LellaLombardi wrote:kevinbotz wrote:What everything amounts to in the end, however, is a simple case of a breach of contract regarding an employee without any remaining interest in the condition of his employer. Raikkonen isn't necessarily in the right in this situation, but neither is Lotus, especially with their incendiary remarks to Raikkonen in India, which effectively destroyed any remaining goodwill between Raikkonen and the team. Morality is a very nebulous metric in this particular conflict.
Raikkonen no longer has any rational incentive to continue to tolerate the failures of Lotus' management. Keep him mind that he raced, this weekend, for a team that has failed to pay him for the past year, for a team that he will no longer drive for next year, and for a team that has deeply insulted his pride as a driver. From a purely objective perspective, that in itself is surprising enough.
I don't think the fact that he deigned to show up and "race" (in inverted commas because of his rejectful performance this weekend) is anything to be impressed about. When there are many good drivers who would desperately love the opportunity (Kobayashi, Kovalainen) - I think that's rather insulting to the likes of them to behave this way. It's still a privileged position to have an F1 drive last time I checked.
I didn't say I was impressed, I said I was surprised. Formula One contracts are still legal contracts. As I wrote in my earlier post, drivers like Hulkenberg have an incentive to overlook breaches of their contracts by their employers, under particular circumstances, because they
need the race seat they've been provided to peddle their wares, to secure their own future. It is in Hulkenberg's best interest not to raise attention over his contract situation; indeed, his decision to remain with Sauber yielded those conspicuous and impressive and absolutely imperative performances in Italy and Korea.
I ask that you try to approach Raikkonen's situation objectively. The man has no incentive to continue to race for Lotus. He signed a contract with Lotus expecting to be paid. He hasn't been paid. He's been an instrumental element in Lotus' 2012 and 2013 successes, and he knows that he's been an instrumental element in Lotus' successes. The fact that Lotus have failed to pay him is effectively tantamount to a personal insult in his perception, a perception not ameliorated by Permane's Indian radio call for him to "get the **** out of the way". Unlike Hulkenberg, Raikkonen has no need to peddle his wares. Raikkonen has no need to fight for his future. And if Raikkonen is expected to drive in a championship he no longer cares about, for a team that has cursed at him and failed to pay his wages, for a next year that he has already secured months ago, then what reason is there for him to meet those expectations?
Autosport reported earlier today that Raikkonen will race for Lotus for the remaining duration of his contract, a provisional agreement contingent on Lotus' ability to pay Raikkonen for his services. There is no blame here, no right, no wrong. Perhaps Raikkonen's reactions were less than circumspect, as were Permane's comments in India. Perhaps both parties could have resolved the conflict in a far more decorous and diplomatic fashion. But at the end of it, this story is nothing more than a pitiable anecdote from an era of the sport where great expectations remained unrealized, where the desperately needy are afflicted with impecunity, and where neither good or evil has a place. All it is in the end, is a contractual dispute between Kimi Raikkonen and the Lotus F1 Team, and as outwardly contemptible as some of the actions taken by both parties may seem, all decisions undertaken were rational and self-interested. Unreasonable perhaps, cold and even callous. But rational.
(Tony Jardine, 1988)
My inner English student was clearly in hibernation when I posted that 
