull appear to have seen an early agreement important in keeping Verstappen happy, they have to protect themselves should Perez’s performance be awful for the rest of the year.

Indeed, it would be very perverse to have clauses in the existing contract that would allow immediate termination this year, but not be able to exit the new one if that was desired.

Red Bull obviously think he can perform better, or well enough. But they’ll keep their options open and the pressure on Perez to produce the goods.

[Dave200]

Leithen said:

Dave200 said:

Leithen said:

Dave200 said:

Yeah, it's a bit backwards to suggest they've inserted a clause in his existing contract as part of his future contract. That's just not how anything works.

This isn’t about the existing contract, it’s about what the new one contains. Which of course none of us will know unless a clause is activated (Hamilton).

But would a clause in his future contract based on the period of his existing contract not be illegal in contractual law? It would effectively invalidate his existing contract.

No, the existing contract ought to be unaffected. Just as Red Bull appear to have seen an early agreement important in keeping Verstappen happy, they have to protect themselves should Perez’s performance be awful for the rest of the year.

Indeed, it would be very perverse to have clauses in the existing contract that would allow immediate termination this year, but not be able to exit the new one if that was desired.

Red Bull obviously think he can perform better, or well enough. But they’ll keep their options open and the pressure on Perez to produce the goods.

I'm not sure I agree, but I'm no expert in contract law. Either way, the presence of a clause is just speculation so probably best not to dwell on it too much.