VOLVO OUT AT END OF 2016 (NOW CONFIRMED)

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Oh boy. What court do you even serve it in, who has juristiction?

Unless there is a binding contract for 2017 I can't see this going anywhere...

It is not a good look.

And do you really want motorsport components supplied by someone forced to play with you?

Perhaps GRM's return to Holden isn't so far away after all... funded by a few lazy Volvo-millions...

[Mixer]

Just imagine you're GRM and you're negotiating with a car manufacturer to bring them to Supercars...

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Just imagine you're GRM and you're negotiating with a car manufacturer to bring them to Supercars...

or more realistically, you're negotiating with the current manufacturer who is screwing you over in breech of the current contract, which is what is happening here.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

or more realistically, you're negotiating with the current manufacturer who is screwing you over in breech of the current contract, which is what is happening here.

It is breach, and I don't believe there is such a contract, so I can't see this ending well at all.

Negotiating at gunpoint rarely ends well.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

It is breach, and I don't believe there is such a contract, so I can't see this ending well at all.

Negotiating at gunpoint rarely ends well.

So you know more than Garry Rogers then? He seems to think there is! Interesting, care to tell us more?

[mspence]

Originally Posted by peckstar

or more realistically, you're negotiating with the current manufacturer who is screwing you over in breech of the current contract, which is what is happening here.

IF GRM truly believe there's a breach of contract over the cars, they could just hold on to them until Volvo prove they're entitled to them - GRM shouldn't need to proactively pursue litigation.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

So you know more than Garry Rogers then? He seems to think there is! Interesting, care to tell us more?

http://www.speedcafe.com/2016/05/05/...led-to-sweden/

”We will continue our technical cooperation throughout the remainder of the 2016 season on the current three-year contract,” said Dahl in a statement.

It really isn't that hard.

Legal action seems to be an act of desperation. I'm not privy to the contracts but I can't see any legal grounds Garry thinks he can force them to supply. I guess you would have to know the exit clauses for the contract to know.

Strangely though NO mention of breach of contract in any of the discussions so far.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by peckstar

So you know more than Garry Rogers then? He seems to think there is! Interesting, care to tell us more?

The party initiating the legal action always thinks they have been wronged, or have been screwed over in breach of contract as you put it.... of course the party initiating the legal action doesn't always win!

You also state that they are "negotiating with the current manufacturer who is screwing you over in breech of the current contract, which is what is happening here."

Care to tell us more how you can be so sure that that "is what is happening here"??

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

http://www.speedcafe.com/2016/05/05/...led-to-sweden/



It really isn't that hard.

Legal action seems to be an act of desperation. I'm not privy to the contracts but I can't see any legal grounds Garry thinks he can force them to supply. I guess you would have to know the exit clauses for the contract to know.

Strangely though NO mention of breach of contract in any of the discussions so far.

Thats it? Then you dont really know. I stand by what i said (apart from the typo)

GRM can continue with volvo cars without technical cooperation. That appears to be the caseor similar to which GRM are challenging and according to Garry will win

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

GRM can continue with volvo cars without technical cooperation. That appears to be the caseor similar to which GRM are challenging and according to Garry will win

I'm glad you can point out the obvious from your throne of ignorance.

I am sure Garry could refuse to send the cars back (including the engines that belong to Cyan, btw), but he is suing them in order to be able to get enough spare parts to run the season. He didn't design them, he didn't make them, HE DOESN'T OWN THE RIGHTS TO THEM.

Also Supercars regulations stipulate he can't run them without Volvo's permission.

So there's a few sticking points here and my personal opinion, given all the publicly available facts, is that Garry's legal action is to try to force Cyan to let him have a year worth of parts so he doesn't drag them through the courts.

In other words, he's in a barbed wire canoe. I could easily see him handing in his RECs at the end of the year.

[Alan52]

Manufacturers come and go from categories of motor racing all the time.Look at the history of F1 and Le Mans for dozens of examples.
What Gary is doing is helping persuade manufacturers to stay away from Supercars.What manufacturer would want the aggravation and negative publicity Volvo are getting from this?
I agree with Phil Branagan in the last Auto Action that Holden giving 888 the contract to build all the 2018 Commodores has almost certainly sounded the death knell for any other brand of car competing in the series from 2018.Even if it didn't Gary is giving them a lesson in the way they will be treated and making sure they will stay away.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Alan52

I agree with Phil Branagan in the last Auto Action that Holden giving 888 the contract to build all the 2018 Commodores has almost certainly sounded the death knell for any other brand of car competing in the series from 2018.Even if it didn't Gary is giving them a lesson in the way they will be treated and making sure they will stay away.

I think Branagan has it back-asswards.

HRT spent how much developing their car and engines for how many wins?

BJR have 888 cars but do their own engines.

I don't have a problem with a car manufacturer nominating a single point of homologation and supply. It will be the cheapest way to get multiple types of car on the grid, if people are not reinventing the wheel for a convergent outcome, at the cost of millions of dollars.

Also: Nissan only has one manufacturer, and until recently so did Volvo - I don't really see what the difference is.

[Umai Naa]

I'm not certain GRM are out to sue Volvo Sweden for anything in particular, damages for instance.

I suspect they are taking them to court, to seek clarification, and to contiue dialogue in search of an amicable agreement in which GRM can continue to utilise the the cars and engines until the end of 2017 at least.

Based on the news pieces, it appears that there has been no further word from Volvo Sweden to either GRM or Volvo Cars Australia on the decision made back in May. It is also thought that Volvo Sweden have gagged VCA from engaging in any chat to the media about the matter, and that they may have been instructed not to participate in the alleged meeting between GRM and Volvo Sweden, prior to the decision to withdraw support.

[anthony81901]

From what has been reported, it was a 3 year contract to the end of 2016 with Volvo retaining ownership of the cars and engines. Reality is that none of us are privy to the details of the contract and it will be up for the courts to interpret. Anybody stating this or that will happen is just speculating.

V8SC require a manufacturer to sanction its product to be raced. If this is not forthcoming, then the S60 will not be eligible for competition, as stated on page 15 of the 2017 Silly Season thread re Mercedes-Benz sanctioning Erebus' E63 program. Mercedes adds star power to V8 Supercars (Sydney Morning Herald) stating "...Mercedes-Benz Australia, which reversed its earlier decision not to allow the scheme to go ahead..."

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by Alan52

Manufacturers come and go from categories of motor racing all the time.Look at the history of F1 and Le Mans for dozens of examples.
What Gary is doing is helping persuade manufacturers to stay away from Supercars.What manufacturer would want the aggravation and negative publicity Volvo are getting from this?
I agree with Phil Branagan in the last Auto Action that Holden giving 888 the contract to build all the 2018 Commodores has almost certainly sounded the death knell for any other brand of car competing in the series from 2018.Even if it didn't Gary is giving them a lesson in the way they will be treated and making sure they will stay away.

Holden have bestowed upon Triple Eight the rights to the IP of everything that is specific to a Holden-badged racecar's homologation.

Mr Dane has stated that teams can either buy a turn-key racecar, or buy the bits required to turn whatever chassis they have, into the homologated car.

[anthony81901]

Originally Posted by Mixer

BJR have 888 cars but do their own engines.

Slight correction, BJR build their own cars, outsource their engines to Noonan Race Engineering and along with many others, buy components from 888.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by anthony81901

Slight correction, BJR build their own cars, outsource their engines to Noonan Race Engineering and along with many others, buy components from 888.

Thanks... Was just trying to make the point that 888 is already constructing cars for a LOT of the Commodore-driving field.

The sky hasn't fallen yet.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

or more realistically, you're negotiating with the current manufacturer who is screwing you over in breech of the current contract, which is what is happening here.

Keen to get a better idea Pecky about how Volvo is screwing over GRM?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Keen to get a better idea Pecky about how Volvo is screwing over GRM?

Its in the article and the reason Garry is taking legal action

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by peckstar

or more realistically, you're negotiating with the current manufacturer who is screwing you over in breech of the current contract, which is what is happening here.

Originally Posted by peckstar

Its in the article and the reason Garry is taking legal action

Oh i thought you're words meant you must have access to the contract, as i can't see the word "Breech" in any of the articles. What I can see is:
"The 71-year-old told Speedcafe.com that he has elected to proceed with legal action after ongoing efforts to discuss the matter with Volvo’s global management failed to yield a response."
and
Rogers declined to comment on the specifics of the proceedings, including which arm of Volvo it will be aimed at.
“It will all come out when we present our case,” he said.

Originally Posted by Mixer

Oh boy. What court do you even serve it in, who has juristiction?

If the contract was written by someone half competent, especially when involving International transactions, the jurisdiction would be given in one of the clauses

[GTRMagic]

Mr Browne of Browne & Co fame was a long time sponsor of GRM... you might imagine there is solid legal representation in Mr Rogers' corner...

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

Oh i thought you're words meant you must have access to the contract, as i can't see the word "Breech" in any of the articles. What I can see is:
"The 71-year-old told Speedcafe.com that he has elected to proceed with legal action after ongoing efforts to discuss the matter with Volvo’s global management failed to yield a response."
and

that's about what i said in my paraphrasing of the article. Thanks for adding nothing

Why have you chosen my response to Mixer's who concluded something totally not in the article.

But we already know the answer to that

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Why have you chosen my response to Mixer's who concluded something totally not in the article.

There is quite literally no substance to the article - Garry is trying to somehow sue Volvo to get them to supply him parts for another campaign they do not appear to have signed up for. PLEASE enlighten us with your "facts" you keep saying are in the article.

Also, I quoted and provided my sources.

[Reload]

Originally Posted by peckstar

that's about what i said in my paraphrasing of the article. Thanks for adding nothing

Why have you chosen my response to Mixer's who concluded something totally not in the article.

But we already know the answer to that

We ?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

There is quite literally no substance to the article - Garry is trying to somehow sue Volvo to get them to supply him parts for another campaign they do not appear to have signed up for. PLEASE enlighten us with your "facts" you keep saying are in the article.

Also, I quoted and provided my sources.

i never used the term "fact" and my opinion is based solely on Garry seeking legal advice which has resulted in him challenging Volvo

Anyone saying anything to the contrary has no "fact" on their side just an opinion based on nothing

You have not provided any source for your original comment which i was replying too