Grand Prix Rejects

roblomas52 wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

LellaLombardi wrote:I think unless a driver has been truly, truly rejectful - and Perez certainly hasn't been - they should be allowed two years at a team before being binned for underperforming. Using McLaren's logic here, Hamilton should have been fired for 2011.

Hamilton won three races in both 2010 and 2011. Perez hasnt won any. The comparison doesnt really stack up.

Yes it does because Perez would have won 3 races if he had a decent car to drive.

How many races could have Button won then?

roblomas52 wrote:Yes it does because Perez would have won 3 races if he had a decent car to drive.

Would he? How do you know?

There also seems to be a bit of a pattern with drivers struggling after leaving Sauber for a top team - Frentzen especially comes to mind. The Wiki entry describes his time at Sauber as having a family atmosphere, and my impression of them is that they are more of a nurturing team than a proving ground.

CoopsII wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:Yes it does because Perez would have won 3 races if he had a decent car to drive.

Would he? How do you know?

well, it's quite ovious that he is a talented driver otherwise he would not be in the position he is in today.

Shizuka wrote:How many races could have Button won then?

3

roblomas52 wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:Yes it does because Perez would have won 3 races if he had a decent car to drive.

Would he? How do you know?

well, it's quite ovious that he is a talented driver otherwise he would not be in the position he is in today.

Thats lovely, but how's about answering my question?

CoopsII wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Would he? How do you know?

well, it's quite ovious that he is a talented driver otherwise he would not be in the position he is in today.

Thats lovely, but how's about answering my question?

Right then...

Perez got 3 podiums for sauber last year in what was an excelant season for them. Hamilton on the other hand, won races and put in a serious bid for the title. if Mclaren made a car as good as last years, perez would have won 3 races right now.

CoopsII wrote:

LellaLombardi wrote:I think unless a driver has been truly, truly rejectful - and Perez certainly hasn't been - they should be allowed two years at a team before being binned for underperforming. Using McLaren's logic here, Hamilton should have been fired for 2011.

Hamilton won three races in both 2010 and 2011. Perez hasnt won any. The comparison doesnt really stack up.

Plus, Perez has really only had the one good race, and that was India. Other than that, he's been fairly comprehensively crushed by Button. Hamilton had a really scrappy year in 2011, but even then he beat Button from time to time, and he had a bunch of races where he reminded you that he is one of the best in the world. Perez has never really done that.

Salamander wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

LellaLombardi wrote:I think unless a driver has been truly, truly rejectful - and Perez certainly hasn't been - they should be allowed two years at a team before being binned for underperforming. Using McLaren's logic here, Hamilton should have been fired for 2011.

Hamilton won three races in both 2010 and 2011. Perez hasnt won any. The comparison doesnt really stack up.

Plus, Perez has really only had the one good race, and that was India. Other than that, he's been fairly comprehensively crushed by Button. Hamilton had a really scrappy year in 2011, but even then he beat Button from time to time, and he had a bunch of races where he reminded you that he is one of the best in the world. Perez has never really done that.

Because Perez has never really had the chance to due to the heap of crap Mclaren have given him this year.

roblomas52 wrote:Because Perez has never really had the chance to due to the heap of crap Mclaren have given him this year.

In that case, Button has never really had the chance to shine neither.
Oh wait: he could have finished fifth in Malaysia already, if the team didn't mess his pitstop up!

To stop this dragging on with a series of ever more meaningless anecdotal evidence my point is that you cannot say for definite that Perez would've won three races. The three races Hamilton won werent just down to him being sat in a decent car (was it even that decent?) it was down to his experience and race craft on the day. Perez driving for McLaren last year would've been just as accident prone and fiesty as he was for Sauber. I'm not particulary slagging him off, one of those two listed attributes were one of the reasons McLaren showed an interest in the first place, but lets not carried away. Before you know it you'll be arguing that in Vettels Red Bull he could be a quadruple world champion. Its not that simple.

Shizuka wrote:

reblelmas52 wrote:Because Perez has never really had the chance to due to the heap of crap Mclaren have given him this year.

In that case, Button has never really had the chance to shine neither.
Oh wait: he could have finished fifth in Malaysia already, if the team didn't mess his pitstop up!

Actually, he was on to beat both Mercedes to 3rd that day.

EDIT:

CoopsII wrote:To stop this dragging on with a series of ever more meaningless anecdotal evidence my point is that you cannot say for definite that Perez would've won three races. The three races Hamilton won werent just down to him being sat in a decent car (was it even that decent?) it was down to his experience and race craft on the day. Perez driving for McLaren last year would've been just as accident prone and fiesty as he was for Sauber. I'm not particulary slagging him off, one of those two listed attributes were one of the reasons McLaren showed an interest in the first place, but lets not carried away. Before you know it you'll be arguing that in Vettels Red Bull he could be a quadruple world champion. Its not that simple.

Yeah, if you're gonna argue that if Hamilton won 3 races for McLaren, that Perez could've done the same, that implies that Perez's skillset is equivalent to Hamilton's. And this is clearly not the case, given that Hamilton always had it over Button in terms of one-lap pace, and was very sharp in wheel-to-wheel combat - both things which Perez sorely lacks.

There isn't a US GP thread yet so I didn't know where to post this but anyway............

yeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Salamander wrote:Actually, he was on to beat both Mercedes to 3rd that day.

Even better. Thanks for fixing me!

Shizuka wrote:

Salamander wrote:Actually, he was on to beat both Mercedes to 3rd that day.

Even better. Thanks for fixing me!

Had Mercedes let Rosberg through he might not have come 3rd but 4th was definitely there for the taking

Dark77 wrote:There isn't a US GP thread yet so I didn't know where to post this but anyway............

yeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Now THAT would be an ideal post to begin a US GP thread with, even if the GP is in just over a week's time.

Any news on whose seat he's taking?

CoopsII wrote:To stop this dragging on with a series of ever more meaningless anecdotal evidence my point is that you cannot say for definite that Perez would've won three races. The three races Hamilton won werent just down to him being sat in a decent car (was it even that decent?) it was down to his experience and race craft on the day. Perez driving for McLaren last year would've been just as accident prone and fiesty as he was for Sauber. I'm not particulary slagging him off, one of those two listed attributes were one of the reasons McLaren showed an interest in the first place, but lets not carried away. Before you know it you'll be arguing that in Vettels Red Bull he could be a quadruple world champion. Its not that simple.

I would have to agree that predicting what Perez might have achieved had he been paired against Button some time in the period from 2010 to 2012 is a subject that is fraught with complications.

The most straightforward evaluation of his ability that we can make is his relative change in form across the season and his performance against Button this season. On that first point, I would say that, over the course of the season, Perez has shown some improvement in form - he is beginning to show a bit more maturity on track (such as opportunistically passing Hamilton in India) and, in recent races, has begun to lift his performance relative to Button too.
If we work from the Belgian GP onwards (i.e. the second half of this season), whilst his performance in that race could be criticised, he finished within 1.5s of Button in Italy, within 0.5s in Singapore and within 3s of Button in Korea. The only race that Button had a significant advantage over him was in Japan, whilst India saw the situation reversed with Perez beating Button by a significant margin (I am leaving out Abu Dhabi given that Button's stop for a new wing skews the picture).

All in all, therefore, I wouldn't say that Button is really dominating Perez in terms of raw pace - I think it is perhaps just a symbol of how close the grid is in the lower part of the points that Perez could be so close to Button in those races and yet there was such a marked difference in point scored.

Now, I do feel that Perez has, at times, been reckless on track - however, I do feel that is in part because Whitmarsh, although well intentioned in urging Perez to "stick his elbows out", as he put it, perhaps should have given greater consideration to the effect that public pressure might have had on a relatively inexperienced driver who was under intense scrutiny by the press and facing a very different working culture to the one he had just left at Sauber.
Now, I would still say that, ultimately, there are some questions over his competitiveness and that there are probably more competitive drivers on the market than Perez (I'm thinking chiefly of Hulkenberg) - however, I would agree with the sentiment that, to a certain extent, Perez's issues have also been a by product of McLaren's mismanaging the situation and the fact that they have put him under heavy pressure to perform in a sub optimal car.

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:I think this is another good story about the cost issues

I believe there was a similar Autosport article a few weeks ago. This is getting increasingly urgent.

good_Ralf wrote:

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:I think this is another good story about the cost issues

I believe there was a similar Autosport article a few weeks ago. This is getting increasingly urgent.

Ross Brawn came to my university on Wednesday evening and did a Q&A session. One of the questions was about costs, and he gave the impression in his answer that F1's teetering on the brink of some kind of financial meltdown. He also said that Red Bull were spending approximately £250-260m per year on F1, which is a very hefty sum of money indeed. 'Twas a very interesting evening, even though I was far too afraid to ask a question.

Ataxia wrote:Ross Brawn came to my university on Wednesday evening and did a Q&A session. One of the questions was about costs, and he gave the impression in his answer that F1's teetering on the brink of some kind of financial meltdown. He also said that Red Bull were spending approximately £250-260m per year on F1, which is a very hefty sum of money indeed. 'Twas a very interesting evening, even though I was far too afraid to ask a question.

Speaking of costs in F1, I still have the May 1995 issue of Road And Track that my dad kept for all of these years. In this particular issue, there was an article about F1 finances and how much money is needed to run a top-team for a single year. For the 1994 season, a staff member from the Williams F1 marketing and sponsorship team said roughly $40 million. And this was almost 20 years ago! Furthermore, in that same article, the Author said that when Bernie Ecclestone bought Brabham, he had 36 Cosworth DFV engines that cost $29,000 each.

Now, 260 million euros for Red Bull Racing, is a whole boatload of money to be spending just to run a F1 team! No wonder teams like Lotus, Force India, Sauber, Williams, Caterham and Marussia are so screwed for cash that these teams are considering giving up one or both race seats for pay-drivers!

As for pay-drivers taking up more of the racing seat along the F1 grid, it's reject-worthy for us watching F1, especially since I been watching F1 since 2000, and my dad has been watching since 1994. Personally, I am against pay-drivers from the competitive aspect of it, F1 should be the best of the best racing these cars. However, I can understand the urge for more than half of the current teams turning to pay-drivers for the needed funds to avoid being out of business!

good_Ralf wrote:

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:I think this is another good story about the cost issues

I believe there was a similar Autosport article a few weeks ago. This is getting increasingly urgent.

And if anyone has an Autosport+ subscription, there's a good article by Dieter Rencken as well about Lotus' financial plight, and basically how the current Concorde Agreement is designed to screw everyone apart from Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren and CVC. <high horse> As an aside, as part of my job I've had cause to delve ever so slightly into some finance companies that collapsed during the GFC, and suffice to say I really have no time for venture capitalists whose reason for living, it would appear, is to make money for the sake of making money. That highly reliable source, Wikipedia, actually gets it right in the opening line of its entry for "Formula One Group" where it says:

The Formula One Group is a group of companies responsible for the promotion of the FIA Formula One World Championship and exploitation of the sport's commercial rights.

BINGO. </high horse>

Back on the topic of Perez, though, while I think it would be harsh to dump him out at this late stage, I do think that McLaren are discovering what I suggested last year (if I may say so myself) when I wrote my article on Checo - that Sergio was flattered by his three podiums last year, two of which simply happened to be when he was in the right place on the right tyre at the right time, and the other one happened in the rain (and there's been none of that this year), and really Perez is not as good as it would have seemed from all the attention he was getting from Ferrari and McLaren last year.

eytl wrote:

The Formula One Group is a group of companies responsible for the promotion of the FIA Formula One World Championship and exploitation of the sport's commercial rights.

Oxford Dictionary wrote:exploitation
noun

2 the action of making use of and benefiting from resources:
the Bronze Age saw exploitation of gold deposits

Therefore, whilst appearing humourous, using this term is not violating the neutrality wikipedia likes to pride itself on. Yes, I had to do that. I am a translator, I get paid to be a smartarse regarding words.

At this rate we will only have about 4 teams left in 5 years, like what happened to the WRC 10 years ago...

With no US Grand Prix thread up yet, I'm not sure where to post this, but according to the Gazzetta dello Sport, Jules Bianchi is lined up to replace Alonso at Austin should he not be able to take part...

tommykl wrote:With no US Grand Prix thread up yet, I'm not sure where to post this, but according to the Gazzetta dello Sport, Jules Bianchi is lined up to replace Alonso at Austin should he not be able to take part...

It would be ironic if that then gave McLaren a chance to evaluate Magnussen a one-off drive at Marussia!

I would personally like to see De La Rosa get the drive though! About time he had one more comeback!

Ed24 wrote:

tommykl wrote:With no US Grand Prix thread up yet, I'm not sure where to post this, but according to the Gazzetta dello Sport, Jules Bianchi is lined up to replace Alonso at Austin should he not be able to take part...

It would be ironic if that then gave McLaren a chance to evaluate Magnussen a one-off drive at Marussia!

I would personally like to see De La Rosa get the drive though! About time he had one more comeback!

No, it's time for the long-awaited return of the one, the only, the great Kamui Kobayashi

Ed24 wrote:

tommykl wrote:With no US Grand Prix thread up yet, I'm not sure where to post this, but according to the Gazzetta dello Sport, Jules Bianchi is lined up to replace Alonso at Austin should he not be able to take part...

It would be ironic if that then gave McLaren a chance to evaluate Magnussen a one-off drive at Marussia!

I would personally like to see De La Rosa get the drive though! About time he had one more comeback!

No sorry, that only happens with teams run by Colin Kolles. Colin Kolles, come back!

eytl wrote:Back on the topic of Perez, though, while I think it would be harsh to dump him out at this late stage, I do think that McLaren are discovering what I suggested last year (if I may say so myself) when I wrote my article on Checo - that Sergio was flattered by his three podiums last year, two of which simply happened to be when he was in the right place on the right tyre at the right time, and the other one happened in the rain (and there's been none of that this year), and really Perez is not as good as it would have seemed from all the attention he was getting from Ferrari and McLaren last year.

Your right about the podium part Enoch. Shortly after the 2012 season ended I posted a comment on Sky Sports that Perez's podiums in Canada and Italy were down to the different strategy and while he is a good driver I can't remember him putting in a scintillating spurt of pace that makes you go "Wow that was incredible". He even admitted after Qualifying 15th in Canada in a Q and A with the Official F1 Website that the Sauber wasn't suited to Montreal and I think some people overrated some of his drives a little bit and there finding out that the 2012 Pirelli's helped him in some way

Wizzie wrote:

Ed24 wrote:

tommykl wrote:With no US Grand Prix thread up yet, I'm not sure where to post this, but according to the Gazzetta dello Sport, Jules Bianchi is lined up to replace Alonso at Austin should he not be able to take part...

It would be ironic if that then gave McLaren a chance to evaluate Magnussen a one-off drive at Marussia!

I would personally like to see De La Rosa get the drive though! About time he had one more comeback!

No, it's time for the long-awaited return of the one, the only, the great Kamui Kobayashi

I guess that it is theoretically possible that Ferrari would turn to Kobayashi if Alonso was ruled unfit to race - I think that he is technically listed as a reserve driver for Ferrari, though it is perhaps more likely that they would give the drive to either Bianchi or de la Rosa (de la Rosa did drive the F138 in pre-season testing, so he probably would be better placed to drive than Kamui in that sense).

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:

eytl wrote:Back on the topic of Perez, though, while I think it would be harsh to dump him out at this late stage, I do think that McLaren are discovering what I suggested last year (if I may say so myself) when I wrote my article on Checo - that Sergio was flattered by his three podiums last year, two of which simply happened to be when he was in the right place on the right tyre at the right time, and the other one happened in the rain (and there's been none of that this year), and really Perez is not as good as it would have seemed from all the attention he was getting from Ferrari and McLaren last year.

Your right about the podium part Enoch. Shortly after the 2012 season ended I posted a comment on Sky Sports that Perez's podiums in Canada and Italy were down to the different strategy and while he is a good driver I can't remember him putting in a scintillating spurt of pace that makes you go "Wow that was incredible". He even admitted after Qualifying 15th in Canada in a Q and A with the Official F1 Website that the Sauber wasn't suited to Montreal and I think some people overrated some of his drives a little bit and there finding out that the 2012 Pirelli's helped him in some way

In retrospect, given that Ferrari came under a lot of criticism to begin with when they said that they wouldn't consider Perez for a seat in 2013, it does seem as if perhaps Ferrari were right to have been more cautious about him than McLaren were. I do agree that Perez is a competent driver and that some of the criticism of him has been rather overblown, but perhaps they were right when they said that it was too early to promote him to a top team just yet.

Wizzie wrote:

Ed24 wrote:

tommykl wrote:With no US Grand Prix thread up yet, I'm not sure where to post this, but according to the Gazzetta dello Sport, Jules Bianchi is lined up to replace Alonso at Austin should he not be able to take part...

I would personally like to see De La Rosa get the drive though! About time he had one more comeback!

No, it's time for the long-awaited return of the one, the only, the great Kamui Kobayashi

I would like to see Fisico in the car.

good_Ralf wrote:I would like to see Fisico in the car.

I'd like to see Badoer.

At this rate we will only have about 4 teams left in 5 years, like what happened to the WRC 10 years ago...

Oh FFS, drama much? Look at this realitiscally.

Teams that are FINE:

Ferrari
Red Bull
Torro Rosso
Mclaren -despite losing Vodaphone they are gonna be a works team in 2015 again. Yes I said else where on here they are in decline PERFORMANCE WISE, but money-wise, they're A-OK.
Mercedes

Teams that are doing OK:

Force India - Their rep as a poor team seems to have more to do with their owner, who's a crook. The team is still sending out developments, so they seem ok.
Williams - Yes Pasta is bringing loads of money, but the team is pubicily owned now, and with Claire in place, theres a long term plan. They ain't going anywhere. Remember Williams folded once, didn't last too long, did it?
Sauber - Yes they needed Russian money, but money is money and Sauber has always run pay-drivers. Peter simply will not let this team die. He proved it after BMW left.

Teams that are hard to get a read on:

Catheram - Can't figure them out. They stink, and are taking some pay-driver cash, but they are spending money money and Tony seems content to fund the team. I can see them around a few years yet, even if nothing changes.

Teams that are in danger of failing:

Lotus - Really this is their own fault. You hired the second-highest paid driver in F1, and spend like a factory team, when your not. What did you expect? Every report I've seen admits Lotus waaaayyyyy overspent their budget. So of course they are hurting.

Marussia - The new engines next year will hurt, and the team has no sponsors I know of. Plus their funded by a car company no one knows about (at least Spyker sold some cars). BUT, if they keep 10th place, I think they'll be ok. Big money to be had there.


So really, the sky is not falling. And this whole "F1 is doomed" mantra is old. It didn't happen when the rules went to F2. It didn't happen in the late-50s when all the manufactuers left. It didn't happen when the turbo era made costs explode. It didn't happen in the summer of 94 when people were calling for it to be banned, and again it didn't happen a few years ago during the FOTA war and budget cap mess, so I really doubt it will happen now.

That's not a bad appraisal, although you never know with Toro Rosso I suppose, it's not that impossible that Dietrich could wake up one day and scale back his F1 involvement.

As for Lotus, they're basically stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they need to spend more to try and get access to more Constructors' money, but the amount required is way too high for them and they've been screwed in the Concorde agreement as mentioned.

Wallio wrote:Teams that are doing OK:

Force India - Their rep as a poor team seems to have more to do with their owner, who's a crook. The team is still sending out developments, so they seem ok.
Williams - Yes Pasta is bringing loads of money, but the team is pubicily owned now, and with Claire in place, theres a long term plan. They ain't going anywhere. Remember Williams folded once, didn't last too long, did it?
Sauber - Yes they needed Russian money, but money is money and Sauber has always run pay-drivers. Peter simply will not let this team die. He proved it after BMW left.

In the case of Force India, the problem is that the current owners are not exactly in a great position - Kingfisher Airlines is still causing considerable cash flow problems for Mallya, whilst United Spirits, the company which not only proves most of the sponsorship of the team but, I believe, also acts a guarantor of their debts, is slowly slipping out of Mallya's control (he's already had to sell 25% of that company to Diageo, and Diageo have made it clear that, provided the regulators approve it, they want to take a controlling stake in the company). As for Sahara, they are currently involved in extensive legal action in India over allegations of misleading investors and are currently being asked to repay $2.5 billion in damages - which has naturally lead some to wonder what impact that might have on the team.

As for Williams, financially they are not in a good shape - their latest set of accounts showed that the losses of the racing team were increasing compared to 2012, whilst the wider group as a whole (i.e. including non F1 related activity) has also seen its turnover shrink markedly too. Sir Frank may be doggedly determined to hold on and Claire evidently shares that same streak too, but if the wider group is struggling to maintain its workload and the team heavily relies on PDVSA, there is only so far that stubbornness can take you.

As for Sauber, whilst Peter Sauber has stepped in to save the team twice from destruction, there is only so far that he his resources can stretch - he had to personally bail out the team this time around, but has indicated that, having done so twice before, he might not have be able to do so for a third time in relatively rapid succession if things do turn sour once more for the team.
Even now, despite an injection of funding from outside partners, Sauber are by no means secure - Kaltenborn has admitted that Sauber may have to pay Ferrari to give Sirotkin a test because Sauber have neither the budget nor the resources to run any of their old cars to give Sirotkin the mileage he needs for a superlicence.

Ed24 wrote:That's not a bad appraisal, although you never know with Toro Rosso I suppose, it's not that impossible that Dietrich could wake up one day and scale back his F1 involvement.

As for Lotus, they're basically stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they need to spend more to try and get access to more Constructors' money, but the amount required is way too high for them and they've been screwed in the Concorde agreement as mentioned.

Dietrich supposedly did try to sell the team off after customer cars were outlawed, and it does seem to be in something of an odd state of suspended animation these days - it lives, and yet Red Bull seem to have no real interest in expanding Toro Rosso's operations given that their focus in on the main team.

Compare these two images:

The one and only in 2004 in a Minardi:


Chilton in a Marussia


Look at the amount of advertising on it. Much less. And that holds true for almost all the teams. I mean how much money can Kemppi or Wihuri be giving to Williams for Bottas. Not much.. But they are prominently shown and btw, also come with Bottas.

I also rembebr back in the manufacturer era all the top teams were burning around 400 mil $ and all were into the three digits bar some who didn't make it. So I find it hard to believe a top team was able to race for 40 mil just some 10 years before that.

If these current amounts are to be believed, then we have come down alot from the heyday but the sponsors have left even faster. There are some huge spenders but the cars look a bit empty... And the spenders come with the drivers, not the teams so I can see the paydriver bonanza continuing.

Rusujuur wrote:I also rembebr back in the manufacturer era all the top teams were burning around 400 mil $ and all were into the three digits bar some who didn't make it. So I find it hard to believe a top team was able to race for 40 mil just some 10 years before that.

I remember one Eddie Jordan saying many years ago that Jordan's budget for 2000 or 2001 was around $100 million, which was an increase from $40 million from about five years previously. He then went on to mention that Ferrari's budget had ballooned from $100 million to almost $300 million in that same time, so it's entirely possible that top teams were running on $40 million a year at the turn of the 90s.

Raikkonen not to race in USA and Brazil due to urgent surgery. Turun Sanomat

Seems like a good source so could well be true.

Very interesting to see who his replacement is! Do they go Valsecchi or try and grab Hulkenberg early perhaps? Or someone completely out of left field? Heidfeld?

I'd go with Valsecchi. Finally a good chance for a tester. It can't be Hülkenberg cuz I can't see anyone to race for Sauber if he goes. (Pedro de la Rosa anyone? Oh please make it happen. I want this to happen.)

solarcold wrote:I'd go with Valsecchi. Finally a good chance for a tester. It can't be Hülkenberg cuz I can't see anyone to race for Sauber if he goes. (Pedro de la Rosa anyone? Oh please make it happen. I want this to happen.)

That sounds really good actually (although my favourite rumour was the Kimi/Hulk swap rumours)! Like I was saying about Ferrari yesterday, another PDLR comeback is always welcome! The problem with Valsecchi is that we saw that D'Ambrosio wasn't that good as a sub and he had the extra experience at Marussia, so I can't see him doing that well. However, it would be sad to see him overlooked, like the old Badoer 1999 situation.

Would be pretty bizarre if both Alonso and Raikkonen are out though!

EDIT: As an argument for Valsecchi, as we saw with Kobayashi in 2009, sometimes drivers can come in and do surprisingly well.

EDIT 2: I must say, this whole story does seem a little fishy though - could be just a convenient excuse to cut their losses and get Kimi out of there.