FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bud]

it was a bold failure because of lack of funding. I bet if one of the top 3 were behind it, it would have done alright. Petrovs statement that no new developments have taken place since early part of the season is the biggest eye opener really.

[Hammer278]

To be honest I dont make much of an effort to read your posts nowadays. But I think the contract position is besides the point, no one cares about the contract...I was talking about Renault's point of view in regards to this outburst. The contract can say whatever it wants.

So why the hell bother to reply or start arguments? It's no skin of my nose if you bother to engage in a discussion with me or not.

The contract is the key issue here. If it prohibits Petrov from publicly dissing his employer then they could give him the boot as he is in breach of his contract but I doubt they will do this as he is only saying what has been plain for all to see all year.

Because you always take the bait like a right wa**y.

And please show me a contract between employer and employee in the corporate world where the clause of 'not going against/actions which are deemed harmful to the employer' is MISSING? I don't think Renault's legal department are so inept.

[bud]

his outburst is 100% accurate... its refreshing if anything. I congratulate him infact.

[Hammer278]

You don't pay his salary.

[bud]

You don't pay his salary.

No, nor do the salary payers drive the car...

[scotty]

Petrov technically pays their salary and his own

[Bubbie]

Petrov is right. They started strong and then fell down the board. No upgrades for 10 races yikes!!! Boullier also really irritates me whenever he talks.

Petrov pays more than his fair share for this woeful team to operate. Of course they accepted his apology, because they want to keep accepting the cheques from his sponsors.

[andrew]

Because you always take the bait like a right wa**y.

And please show me a contract between employer and employee in the corporate world where the clause of 'not going against/actions which are deemed harmful to the employer' is MISSING? I don't think Renault's legal department are so inept.

WTF are you on about now?

I've never said any clause from any contract was missing. Time to start reading what I write or either ignore everything I write or you block my posts I think.

[madbrad]

Ferrari sacked Prost during the 1991 season for saying it was a truck or something like that. That's why he didn't have a ride in 92. Anyway he sued them and won. IIRC he got $4 million.

[Hammer278]

Because you always take the bait like a right wa**y.

And please show me a contract between employer and employee in the corporate world where the clause of 'not going against/actions which are deemed harmful to the employer' is MISSING? I don't think Renault's legal department are so inept.

WTF are you on about now?

I've never said any clause from any contract was missing. Time to start reading what I write or either ignore everything I write or you block my posts I think.

Trying to make you understand is like getting Massa to beat Alonso over a whole season. Forget it, you keep living in your little bubble there junior.

[andrew]

Because you always take the bait like a right wa**y.

And please show me a contract between employer and employee in the corporate world where the clause of 'not going against/actions which are deemed harmful to the employer' is MISSING? I don't think Renault's legal department are so inept.

WTF are you on about now?

I've never said any clause from any contract was missing. Time to start reading what I write or either ignore everything I write or you block my posts I think.

Trying to make you understand is like getting Massa to beat Alonso over a whole season. Forget it, you keep living in your little bubble there junior.

So confident in your position, you have to resort to insults rather than have a mature discussion.

[Hammer278]

You thought we were having a mature discussion up till that point? Good one Junior.

[scotty]

Give it a freaking rest guys.

[f1ea]

I dont think Petrov said anything harmful. He's also right about most of the things he said. if Renault do get rid of him based on this, they'd be quite stupid. The fact he's being open about it makes him even more appealing because he's brave enough to put his opinion forward.

Completely disagree. How is this more 'appealing' to the employer?

Are you with an employer now? What would your CEO prefer, you go into his office and put forward your points of view on how to make things better, OR,

Go to the press and say so and so MNC is underperforming due to this this and this and I'm fed up of it.

Will your CEO give you a raise due to your increased 'appeal and honesty'? Would other rival CEOs snap you up for your honesty? No, maybe for your knowledge of internal operations, but the fact that you're open to badmouthing your current employer might just negate that advantage.

My argument in this subject is not whether Petrov said the right thing or not...its the fact that he went public and anyway, has acknowledged his mistake by apologizing to the employer. This alone speaks volumes for those defending him.

If i was an employer i'd like a guy going for it. no need to bad mouth the team, but neither a sitting duck saying yes to everything. This doesnt mean being a cry baby; and in the 2 yrs he's been running, Petrov has never sounded like one (a crybaby). But Renault is lacking in the leadership department, and this is the closest it has been all yr to having one.