2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[chrisc90]

Hmmm, can’t see the team double counting him. It sounds too basic of a error that one. If he is a top 3 employee, it wouldn’t make sense to then be paying his company £xxx in exchange for services as they are technically getting them for ‘free’ by Adrian being in the top 3.

Depending which way you look at it, the Newey scenario seems very unlikely, given the expected wage of such a talent, who would easily be on upwards of £10m per year. Which puts the team outside of the minor backer they have infringed.

I don’t think anyone will ever know for sure, unless they know exactly how the red bull company is set up in terms of parent and sister companies and subsidies.

Tbh, it could even be above the FIA accountancy consultants, which is why we are in the situation now. Could well be a ‘battle of the accountants’. And we all know some are far better than others

[Mosin123]

Hmmm, can’t see the team double counting him. It sounds too basic of a error that one. If he is a top 3 employee, it wouldn’t make sense to then be paying his company £xxx in exchange for services as they are technically getting them for ‘free’ by Adrian being in the top 3.

Depending which way you look at it, the Newey scenario seems very unlikely, given the expected wage of such a talent, who would easily be on upwards of £10m per year. Which puts the team outside of the minor backer they have infringed.

I don’t think anyone will ever know for sure, unless they know exactly how the red bull company is set up in terms of parent and sister companies and subsidies.

Tbh, it could even be above the FIA accountancy consultants, which is why we are in the situation now. Could well be a ‘battle of the accountants’. And we all know some are far better than others

I gave that some thought, but didnt he come back over half way through the year?

October some time?
If so then he cant have been a top 3 as before that he was not around working for redbull but doing boats or some thing... If i remeber rightly. Probs dont though old age n all.

[Just_a_fan]

Hmmm, can’t see the team double counting him. It sounds too basic of a error that one. If he is a top 3 employee, it wouldn’t make sense to then be paying his company £xxx in exchange for services as they are technically getting them for ‘free’ by Adrian being in the top 3.

Depending which way you look at it, the Newey scenario seems very unlikely, given the expected wage of such a talent, who would easily be on upwards of £10m per year. Which puts the team outside of the minor backer they have infringed.

I don’t think anyone will ever know for sure, unless they know exactly how the red bull company is set up in terms of parent and sister companies and subsidies.

Tbh, it could even be above the FIA accountancy consultants, which is why we are in the situation now. Could well be a ‘battle of the accountants’. And we all know some are far better than others

Ultimately, the team could and should have discussed their methodology with the FIA if they were doing something that might be considered "unusual" (to use a neutral term for their chosen structure). The Regs even say that:

2.11 The F1 Team should seek clarification from the Cost Cap Administration if it is uncertain
whether an entity should be included in its Reporting Group.

Ultimately, it is for Red Bull to demonstrate to the FIA that they have complied. They can't just say "your accountant just doesn't understand what we're doing". They either have to be able to explain it so the FIA's consultants can understand it or they must accept that it is considered "inappropriate" under the budget cap. And then they can appeal the decision if they wish to.

It's not for the FIA to prove the team is at fault. If they have a suspicion then it's up to the team to show why the FIA is wrong.

[chrisc90]

Hmmm, can’t see the team double counting him. It sounds too basic of a error that one. If he is a top 3 employee, it wouldn’t make sense to then be paying his company £xxx in exchange for services as they are technically getting them for ‘free’ by Adrian being in the top 3.

Depending which way you look at it, the Newey scenario seems very unlikely, given the expected wage of such a talent, who would easily be on upwards of £10m per year. Which puts the team outside of the minor backer they have infringed.

I don’t think anyone will ever know for sure, unless they know exactly how the red bull company is set up in terms of parent and sister companies and subsidies.

Tbh, it could even be above the FIA accountancy consultants, which is why we are in the situation now. Could well be a ‘battle of the accountants’. And we all know some are far better than others

Ultimately, the team could and should have discussed their methodology with the FIA if they were doing something that might be considered "unusual" (to use a neutral term for their chosen structure). The Regs even say that:

2.11 The F1 Team should seek clarification from the Cost Cap Administration if it is uncertain
whether an entity should be included in its Reporting Group.

That could be a fia get out clause… but if a team can find a area that they are ‘sure’ of being included/excluded, that phrase bears little meaning

[mwillems]

@keiko - so your saying anything the team developed, but was later closed down in the regulations, is cheating. So Ferrari in 2019, Mercedes das and party mode… is a example of cheating?

That’s a bigger leap than Neil Armstrong made for mankind.

But if you intent on finding a loophole in the regulations that enable you to do/design something that isn’t specifically mentioned in the rule book, that must come under cheating then?

Clearly It’s the intent part that you mention as cheating, so if you intend to do something that isn’t strictly in the rule books… your saying it’s cheating.

A good example of sporting infringements where potential advantages gained will result in a ban irrespective of intent is drug taking in sport.

Even if they cannot prove it gained an advantage or if it was with intent, you will be banned for a period of time. Certainly if they see there was intent then ban will be harsher, but a ban will occur none the less, because you cannot reasonably compete whilst the effects of any performance enhancing drug may be raising your performance. This is clear cut and everyone knows the rules. After this the length of time is based on the severity of the case and some time to ensure that is always a deterrent and message for other competitors.

This situation is a similar one and whilst there is no proof of intent, there could be a lasting advantage and the outcome should not only favour but protect those who did not breach the rules.

[chrisc90]

I think the f1 rule book is a little bit different to that of athletes taking drugs for example.

You could compare taking drugs to the likes of failing scrutineering where it’s black and white. A DRS or fuel level infringement for example.

[Wil992]

Hmmm, can’t see the team double counting him. It sounds too basic of a error that one. If he is a top 3 employee, it wouldn’t make sense to then be paying his company £xxx in exchange for services as they are technically getting them for ‘free’ by Adrian being in the top 3.

Depending which way you look at it, the Newey scenario seems very unlikely, given the expected wage of such a talent, who would easily be on upwards of £10m per year.

I agree the newey thing is very unlikely, but not for this reason. It’s not the case that they would be over by all neweys salary if they’ve put him the wrong cost bucket. It’s the difference between his salary and the 4th highest earner in the company, who would replace him on the excluded list. That could be any amount down to £1 theoretically.

[mwillems]

I think the f1 rule book is a little bit different to that of athletes taking drugs for example.

You could compare taking drugs to the likes of failing scrutineering where it’s black and white. A DRS or fuel level infringement for example.

I don't think so from my perspective. The approach within sports is that if there could be perceived to be an advantage then you have to act as if there was. There are individuals who manage to exist in the rules and those should be protected. Every athlete has the option to study what goes into their body and clarify with drug authorities if need be, including lab testing supplements.

Every F1 team has the option to clarify with the FIA that their method of accounting is correct and proper. To continue blindly and assume your total correctness despite the potential consequences is to deliberately move into this situation and that in itself is a form of intent, even if that intent was formed from ignorance or stupidness, it is an intent, a choice that very smart people really should know better than to make, yet here we are.

[Marco.rova]

Breaching the cap is cheating. This is binary.

This is simply not true. The salary cap is essentially a rule, and a rule written with "penalties" included.
It is a team's choice to "stretch the rule" and accept a risk. Hell, even to deliberately overspend 6 million would not be "plain cheating" as there is an accompanying penalty in the rules. This is F1, all teams push the rules to the limit. And we don't know if they pushed past the limit intentionally or not. We will know in due time, I suppose.

But my point... breaking a rule is binary. That the same is cheating is...not what this is.

Teams systematically push tire pressures al low as they can, to the limit of their tolerances and controls... or they cool the fuel to the limit of what the rules allow, and in occasion get a bit wrong. They break the rule by playing to close to the limit, and the penalty is, say, disqualification from that one race. Or Honda changes 6 enfines in the same race and takes 150 grid slot penalties at once.
That a rule broken, a penalty given, but not cheating.

One accepts certain risks based on the potential penalties.

Maybe a better example is a soccer defender in a game you are winning 1-0. It is minute 93 and your goalkeeper has been beaten, but you are in the goal line, jump, stretch your hands and deflect the ball with your hand as if you were the goalkeeper.
Intentionally deflecting the ball with your hands is not allowed for a defender. But hey, done, and it is not cheating. It is a foul, with a well described punishment in the rules: You get a red card and a penalty kick against. But no goal. In this case, well worth the risk. And no, we normally don't see it that blatant, but yes, we every week see a midfilder stop a fast break in a similar way or by hugging a rival in exchange for a yellow card. The first might be called cheating by some, the second is called "an intelligent midfielder". It is all context dependent.
That it is a measured and calculated risk does not automatically make it cheating.

I don't think trying to frame this as cheating or not cheating helps the discussion, honestly. It might be, it might not be, it might be something in the middle and we simply don't have enough information to judge. But, hey, nuances... nah!

No guys ... this is not true!!!
All the time someone break a rule to get ad advantage is cheating, and this is valid in every single sport.... tennis, golf, athletics and F1 as well.
There is no specific limitation in the number of engine a team can use, you know exactly that changing 6 engines means 150 grid penalty, this is the rule, and the teams is following the rule. Different is if the team try to do everything in order to hide an engine change, this is breaking a rule and cheating.
Using a tire pressure different to what required by a rule is cheating, use engine specification breaking a technical rule is cheating.
You example in soccer is incorrect and not pertinent, this is unfair but not cheating. In soccer if you "pay" a referee so he "close an eye" on a possible penalty is cheating, is you use in the roaster someone that should not play because disqualified is cheating.
Don't confuse unfair behavior with cheating.

if you get steroids to win the tour the france (Amstrong) of Olimpics 100mt gold medal (Ben Johnson) you are cheating and this is a fact.

Coming back to my stupid and personal opinion
1 team vs 10 broken the Cost Cap for 2021 - RBR
RBR won the F1 Championship in 2021 and 2022
My stupid brain is continuously making 1+1 = 2 ... but again, this is not a fact is only a pure opinion.

[Just_a_fan]

Hmmm, can’t see the team double counting him. It sounds too basic of a error that one. If he is a top 3 employee, it wouldn’t make sense to then be paying his company £xxx in exchange for services as they are technically getting them for ‘free’ by Adrian being in the top 3.

Depending which way you look at it, the Newey scenario seems very unlikely, given the expected wage of such a talent, who would easily be on upwards of £10m per year. Which puts the team outside of the minor backer they have infringed.

I don’t think anyone will ever know for sure, unless they know exactly how the red bull company is set up in terms of parent and sister companies and subsidies.

Tbh, it could even be above the FIA accountancy consultants, which is why we are in the situation now. Could well be a ‘battle of the accountants’. And we all know some are far better than others

Ultimately, the team could and should have discussed their methodology with the FIA if they were doing something that might be considered "unusual" (to use a neutral term for their chosen structure). The Regs even say that:

2.11 The F1 Team should seek clarification from the Cost Cap Administration if it is uncertain
whether an entity should be included in its Reporting Group.

That could be a fia get out clause… but if a team can find a area that they are ‘sure’ of being included/excluded, that phrase bears little meaning

As Zak Brown said: they did a dry run the year before and the teams have been encouraged by the FIA to talk to them about what they're putting in and out of the budget cap. The FIA couldn't have made it any easier for the teams to comply. If Red Bull have just decided "we're right and don't need to check this" and then been caught by it then they have no one to blame but themselves. It's pure hubris on their part.

Pride comes before a fall, and all that.

[dans79]

As Zak Brown said: they did a dry run the year before and the teams have been encouraged by the FIA to talk to them about what they're putting in and out of the budget cap. The FIA couldn't have made it any easier for the teams to comply. If Red Bull have just decided "we're right and don't need to check this" and then been caught by it then they have no one to blame but themselves. It's pure hubris on their part.

Pride comes before a fall, and all that.

Wouldn't be the first time they thought they knew better! Australia 2014 is a good example!

[mwillems]

Ultimately, the team could and should have discussed their methodology with the FIA if they were doing something that might be considered "unusual" (to use a neutral term for their chosen structure). The Regs even say that:

That could be a fia get out clause… but if a team can find a area that they are ‘sure’ of being included/excluded, that phrase bears little meaning

As Zak Brown said: they did a dry run the year before and the teams have been encouraged by the FIA to talk to them about what they're putting in and out of the budget cap. The FIA couldn't have made it any easier for the teams to comply. If Red Bull have just decided "we're right and don't need to check this" and then been caught by it then they have no one to blame but themselves. It's pure hubris on their part.

Pride comes before a fall, and all that.

But there are 2 aspects to falling foul of these regs, a total f*ck up and then knowing you did it wrong to get an advantage.

It's very hard to prove, at least at this point for us, that they knowingly overspent and tried to hide it, or feign ignorance. If you want an example of sheer stupidity look at Alpine's Piastrigate fiasco, this stuff really does happen and smart people can act incredibly dumb.

My personal opinion is that they cheated, but I do not expect them to be punished as cheaters unless it can be proved and it almost certainly cannot be, unless there is more to this we do not yet know.

I do expect for them to be punished for gaining an unfair advantage but not for cheating, but I do not realistically think this will happen. The FIA are balls deep in their own mess and they will try to rock the boat as little as possible.

[Big Tea]

Even 'circumventing the rule' has a place as in the difference between tax avoidance and tax eversion, even though both are done deliberatly

Tax avoidance is legal as it is using allowances, etc., in the tax legislation that reduce tax liability.

Tax evasion is illegal because it's basically lying to avoid tax liabilities.

That is what I an saying. Both are crossing the line, one is hammered.

[Just_a_fan]

That could be a fia get out clause… but if a team can find a area that they are ‘sure’ of being included/excluded, that phrase bears little meaning

As Zak Brown said: they did a dry run the year before and the teams have been encouraged by the FIA to talk to them about what they're putting in and out of the budget cap. The FIA couldn't have made it any easier for the teams to comply. If Red Bull have just decided "we're right and don't need to check this" and then been caught by it then they have no one to blame but themselves. It's pure hubris on their part.

Pride comes before a fall, and all that.

But there are 2 aspects to falling foul of these regs, a total f*ck up and then knowing you did it wrong to get an advantage.

It's very hard to prove, at least at this point for us, that they knowingly overspent and tried to hide it, or feign ignorance.

On the basis that they could check anything they wanted with the FIA, I think the argument of "we thought it was right" is a tricky one to defend.

The only reasons for not asking the FIA to clarify something is because either a: you're convinced you're right, or b: you're trying to hide something. In a new set of regulations where the penalties for getting it wrong can be anything up to loss of titles, not checking because you're convinced you're right seems to be a really dumb approach to take.

[Just_a_fan]

Even 'circumventing the rule' has a place as in the difference between tax avoidance and tax eversion, even though both are done deliberatly

Tax avoidance is legal as it is using allowances, etc., in the tax legislation that reduce tax liability.

Tax evasion is illegal because it's basically lying to avoid tax liabilities.

That is what I an saying. Both are crossing the line, one is hammered.

Only one is crossing the line, that's the point.