VOLVO OUT AT END OF 2016 (NOW CONFIRMED)

[Axeman444]

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.

Because you said this which is a "conclusion from something totally not in the article":

Originally Posted by peckstar

the current manufacturer who is screwing you over in breech of the current contract, which is what is happening here.

Originally Posted by Reload

We ?

I think he means the "Royal We"...?

[Alan52]

All we know for sure is
1Volvo had a 3 year contract with GRM that expires at the end of 2016
2Volvo wants back whatever parts of the Volvo GRM equipment it owns.
3A manufacturer has to by regulation give approval for it's cars to compete in Supercars and Volvo has withdrawn that approval.
Unless there is a no disadvantage for GRM clause in the contract (and there wouldn't be)I cannot see where this case would even begin.The comments about needing time to find another manufacturer are a joke.Nearly every team and Supercars themselves have been beating the bushes to find another Gen 2 manufacturer for the last few years with no response.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Alan52

All we know for sure is
1Volvo had a 3 year contract with GRM that expires at the end of 2016
2Volvo wants back whatever parts of the Volvo GRM equipment it owns.
3A manufacturer has to by regulation give approval for it's cars to compete in Supercars and Volvo has withdrawn that approval.
Unless there is a no disadvantage for GRM clause in the contract (and there wouldn't be)I cannot see where this case would even begin.The comments about needing time to find another manufacturer are a joke.Nearly every team and Supercars themselves have been beating the bushes to find another Gen 2 manufacturer for the last few years with no response.

Unless of course there is a clause in the agreement about the notice period required for a contract to expire/not roll over, to allow alternate supply to be sourced.

It would be an interesting argument, given that GRM currently run VF Commodore CotFs in the Dunlop series....

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Alan52

All we know for sure is

3A manufacturer has to by regulation give approval for it's cars to compete in Supercars and Volvo has withdrawn that approval.

Actually we dont know this for sure. In fact the opposite is just as likely to be true based on Merecedes still being eligible.

There is an assumption that has been made that because approval had be given at the start that it had to remain to continue. There is no evidence that this is true, just an assumption by some.

Take away that assumption and GRM can run Volvos next year if they have a car and an engine

[T-star]

I think Garry is just 'sending a legal letter'.

He says Volvo have been silent...but with a legal threat they have to respond. Then at least they can make a move in one of many directions.

Without knowing all the facts, I can't see a small race team owner having the financial muscle to beat Volvo in an ongoing legal matter.

[anthony81901]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Actually we dont know this for sure. In fact the opposite is just as likely to be true based on Merecedes still being eligible.

At the conclusion of the AMG / Erebus arrangement in 2014, it was written that based on the investment Erebus had made, Mercedes-Benz would sanction the team's use of the E63 until the end of the current regulations, ie the end of 2016. Had this not been forthcoming, then Erebus would have had to make other arrangements. There is probably a minimum notice period a manufacturer must give V8SA and/or teams if it wishes to withdraw its product from competition to avoid a dummy spit withdrawal, but the suggestion that it is perpetual would appear incorrect.

Maybe there is a minimum notice period that Volvo had to give GRM that was greater then the 7 months given, that is about the only thing I can think of that would stand up in court. Can't see this ending well for either GRM or the sport though. But ultimately we are just a bunch of bush lawyers, until contracts are tabled in court, everything is just chat.

[thlbtcc]

http://www.speedcafe.com/2016/09/13/...of-grm-action/

Volvo up for the fight it seems.

[Mixer]

“Our current three-year agreement with Garry Rogers Motorsport concludes at the end of the 2016 season,” the spokesman told Speedcafe.com.

Despite rumours of "screwing over" these would seem to be the facts.

GRM may think they have something legally actionable, but my experience with contracts and multinationals is that they tend to be pretty one sided.

[mspence]

He was happy to take the benefits of a manufacturer deal, seems less happy/accepting with the reality of how these end.

Often, it's suddenly, with little reasons given. And usually for good reason - the manufacturer deliberately outsources such operations because it is easy entry, and easy exit...

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Despite rumours of "screwing over" these would seem to be the facts.

GRM may think they have something legally actionable, but my experience with contracts and multinationals is that they tend to be pretty one sided.

No one has denied that.

The issue is with keeping the vehicles for next year

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

No one has denied that.

The issue is with keeping the vehicles for next year

Vehicles are not the issue. He needs Cyan to supply engine parts, and that is a whole different deal.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Vehicles are not the issue.

Well they are as Volvo allegedly want them back, and in opposition various parties claim they own, or have been alluded in the media to own, the IP, ie GRM, VASC etc, with the panels being the only thing Volvo can claim back. The chassis is still the CoTF chassis with pickup points to suit the Volvo panels

Originally Posted by Mixer

He needs Cyan to supply engine parts, and that is a whole different deal.

But yes this is the main issue, as if the vehicles are sorted in GRM's favour, from memory i read the engines are owned by Cyan, and GRM don't want to be modifying the chassis to fit the generic Chev engine

However, it all depends on the terms in the contract, which both parties seem to think are in their favour. We shall see. Allegedly.

[anthony81901]

GRM has revealed it is basing its case on deceptive conduct, with Volvo allegedly having decided not to renew back in 2014. It may well have, the person at Volvo Oz who signed off on it left fairly soon after it kicked off (and IIRC ended up on V8SC's payroll) so maybe there were issues between Volvo Oz and hq back then. Volvo may have been less than transparent with its intentions, or even down right dishonest, but unless there is a signed contract or a letter of intent, can't see how this will fly. http://www.speedcafe.com/2016/10/05/...w-marque-2018/

Being in court counsel will be able to cross examine, so Volvo may be able to force GRM to name who they are negotiating with as a future partner, unless the judge disallows it.

On a lighter note, anybody find it strange than a guy as creative and charismatic as Garry Rogers, would name a son Barry? Nothing against the name per se, but Barry and Garry, is there a Harry?

[mayhem]

EDIT: Sorry. Link to same article above.

[D.R.T.]

Interesting take outs from the Speedcafe article.

“The disappointing part is that we’re here to race cars and not go to court, but we really feel like we were misled in that we were given the indication that it was going to continue on,” said Rogers.

Hard to prove you have been misled if you have a contract for a period of time that is specified is it not?

“All we’re asking for is an opportunity to continue our business for one year.”

Not sure how Volvo is denying GRM the opportunity to continue with its business here?

Erebus are a prime example of how easily it is to continue with new cars in a short period of time.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Interesting take outs from the Speedcafe article.



Hard to prove you have been misled if you have a contract for a period of time that is specified is it not?



Not sure how Volvo is denying GRM the opportunity to continue with its business here?

Erebus are a prime example of how easily it is to continue with new cars in a short period of time.

Clearly, from the article, GRM seem to believe they have evidence suggesting that Volvo Sweden were looking to pull their involvement early in the agreement, without communicating that to the team. Most likely there is a clause in there for notice and/or compensation if that were to happen at particular time points.

So.. if it is proven, that the contract were allowed to lapse without communication about not renewing when it was known, it could be considered something similar to deceptive conduct...

Until its tested in court, or Volvo gets the cheque book out to shut down the review in public, it sits in the space of speculation..

The clever bods in agreement construction sometimes put together an annual review process where each party affirms its commitment to one another for the following season, and the life of the contract, as part of the review process. Then issues like Volvo is suggested to have done, cannot happen...

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Interesting take outs from the Speedcafe article.



Hard to prove you have been misled if you have a contract for a period of time that is specified is it not?



Not sure how Volvo is denying GRM the opportunity to continue with its business here?

Erebus are a prime example of how easily it is to continue with new cars in a short period of time.

wow what a particularly well thought out comment- NOT!.

I like especially how by knowing just one detail of the contract (the end date) you have full understanding of the contract and all the exit clauses and can so quickly come to a decision on who is right and who is wrong. Foolish

I like also how you give the example of a front running team and its sponsors just flipping over and running old cars at the back like Erebus has prepared to do do. Even though Erebus had to get another person to buy a car and mega wealthy Betty has dug into her own funds to run it. That is amazing!

Gifted writing

[one five five]

Originally Posted by peckstar

wow what a particularly well thought out comment- NOT!.

Pot calling the kettle black here, surely?

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Clearly, from the article, GRM seem to believe they have evidence suggesting that Volvo Sweden were looking to pull their involvement early in the agreement, without communicating that to the team. Most likely there is a clause in there for notice and/or compensation if that were to happen at particular time points.

Clearly?

Most likely?

Or does....

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

it sits in the space of speculation..

[T-star]

GRM can't win this - they are just buying time.

[anthony81901]

Originally Posted by peckstar

I like especially how by knowing just one detail of the contract (the end date) you have full understanding of the contract and all the exit clauses and can so quickly come to a decision on who is right and who is wrong.

I like also how you give the example of a front running team and its sponsors just flipping over and running old cars at the back like Erebus has prepared to do do. Even though Erebus had to get another person to buy a car and mega wealthy Betty has dug into her own funds to run it.

If I was GRM's legal team and drew up a list in preferential order as to why to start legal proceedings, deceptive conduct would be down the order. Would much rather prefer, didn't give required notice or indeed a signed bit of paper. Garry Rogers is a successful businessman, so obviously no fool and maybe has a wild card to deal, but from everything said so far, it does appear (and seemingly is the consensus here) that he is up against it.

The point re Erebus is valid, ie logistically it can be done, but if GRM are sweating on winning this action which may not be resolved until next year, then that would be a bit of a push.

[Driver TBA]

Originally Posted by anthony81901

Garry Rogers is a successful businessman, so obviously no fool and maybe has a wild card to deal

Yeah, he's a pretty smart operator, he must have or believes he has something to fight with.
I'm wondering if he really wants to run Volvo's next year, or if he's looking for a cash settlement?



Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

[GTRMagic]

Reads similar to my summary above..

[GTRMagic]

Mediation Time...

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Mediation Time...

Not unexpected. I wonder who will represent Volvo? From all that we've heard and read, it would appear that the local arm of the company was supportive of continuing the relationship.

It may mean that some Swedes may need to fly out here for the mediation.

A mediator is there to get the parties talking but can't make rulings or give directions on outcome, only the court can do that.