2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[GrizzleBoy]

They should be punished for not following the rules.

Intent or any other emotional aspect should be left aside so that the rules actually have teeth.

Nobody cared about intent when Ham was punished heavily for doing a practice start in the wrong part of the track.

Nobody cared about intent when he was disqualified from qualifying for havi g a piece of broken car that put him hundredths of a millimeter outside the regulated position of his rear wing flap. That even Horner said there was likely no actual gain from it.

Nobody cares about intent when you speed in the pit lane or when you have an unsafe release.

Did you do X, Y or Z thing?

Is that thing permitted within the rules?

No?

Then punish.

Appeals come after punishments, not before. Teams being able to dictate to the FIA how to do their job is how Abu Dhabi happened.

Stop looking for excuses to not punish orthe entire thing will crumble before it's even started (and tbh I feel like it already has).

[Big Tea]

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.

No. One is crossing the line by following the rules, the other is crossing the line and saying 'Prove it'

[mwillems]

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.

Like I said earlier, I think it is like failing a drug test, it doesn't matter if you had intent or not in the sense that you will be banned and potentially lose titles. The intent only affects the final length of the ban. So my view is this is similar. RB were always able to seek assurance and by not doing so, this is their situation and their responsibility. In fact I believe the clause about seeking assurance from the FIA is there to specifically ensure that responsibility for being in the rules can sit only with the teams and rule out any "grey areas" from the FIA, all teams had the channels to check and seek assurances and one might assume this should have been a foregone conclusion in the first year.

The only thing I am really trying to say is that proving they cheated is very different to proving they got an unfair advantage and I am totally unsure how at this point, with the knowledge we have, that anyone can demonstrate that they cheated.

But my opinion is this was a calculated move to win the previous years championship and to not lose development time of the next years car. But I know this is just an opinion and itself will be subject to my own bias.

[chrisc90]

To which surely it would be easier for the fia to say precisely what is included in the cap? If they have a dry run in the rules, then there shouldn’t be any loop holes, That is providing RB have used a loop hole or there is some disagreement on what a employee is for example.

It could be fair game and RB realised that there was a loophole in the practice year, and kept quiet. Why should a team show their cards? In a game of poker you wouldn’t show your competition what cards you have, you would keep them close to your chest.

[mwillems]

To which surely it would be easier for the fia to say precisely what is included in the cap? If they have a dry run in the rules, then there shouldn’t be any loop holes, That is providing RB have used a loop hole or there is some disagreement on what a employee is for example.

It could be fair game and RB realised that there was a loophole in the practice year, and kept quiet. Why should a team show their cards? In a game of poker you wouldn’t show your competition what cards you have, you would keep them close to your chest.

Well I suspect they tried to be as precise as they could. Point is there is an infinite granularity and you'd never be precise enough, there will always be implicit and explicit and pieces that are debatable.

We can't be sure exactly what has happened so it isn't the time to suggest they found a loophole. Although the first thing that came to my mind is that they paid Newey as a private contractor and not as a company entity, yet Newey might have contracted out his own "work" again, for instance hiring his own PA or assistant designers etc or that he used other outside costs covered by himself.

But who knows, in any case RB are in the wrong.

[chrisc90]

They should be punished for not following the rules.

Intent or any other emotional aspect should be left aside so that the rules actually have teeth.

Nobody cared about intent when Ham was punished heavily for doing a practice start in the wrong part of the track.

Nobody cared about intent when he was disqualified from qualifying for havi g a piece of broken car that put him hundredths of a millimeter outside the regulated position of his rear wing flap. That even Horner said there was likely no actual gain from it.

Nobody cares about intent when you speed in the pit lane or when you have an unsafe release.

Did you do X, Y or Z thing?

Is that thing permitted within the rules?

No?

Then punish.

Appeals come after punishments, not before. Teams being able to dictate to the FIA how to do their job is how Abu Dhabi happened.

Stop looking for excuses to not punish orthe entire thing will crumble before it's even started (and tbh I feel like it already has).

You simply cannot compare the likes of a DRS ‘mechanical issue’ to the issue of a cost cap. Things like that have very specific parameters set out in the rule book. Things like bodywork design, budgeting have a very broad rule book so are open to interpretation or grey areas.

There is no grey area in saying you must provide 1L of fuel post race/quali or your drs opening must not be more than 80.00mm wide opening.

Thats almost a bit like saying you pull up 1m behind your grid slow and start rolling the 1M before the lights go out, thus gaining an advantage. The rules say you must be stationary when the lights go out. Otherwise you would have teams saying they started further behind their spot but were actually at an advantage because hey were travelling 5mph faster than the guy who was in grid position properly

[mwillems]

They should be punished for not following the rules.

Intent or any other emotional aspect should be left aside so that the rules actually have teeth.

Nobody cared about intent when Ham was punished heavily for doing a practice start in the wrong part of the track.

Nobody cared about intent when he was disqualified from qualifying for havi g a piece of broken car that put him hundredths of a millimeter outside the regulated position of his rear wing flap. That even Horner said there was likely no actual gain from it.

Nobody cares about intent when you speed in the pit lane or when you have an unsafe release.

Did you do X, Y or Z thing?

Is that thing permitted within the rules?

No?

Then punish.

Appeals come after punishments, not before. Teams being able to dictate to the FIA how to do their job is how Abu Dhabi happened.

Stop looking for excuses to not punish orthe entire thing will crumble before it's even started (and tbh I feel like it already has).

You simply cannot compare the likes of a DRS ‘mechanical issue’ to the issue of a cost cap. Things like that have very specific parameters set out in the rule book. Things like bodywork design, budgeting have a very broad rule book so are open to interpretation or grey areas.

There is no grey area in saying you must provide 1L of fuel post race/quali or your drs opening must not be more than 80.00mm wide opening.

Thats almost a bit like saying you pull up 1m behind your grid slow and start rolling the 1M before the lights go out, thus gaining an advantage. The rules say you must be stationary when the lights go out. Otherwise you would have teams saying they started further behind their spot but were actually at an advantage because hey were travelling 5mph faster than the guy who was in grid position properly

But it wasn't open to interpretation, there was a specific clause about referring to the FIA. If they had asked the FIA if it was right and they said yes, then slam dunk this is in RBs favour, but it seems reasonable to assume they did not, otherwise the FIA are in a lot of bother! That single clause removes any grey area simply by providing the avenue for clarity, the ability to seek assurance was black and white and the onus is on the teams to ensure they are in the cost cap having given everything they need to be able to completely ensure that.

Despite being given everything they need to ensure that, they came over the cost cap.

[napoleon1981]

Im interested in specifics before judging. How much and what was the exact nature of the discrepancy, and what rule was specifically violated. Communication has been pretty poor from the FIA.

[Just_a_fan]

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

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

No. One is crossing the line by following the rules, the other is crossing the line and saying 'Prove it'

If you follow the rules then you're not crossing the line.

[Big Tea]

I would like to interject at this point, following a 'discussion' with my son, who supports a different team, I would like to state that my remarks apply equally for ANY team in the same position, not specifically one team at this time. I also assume, and Hope, this also applies to all other posters.
It is a different ethos speaking to someone face-to- face when there is no taboo on saying what you really think, and being told what they really think of it. Apologies if I offend anyone by not considering this sooner,

[mwillems]

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

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

No. One is crossing the line by following the rules, the other is crossing the line and saying 'Prove it'

Yes but you need to be clear, one is a legal line and the other is a moral line that can belong to one or more people.

The crossing of those two lines are incomparable as I'm sure that some might think that tax avoidance is a healthy process and that existing tax rates have been built to include a certain percentage that will cover avoidance losses and that a certain amount of "Push and pull" are built into the system.

A legal line though is infinitely less subjective and is very wrong in the eyes of the tax enforcement folks and anyones moral opinion can go out of the window, as it's not really worth anything.

[Just_a_fan]

To which surely it would be easier for the fia to say precisely what is included in the cap? If they have a dry run in the rules, then there shouldn’t be any loop holes, That is providing RB have used a loop hole or there is some disagreement on what a employee is for example.

It could be fair game and RB realised that there was a loophole in the practice year, and kept quiet. Why should a team show their cards? In a game of poker you wouldn’t show your competition what cards you have, you would keep them close to your chest.

The onus is on Red Bull to be able to show they comply. If they take a gamble that they have found a loophole and don't check it with the FIA then that's their problem.

The teams talk constantly to the FIA about the cars and the rules during pre-season and during the season. It's not a new concept.

Sorry, but you can try to defend and whatabout till the cows come home, but at the end of the day 9 teams complied and 1 didn't. That tends to show that complying is easy to do. The team that didn't now need to show why they're right and the FIA is wrong. If they can't then they deserve to be punished in line with rules.

The real issue is that the rules are quite lenient for something that amounts to a possible significant sporting advantage.

[Big Tea]

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

No. One is crossing the line by following the rules, the other is crossing the line and saying 'Prove it'

If you follow the rules then you're not crossing the line.

Is that not the whole gist of it? Everyone is going to cut it as close as possible, one seems closer than the other 9.
Is this that the one is over zealous, or the other 9 are not really trying hard enough?

I suppose it depends on who you support

[mwillems]

You aren't describing people cutting it as close as possible, you are describing 2 sets of people, one using legal methods and one using illegal methods and it does not matter a jot who you support in that instance, you broke the rules.

For me the consequences of this are too big to be written off by saying they were just pushed a little too hard.

[Big Tea]

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

No. One is crossing the line by following the rules, the other is crossing the line and saying 'Prove it'

Yes but you need to be clear, one is a legal line and the other is a moral line that can belong to one or more people.

The crossing of those two lines are incomparable as I'm sure that some might think that tax avoidance is a healthy process and that existing tax rates have been built to include a certain percentage that will cover avoidance losses and that a certain amount of "Push and pull" are built into the system.

A legal line though is infinitely less subjective and is very wrong in the eyes of the tax enforcement folks and anyones moral opinion can go out of the window, as it's not really worth anything.

I think you have probably nailed it here. How badly do you want to win, and what is 'sporting'?

Some will blur the line, is that smart or crooked?