VOLVO OUT AT END OF 2016 (NOW CONFIRMED)

[anthony81901]

The 'little Aussie battler' argument is getting a bit boring. While none of us are privy to the exact details of the contract, from the information that has been reported, the majority of posters to this forum seem to be of the opinion that the facts are stacked in Volvo's favour.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by anthony81901

The 'little Aussie battler' argument is getting a bit boring. While none of us are privy to the exact details of the contract, from the information that has been reported, the majority of posters to this forum seem to be of the opinion that the facts are stacked in Volvo's favour.

oh wow, the majority seem to be of one opinion, the majority also thought the world was flat.

Sorry if i dont think that's a good argument

Garry disagrees with the majority, (i assume thats been reported), but somehow the majority disagree with him and therefore that makes the majority right and Garry wrong even though the majority have significantly less knowledge of the contract than Garry and the majority have not sought legal advice on the contract.

Why then has the majority formed a conclusion that is different to what has been reported by Garry, based on one little titbit that has occurred.

[anthony81901]

Garry and you disagree, but that appears to be about it. Everybody else offering an opinion seems to have come to a different conclusion.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by anthony81901

Garry and you disagree, but that appears to be about it. Everybody else offering an opinion seems to have come to a different conclusion.

Garry and I disagree, in what way?

The "majority" is saying garry shouldnt take legal action and yet he is. Clearly Garry disagrees with the "majority" and he has significantly more knowledge than the ""majority" who only have a titbit

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Despite a contract saying otherwise?

Hopefully Volvo and the courts enforce the contract that GRM signed and everyone can move on.

I wonder if roles were reversed how Gary would be commenting?

A written contract is not the only demonstration of commitment to a particular course of action. Taking meetings with people indicating continued & continuing support can be held to be a demonstration of commitment, albeit not pen on paper (although you might imagine an email trail exists)

[anthony81901]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Garry and I disagree, in what way?

You both think Volvo is screwing GRM over and not many others do.

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

A written contract is not the only demonstration of commitment to a particular course of action. Taking meetings with people indicating continued & continuing support can be held to be a demonstration of commitment, albeit not pen on paper (although you might imagine an email trail exists)

True, but until such time pen is put to paper, it can be argued that the contract is not valid. IIRC this came up when David Reynolds was trying to get out of his Kelly Racing deal. There would need to be some evidence that there was intent, perhaps by a draft contract having been drawn up with evidence of Volvo's input or something similar. Unconscionable as it is, I don't think leading somebody up the garden path is actually illegal.

GRM's case would be a lot stronger if Volvo had breached the contract, not give the required notice period or something similar, but they are basing their case on deceptive conduct and not having time to make alternative arrangements. GRM were advised in May, and as evidenced by Erebus' far quicker Benz to Holden conversion, 9 months is more than adequate.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by anthony81901

You both think Volvo is screwing GRM over and not many others do.

So then Garry and I agree?

Laughing at your Erebus example.

you are comparing a team at the back of the field with no sponsors to a team at the front of the field with sponsors.

Leading Erebus driver finished 15th including a win in 2015. This year 19th and no podiums, clearly backwards

Erebus couldnt afford a car at the start of the year and had to get someone else to buy one.

Interestingly why didnt the just re-skin to a Holden, Maybe its not as a easy as some suggest

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Erebus couldnt afford a car at the start of the year and had to get someone else to buy one.

Interestingly why didnt the just re-skin to a Holden, Maybe its not as a easy as some suggest

Losing 100% of your technical team and spanner twirlers at the end of last season doesn't generally provide much in the way of resources to reskin an orange let along a Ford cum Benz into a Commodore..

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

A written contract is not the only demonstration of commitment to a particular course of action. Taking meetings with people indicating continued & continuing support can be held to be a demonstration of commitment, albeit not pen on paper (although you might imagine an email trail exists)

Just not going to stand up in court. Indications or a demonstration of commitment do not mean anything.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Losing 100% of your technical team and spanner twirlers at the end of last season doesn't generally provide much in the way of resources to reskin an orange let along a Ford cum Benz into a Commodore..

Is it easy though. Who has done it so far. No one. Not even erebus did it and what they did do turned out to be a step backwards

[Umai Naa]

Erebus re-skinned the Falcon prototype SBR built, into one of the Mercs, and then raced it.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Erebus re-skinned the Falcon prototype SBR built, into one of the Mercs, and then raced it.

Ok so one that had never been raced. What about one that has been raced. Are you even allowed to do it?

[Umai Naa]

Yes.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Yes.

as in you have checked the rules or in its your opinion

[Umai Naa]

Both.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Is it easy though. Who has done it so far. No one. Not even erebus did it and what they did do turned out to be a step backwards

Erebus converted a Ford into a Benz.. its clearly not impossible.. that said, the team knew by then how to locate panels and parts on a Benz, so would have been less complex..

[Jack65]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Laughing at your Erebus example. you are comparing a team at the back of the field with no sponsors to a team at the front of the field with sponsors.

No sponsors, are Penrite and Hungry Jacks being given the space for free? Also Reynolds was in P1 after today's 1st session.

Originally Posted by peckstar

Ok so one that had never been raced. What about one that has been raced. Are you even allowed to do it?

Apparently so, Erebus converted Ford raced in 2014 as a Merc. http://www.speedcafe.com/2014/10/17/...is-gold-coast/

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Indications or a demonstration of commitment do not mean anything.

I think you would find it does, depending on the scenario

[peckstar]

GRM building two new Holden Supercars

however for the DVS (so it is claimed)

Garry confident he can race Volvos shaped cars next year, The question is about whats under the bonnet

[Jack65]

Not a contingency for next year? Believe that, you'll believe anything.

[fomoco]

Originally Posted by peckstar

GRM building two new Holden Supercars

however for the DVS (so it is claimed)

Garry confident he can race Volvos shaped cars next year, The question is about whats under the bonnet

Could be a chev , ford heads, other bits and pieces, SBR(stones) did similar engine builds iirc

[FIRE]

Maybe I have it totally wrong but since the current New Gen V8 cars isn't there a rule you can run a spec engine (based on Holden V8)? Like in BTCC.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by FIRE

Maybe I have it totally wrong but since the current New Gen V8 cars isn't there a rule you can run a spec engine (based on Holden V8)? Like in BTCC.

There was a "control" engine originally available, but it has never been developed or parity tested.

GRM have previously said they didn't want to go down that route anyway.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by one five five

There was a "control" engine originally available, but it has never been developed or parity tested.

GRM have previously said they didn't want to go down that route anyway.

According to the previously linked speedcafe article now they are suggesting its a possibility

“We will be running them as Volvos, it’s just whether they run with the Volvo or Chev engine is really what it’s about.
“We definitely won’t be running Holdens in the main game.”

[D.R.T.]

Isn't that a little contradictory from GRM?

There argument was that to protect the business and ensure they continue to race to keep his staff employed.

If he is building Holdens for DVS - why can he not also race Holdens in the Shell Series?