GPGSL Season 6 Complete!
Posted by GPGSL
Yes Tom, I understand your point of view that we could be making it over-complicated with too many rules and that the majority do work within the system fairly, therefore the amendment should not affect anyone should it?
Only if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that a driver has been poached or moved without a team owners permission would we apply a penalty, in other words, no one will be able to steal a driver away from a team because we would reduce his perf making the driver a poor option.
However, you have admitted to poaching drivers from other teams, and perhaps that has helped take your team to the top of the heap in one way or another, not entirely anyway I should add, as your use of in-team driver changes and use of the boost strategy has no doubt helped, along with your overall experience as a team owner.
I know that the the majority play by the rules, but that is not to say that is has not happened in the past, or will happen in the future. The penalty is there only to ensure fair play, and personally I doubt it would ever have to be applied as everyone, drivers and team-owners alike are aware of the obligations of their contract for the season they have agreed on. The GPGSL, or should I say a member of the team has noticed that a loophole exists, and that in all fairness we should shut the door on it. The rules are in constant review by us, and we do take notice of all suggestions that come our way, from the sublime to the ridiculous.
The GPGSL rules state that drivers cannot break a contract without some form of fair and equitable negotiation, something along those lines, but there is no clause that effectively prevents them from doing so, and now there is. The GPGSL just stating in the rules that they cannot do it, and actually preventing them from doing it by imposition of a penalty for breaking the rules, are two different things entirely.
The amendment will stand, and your point of view on fair play and other points you raised has been noted and I have responded as best I can.
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central
Only if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that a driver has been poached or moved without a team owners permission would we apply a penalty, in other words, no one will be able to steal a driver away from a team because we would reduce his perf making the driver a poor option.
However, you have admitted to poaching drivers from other teams, and perhaps that has helped take your team to the top of the heap in one way or another, not entirely anyway I should add, as your use of in-team driver changes and use of the boost strategy has no doubt helped, along with your overall experience as a team owner.
I know that the the majority play by the rules, but that is not to say that is has not happened in the past, or will happen in the future. The penalty is there only to ensure fair play, and personally I doubt it would ever have to be applied as everyone, drivers and team-owners alike are aware of the obligations of their contract for the season they have agreed on. The GPGSL, or should I say a member of the team has noticed that a loophole exists, and that in all fairness we should shut the door on it. The rules are in constant review by us, and we do take notice of all suggestions that come our way, from the sublime to the ridiculous.
The GPGSL rules state that drivers cannot break a contract without some form of fair and equitable negotiation, something along those lines, but there is no clause that effectively prevents them from doing so, and now there is. The GPGSL just stating in the rules that they cannot do it, and actually preventing them from doing it by imposition of a penalty for breaking the rules, are two different things entirely.
The amendment will stand, and your point of view on fair play and other points you raised has been noted and I have responded as best I can.
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to.
[www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 CentralThanks to Kittleson for ruining my race. 
My Grand Prix 4 Files
I'm a total dick. How many people can say that?
Go Dean, LOL 
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to.
[www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central
True North to release car tonight!
True North Racing are to finally release their new car TONIGHT exactly one week LATE. Reports that the questionable new nose cone did not meet GPGSL criteria are rife, and it is still believed the team will be pushing the edges on this one into the second race.
We can only hope the regulations don't sanction us for being inovative.[/b]
Trotter Dollop Newstation 2011
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
True North Racing are to finally release their new car TONIGHT exactly one week LATE. Reports that the questionable new nose cone did not meet GPGSL criteria are rife, and it is still believed the team will be pushing the edges on this one into the second race.
We can only hope the regulations don't sanction us for being inovative.[/b]
Trotter Dollop Newstation 2011
danm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True North to release car tonight!
>
> True North Racing are to finally release their new
> car TONIGHT exactly one week LATE. Reports that
> the questionable new nose cone did not meet GPGSL
> criteria are rife, and it is still believed the
> team will be pushing the edges on this one into
> the second race.
>
> We can only hope the regulations don't sanction us
> for being inovative.
>
> Trotter Dollop Newstation 2011
Right after my 4th place start to the season. Bad qualy (as often), but good, steady pace in the race, good teamwork in the pits...
Best car of shame in the race!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
> True North to release car tonight!
>
> True North Racing are to finally release their new
> car TONIGHT exactly one week LATE. Reports that
> the questionable new nose cone did not meet GPGSL
> criteria are rife, and it is still believed the
> team will be pushing the edges on this one into
> the second race.
>
> We can only hope the regulations don't sanction us
> for being inovative.
>
> Trotter Dollop Newstation 2011
Right after my 4th place start to the season. Bad qualy (as often), but good, steady pace in the race, good teamwork in the pits...
Best car of shame in the race!!!
Macca25 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brunoboi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where's that contract amendment come from Mal?
> I'd
> > argue it's not really in the spirit of the
> league
> > as it'll make it harder for driver changes to
> take
> > place mid-season. It also seems quite biassed
> > against drivers in that they get penalised for
> > breaking a contract but what if a team breaks a
> > contract?
>
> I disagree, it's easy for you to say that because
> you have arguable the strongest team on the
> grid and no one in there right mind would walk
> away from TSS. On the other hand, as a new
> team on the grid I had to work bloody hard to sign
> the drivers that I did and it is a fantastic
> line up that I don't want just walking away to
> another team.
>
> As I said, and I think Chris will agree with me
> here, as a new team it is so hard to attract
> drivers and if you give them free licence to just
> walk away at the first sign of trouble then
> that would be the end of the small teams.
>
> So to sum up, I think the rule is a good one.
I do agree completely and I couldnt have put this better myself. It was extremely difficult to sign drivers, to the point where I had drivers turning down the offer of a race seat to stay in test seats this season. I agree with the rule as well.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
-------------------------------------------------------
> brunoboi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where's that contract amendment come from Mal?
> I'd
> > argue it's not really in the spirit of the
> league
> > as it'll make it harder for driver changes to
> take
> > place mid-season. It also seems quite biassed
> > against drivers in that they get penalised for
> > breaking a contract but what if a team breaks a
> > contract?
>
> I disagree, it's easy for you to say that because
> you have arguable the strongest team on the
> grid and no one in there right mind would walk
> away from TSS. On the other hand, as a new
> team on the grid I had to work bloody hard to sign
> the drivers that I did and it is a fantastic
> line up that I don't want just walking away to
> another team.
>
> As I said, and I think Chris will agree with me
> here, as a new team it is so hard to attract
> drivers and if you give them free licence to just
> walk away at the first sign of trouble then
> that would be the end of the small teams.
>
> So to sum up, I think the rule is a good one.
I do agree completely and I couldnt have put this better myself. It was extremely difficult to sign drivers, to the point where I had drivers turning down the offer of a race seat to stay in test seats this season. I agree with the rule as well.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
I haven't followed ALL of what has been written.
But what with all the driver changes, maybe we need some sort of penalty to the driver who switches mid season?
Or every time a driver change is made mid season, perf is docked from the driver moving AND the team he is leaving?
I guess it wouldn't work so well with the big teams who rarely change lineups, and serves only to punish the smaller ones who change weekly, lol.
It's difficult to find a compromise.
But as a smaller team to a now midfield team, I know how crap it is to always be at the back. But we just have to hang in there!
Slow and steady will get results - look at my longest serving driver, Norbert - he's been racing for several seasons, and only racked up his first wins last season.
I am hoping his consistency pays off this year and he wins some more, but its just a waiting game!
Fellow minnows, we will have our day!
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
But what with all the driver changes, maybe we need some sort of penalty to the driver who switches mid season?
Or every time a driver change is made mid season, perf is docked from the driver moving AND the team he is leaving?
I guess it wouldn't work so well with the big teams who rarely change lineups, and serves only to punish the smaller ones who change weekly, lol.
It's difficult to find a compromise.
But as a smaller team to a now midfield team, I know how crap it is to always be at the back. But we just have to hang in there!
Slow and steady will get results - look at my longest serving driver, Norbert - he's been racing for several seasons, and only racked up his first wins last season.
I am hoping his consistency pays off this year and he wins some more, but its just a waiting game!
Fellow minnows, we will have our day!
All right, guess I need to explain myself on this one - seeing as how it was I who put that new rule into place
Prior to the end of Season 5, Jack Elleker had agreed with Chris Copeman to drive for Christel VXR - then on Page 179 of the S5 thread, Chris posted this:
Chris stated that he had not agreed to the termination of Elleker's contract.
Thus came possibly the most bizarre thing I've had to do in GPGSL (following a discussion with Maikel and John Maverick on the thread) - a court case ruling (Pg 180 for those who want to check)
By this logic, there is an implied rule that if both parties agree to the termination of the contract (or a mere loan out to another side for a race or two), the driver would not be breaching their contract with his current team. A perfect example of this would be the loan deals for Adam Davies to Martini Paddock Racing last season.
This new rule within the GPGSL ensures that (as Charrel stated following the ruling) a contract actually means something in the GPGSL. Given the harsh nature of the punishment, it prevents drivers from the new teams from jumping ship if they are given a drive with one of the teams who raced in S5 (Tafuro being a perfect example in light of recent events).
If an event like the one stated above (Elleker trying to jump ship without consent of Christel VXR) happened again in the future, the driver would have to think whether or it would be worth going to another team in light of losing a massive amount of performance points.
Hope that clears things up for people.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2011 11:59AM by Diax F1.
Prior to the end of Season 5, Jack Elleker had agreed with Chris Copeman to drive for Christel VXR - then on Page 179 of the S5 thread, Chris posted this:
Quote
Chris Copeman, Christel VXR
Copeman Rocked by Elleker Decision
Christel VXR boss Chris Copeman is said to be deeply upset and hurt by the decision of apparent new signing Jack Elleker to pull out of racing for the new team simply two days after being revealed. Elleker was revealed earlier in the week alongside VSM boss Ricardo Van Smirren and Chris Copeman had commented that he was hopeful of a good first season with what he thought was a good driver lineup.
After revealing the news via the teams website Copeman stated that "Yes this is hurtful. Jack had made a commitment to driving for us next year. He said he would do it and so we thought we had a driver lineup sorted, I think this makes the team looks very silly. It was also because Jack signed on that I knew I could move to VSM. Now in a lot of ways we are back to square one. He claims to have had a better offer, but he had made a commitment. I must say that my experience of being a team owner in the GPGSL has not been a good one so far and I am only glad that this is not the way that all people conduct themselves.I can only thank Juliano, Mirko and Rico for their honesty and enthusiasm."
When asked about what would happen now that the team had another slot open Copeman simply said, "I don't know at the moment. We need to go back to the drawing board. I am glad that we have drivers on board that we can trust in Mirko, Juliano and Rico and I look forward to working with them next year. We need to have a serious look at who is out there and whether they are going to be 100% committed. I invite anybody interested in a drive to contact me."
Chris stated that he had not agreed to the termination of Elleker's contract.
Thus came possibly the most bizarre thing I've had to do in GPGSL (following a discussion with Maikel and John Maverick on the thread) - a court case ruling (Pg 180 for those who want to check)
Quote
GPGSL Ruling
"Christel VXR Ltd. v. Elleker [2011] GPGSLC 1"
The GPGSL have passed judgement upon the case stated above.
It is decreed that the defendant would be in breach of the contract made with the plaintiff if he were to move to a different team within the GPGSL. In light of this, if the defendant wishes to leave Christel VXR, he will receive a 30 performance point deduction for the next season. If the defendant wishes to remain at Christel VXR for the next season, no further action will be taken.
Given the unprecedented nature of this case, this ruling will be passed into GPGSL law at the end of the current season.
GPGSL
By this logic, there is an implied rule that if both parties agree to the termination of the contract (or a mere loan out to another side for a race or two), the driver would not be breaching their contract with his current team. A perfect example of this would be the loan deals for Adam Davies to Martini Paddock Racing last season.
This new rule within the GPGSL ensures that (as Charrel stated following the ruling) a contract actually means something in the GPGSL. Given the harsh nature of the punishment, it prevents drivers from the new teams from jumping ship if they are given a drive with one of the teams who raced in S5 (Tafuro being a perfect example in light of recent events).
If an event like the one stated above (Elleker trying to jump ship without consent of Christel VXR) happened again in the future, the driver would have to think whether or it would be worth going to another team in light of losing a massive amount of performance points.
Hope that clears things up for people.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2011 11:59AM by Diax F1.
Macca25 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a question about the penalties. Will a team
> be penalised if
> they switch a race driver with a test driver mid
> season.
> (To my guys, don't worry, it just a
> hypothetical.......at the moment)
>
> Also to help with owners saying yes to a driver
> change maybe we
> can bring more of a negotiation factor to the
> game. What I mean by
> this is in stead of just asking an owner for a
> driver, they need to
> buy him.
>
> For example:
> Team X need a driver and they approach Team Y
> Team Y can then name there price for the driver
> (in terms of team boost)
> Team X then gives there team boost points to Team
> Y (maybe 4 or 5 boost points, it would depend on
> the quality of the driver)
> Team Y then release there driver to make the
> switch to Team X
>
> This way the team that is giving up a driver has
> something to show
> for it after it has all been done and then they
> can go and put those
> extra team boost points to good use.
>
> It is a simple but effective way of compensation.
Might discuss that in the near future - though we don't want to overcomplicate things too much.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a question about the penalties. Will a team
> be penalised if
> they switch a race driver with a test driver mid
> season.
> (To my guys, don't worry, it just a
> hypothetical.......at the moment
)>
> Also to help with owners saying yes to a driver
> change maybe we
> can bring more of a negotiation factor to the
> game. What I mean by
> this is in stead of just asking an owner for a
> driver, they need to
> buy him.
>
> For example:
> Team X need a driver and they approach Team Y
> Team Y can then name there price for the driver
> (in terms of team boost)
> Team X then gives there team boost points to Team
> Y (maybe 4 or 5 boost points, it would depend on
> the quality of the driver)
> Team Y then release there driver to make the
> switch to Team X
>
> This way the team that is giving up a driver has
> something to show
> for it after it has all been done and then they
> can go and put those
> extra team boost points to good use.
>
> It is a simple but effective way of compensation.
Might discuss that in the near future - though we don't want to overcomplicate things too much.
It's a good idea, but as Dean said we would not want to over-complicate the issue in any way. The system works well as it is, and I'm not keen on bringing in a system that would ultimately give more work to Stu. Your idea does have merit though, but it would make the handling of the perfs more difficult and open to mistakes which is unacceptable for everyone.
We don't have a problem with drivers switching teams, or being traded, as long as it is done properly and fairly for the teams involved.
No team or driver would be penalized for changing their own driver line-up throughout a season, ie: test to race or vice-versa. Why would we? The team owns the contracts to all of its drivers, it can move them as it sees fit for strategic purpose. I think that we have imposed a limit on in-team driver changes, but afaik we have no limit on trades.
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central
We don't have a problem with drivers switching teams, or being traded, as long as it is done properly and fairly for the teams involved.
No team or driver would be penalized for changing their own driver line-up throughout a season, ie: test to race or vice-versa. Why would we? The team owns the contracts to all of its drivers, it can move them as it sees fit for strategic purpose. I think that we have imposed a limit on in-team driver changes, but afaik we have no limit on trades.
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to.
[www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 CentralThanks for the explanation Mal. I was most worried about driver changes essentially being outlawed
Which wouldn't be in the spirit of the series. I can see that although adding red tape to the process, this could be of some use. As I mentioned before though, it may be worth legislating against teams not fulfilling contracts too.
Which wouldn't be in the spirit of the series. I can see that although adding red tape to the process, this could be of some use. As I mentioned before though, it may be worth legislating against teams not fulfilling contracts too.
brunoboi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the explanation Mal. I was most worried
> about driver changes essentially being outlawed
> Which wouldn't be in the spirit of the series. I
> can see that although adding red tape to the
> process, this could be of some use. As I mentioned
> before though, it may be worth legislating against
> teams not fulfilling contracts too.
Didn't realise I'd become Mal overnight...
I'm sure there will be some discussion in regards to teams not fulfilling contracts in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the explanation Mal. I was most worried
> about driver changes essentially being outlawed
> Which wouldn't be in the spirit of the series. I
> can see that although adding red tape to the
> process, this could be of some use. As I mentioned
> before though, it may be worth legislating against
> teams not fulfilling contracts too.
Didn't realise I'd become Mal overnight...
I'm sure there will be some discussion in regards to teams not fulfilling contracts in the future.
I personally think that this new rule amendment is a good thing. Although respect is an essential thing in this series it is nothing wrong with closing loopholes. And if you played fair before and created a good relationship with your teamowner it is more likely that he lets you go when you ask nicely and reasonably. So it is all part of the game.
To finally sum up my race, it is to say that it could have been worse. This stupid accident at the beginning ruined my race. Seeing that I had the 4th fastest time, a top 4 would have been possible without the accident. That is a pity. At least I see that both the team and I have the pace to drive in the front rows. Hopefully the next race will show less complications.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
To finally sum up my race, it is to say that it could have been worse. This stupid accident at the beginning ruined my race. Seeing that I had the 4th fastest time, a top 4 would have been possible without the accident. That is a pity. At least I see that both the team and I have the pace to drive in the front rows. Hopefully the next race will show less complications.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
If the result of the first race is under investigation does this potentially mean the christel VXR finished 4th instead of 5th.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
Diax F1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brunoboi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thanks for the explanation Mal. I was most
> worried
> > about driver changes essentially being outlawed
>
> > Which wouldn't be in the spirit of the series.
> I
> > can see that although adding red tape to the
> > process, this could be of some use. As I
> mentioned
> > before though, it may be worth legislating
> against
> > teams not fulfilling contracts too.
>
> Didn't realise I'd become Mal overnight...
>
> I'm sure there will be some discussion in regards
> to teams not fulfilling contracts in the future.
>
Neither did - I was responding to Mal's mammoth text at the top of the page 
-------------------------------------------------------
> brunoboi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thanks for the explanation Mal. I was most
> worried
> > about driver changes essentially being outlawed
>
> > Which wouldn't be in the spirit of the series.
> I
> > can see that although adding red tape to the
> > process, this could be of some use. As I
> mentioned
> > before though, it may be worth legislating
> against
> > teams not fulfilling contracts too.
>
> Didn't realise I'd become Mal overnight...
>
> I'm sure there will be some discussion in regards
> to teams not fulfilling contracts in the future.
>
Neither did
- I was responding to Mal's mammoth text at the top of the page brunoboi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Diax F1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > brunoboi Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Thanks for the explanation Mal. I was most
> > worried
> > > about driver changes essentially being
> outlawed
> >
> > > Which wouldn't be in the spirit of the
> series.
> > I
> > > can see that although adding red tape to the
> > > process, this could be of some use. As I
> > mentioned
> > > before though, it may be worth legislating
> > against
> > > teams not fulfilling contracts too.
> >
> > Didn't realise I'd become Mal overnight...
> >
> > I'm sure there will be some discussion in
> regards
> > to teams not fulfilling contracts in the
> future.
> >
>
> Neither did - I was responding to Mal's mammoth
> text at the top of the page
That's alright then - my bad for misunderstanding
-------------------------------------------------------
> Diax F1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > brunoboi Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Thanks for the explanation Mal. I was most
> > worried
> > > about driver changes essentially being
> outlawed
> >
> > > Which wouldn't be in the spirit of the
> series.
> > I
> > > can see that although adding red tape to the
> > > process, this could be of some use. As I
> > mentioned
> > > before though, it may be worth legislating
> > against
> > > teams not fulfilling contracts too.
> >
> > Didn't realise I'd become Mal overnight...
> >
> > I'm sure there will be some discussion in
> regards
> > to teams not fulfilling contracts in the
> future.
> >
>
> Neither did
- I was responding to Mal's mammoth> text at the top of the page
That's alright then - my bad for misunderstanding
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.