2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[Wouter]

.
It is cheating. Newey has a bigger impact on the car than any other person in that team.
I see your point in that its just a matter of wording but it is not. The intent to juggle was planned and the team knows they need Newey burning the midnight oil to develop their cars.
Its imperitive for them to have him both on staff and maybe as a contractor to spread costs.

But the plot thickens. I am now reading about empoyees on holiday and being sick and their compensation adjusted because of this.. It's very wild. And shows the team really knows how push the limits with everything.

.
If this is cheating, can you explain to me why Newey has been working in this way for RBR since mid 2006, through his own company
as a contractor and not only since 2021, the year of the Budgetcap?

.
Redbull should have changed their business structure like most of the teams did. Many had to restructure to increase efficiency of labour for the cost cap to work.
Whatever was the case before had nothing to do with a expediture target. Now that we have a budget cap.. the team did what it did so that part of newey's costs would not be counted.
But this is inherently unfair.
1000 hours of Newey design for example may be all you can get under the cap..
But now we have 2000 hours of Newey albeit under a different hat.
That's the crux of the matter. The car recieved 2000hrs of newey's hand when it should not have.
And I am just using these numbers for illustration and also assuming Newey wad the issue. For all we know he may not be.

.

I can't follow you at all.
Newey can work as many hours on the design as he likes. As one of the top three earners, his salary is not included in the BC.
Now, however, FIA accountants say that he is not an employee and therefore his entire salary falls under the BC.
The car designers at the other major teams are also outside the BC, because they belong to the three highest earners and can therefore design as many hours as they want.

[Sieper]

the problematic part is if Newey has other costs (not incurred due to him alone) within that agreement between him as a contractor and RB, maybe other people working for him in his company, computational analysis he buys from 3rd parties etc. those kind of things) those are not directly Newey himself and those must be included in the cost cap (excluded from the exclusion).

[mwillems]

The whole discussion here is now about the report from AMuS that RBR has crossed the BC due to a disagreement
between the FIA ​​accountants and RBR over whether Adrian Newey is an employee of RBR.
The FIA ​​says he is not an employee because he sends his costs from his one-man company RACING SERVICES LIMITED to RBR,
and therefore his costs belong to the BC.
RBR says he is an employee and has therefore placed his costs with the three highest-earning employees and they are not counted in the BC.

The European GAAP describes what is meant by employee.
Someone who works with his one-person company for a large company and does that more than two days a week
for an extended period and earns at least 2/3 of the minimum wage is an employee of that large company.

From an RBR perspective they are right and he is an RBR employee, but the FIA ​​maintains that he is not an RBR employee as he is not on their payroll but they pay his monthly bills.

This isn't about a lopehole, let alone cheating.
This is purely about the interpretation of the word "employee".

The FIA ​​accountants and RBR will have to discuss this extensively about who is right with regard to "employee."

It is cheating. Newey has a bigger impact on the car than any other person in that team.
I see your point in that its just a matter of wording but it is not. The intent to juggle was planned and the team knows they need Newey burning the midnight oil to develop their cars.
Its imperitive for them to have him both on staff and maybe as a contractor to spread costs.

But the plot thickens. I am now reading about empoyees on holiday and being sick and their compensation adjusted because of this.. It's very wild. And shows the team really knows how push the limits with everything.

I don't want to appear rude, but could you provide links to the factual evidence for all of this, including the intent? It's possible I'm missing a lot as I haven't been reading up.

[Wil992]

Now, however, FIA accountants say that he is not an employee and therefore his entire salary falls under the BC.
The car designers at the other major teams are also outside the BC, because they belong to the three highest earners and can therefore design as many hours as they want.

No, this is incorrect.

[RonMexico]

The whole discussion here is now about the report from AMuS that RBR has crossed the BC due to a disagreement
between the FIA ​​accountants and RBR over whether Adrian Newey is an employee of RBR.
The FIA ​​says he is not an employee because he sends his costs from his one-man company RACING SERVICES LIMITED to RBR,
and therefore his costs belong to the BC.
RBR says he is an employee and has therefore placed his costs with the three highest-earning employees and they are not counted in the BC.

The European GAAP describes what is meant by employee.
Someone who works with his one-person company for a large company and does that more than two days a week
for an extended period and earns at least 2/3 of the minimum wage is an employee of that large company.

From an RBR perspective they are right and he is an RBR employee, but the FIA ​​maintains that he is not an RBR employee as he is not on their payroll but they pay his monthly bills.

This isn't about a lopehole, let alone cheating.
This is purely about the interpretation of the word "employee".

The FIA ​​accountants and RBR will have to discuss this extensively about who is right with regard to "employee."

If this is a "defence" then I can only facepalm the attempt.

They took Newey and pawned him into a budget cap token, wittingly too.
That is still cheating and attempting to cheat the system. 9 other teams got it right, if there was a grey area in this then we would see more teams falling foul of it.

Trying to redux the narrative to make this look ok is utterly farcical.

That's not correct. Legally he is an employee and is considered one for tax purposes. I deal with this issue every now and again in the real world.

[mendis]

The whole discussion here is now about the report from AMuS that RBR has crossed the BC due to a disagreement
between the FIA ​​accountants and RBR over whether Adrian Newey is an employee of RBR.
The FIA ​​says he is not an employee because he sends his costs from his one-man company RACING SERVICES LIMITED to RBR,
and therefore his costs belong to the BC.
RBR says he is an employee and has therefore placed his costs with the three highest-earning employees and they are not counted in the BC.

The European GAAP describes what is meant by employee.
Someone who works with his one-person company for a large company and does that more than two days a week
for an extended period and earns at least 2/3 of the minimum wage is an employee of that large company.

From an RBR perspective they are right and he is an RBR employee, but the FIA ​​maintains that he is not an RBR employee as he is not on their payroll but they pay his monthly bills.

This isn't about a lopehole, let alone cheating.
This is purely about the interpretation of the word "employee".

The FIA ​​accountants and RBR will have to discuss this extensively about who is right with regard to "employee."

If this is a "defence" then I can only facepalm the attempt.

They took Newey and pawned him into a budget cap token, wittingly too.
That is still cheating and attempting to cheat the system. 9 other teams got it right, if there was a grey area in this then we would see more teams falling foul of it.

Trying to redux the narrative to make this look ok is utterly farcical.

You are aware this is just a rumor from AMUs and no basis yet. So proclaiming the guilt on a matter that is purportedly under subjudice is a good reason for a facepalm. FYI. For the past few pages, there was a debate of what exactly rules say regarding the "employment" part and there isn't anything clear on that part.

[Just_a_fan]

The whole discussion here is now about the report from AMuS that RBR has crossed the BC due to a disagreement
between the FIA ​​accountants and RBR over whether Adrian Newey is an employee of RBR.
The FIA ​​says he is not an employee because he sends his costs from his one-man company RACING SERVICES LIMITED to RBR,
and therefore his costs belong to the BC.
RBR says he is an employee and has therefore placed his costs with the three highest-earning employees and they are not counted in the BC.

The European GAAP describes what is meant by employee.
Someone who works with his one-person company for a large company and does that more than two days a week
for an extended period and earns at least 2/3 of the minimum wage is an employee of that large company.

From an RBR perspective they are right and he is an RBR employee, but the FIA ​​maintains that he is not an RBR employee as he is not on their payroll but they pay his monthly bills.

This isn't about a lopehole, let alone cheating.
This is purely about the interpretation of the word "employee".

The FIA ​​accountants and RBR will have to discuss this extensively about who is right with regard to "employee."

If this is a "defence" then I can only facepalm the attempt.

They took Newey and pawned him into a budget cap token, wittingly too.
That is still cheating and attempting to cheat the system. 9 other teams got it right, if there was a grey area in this then we would see more teams falling foul of it.

Trying to redux the narrative to make this look ok is utterly farcical.

That's not correct. Legally he is an employee and is considered one for tax purposes. I deal with this issue every now and again in the real world.

He's not an employee if he's employed by his own Ltd Co and is paid as a consultant via the Ltd Co. He won't have an employment contract with RBR, his Ltd Co will have a contract. That Ltd Co will do work for other companies including others owned by Red Bull's parent company.

I work this way myself.

[Wouter]

Now, however, FIA accountants say that he is not an employee and therefore his entire salary falls under the BC.

The car designers at the other major teams are also outside the BC, because they belong to the three highest earners and can therefore design as many hours as they want.

.
No, this is incorrect.

.
I believe you, but what part is incorrect?

[Wil992]

Now, however, FIA accountants say that he is not an employee and therefore his entire salary falls under the BC.

The car designers at the other major teams are also outside the BC, because they belong to the three highest earners and can therefore design as many hours as they want.

.
No, this is incorrect.

.
I believe you, but what part is incorrect?

The matter of whether he is an employee or not is completely irrelevant.
As one of the top 3 earners (and I think we are all assuming he’s one of the top 3 at RB), he is excluded from the budget cap. That is true whether he is engaged as an employee or via his own limited company. The rules say nothing about employees, just about individual earners and their connected parties.

[Quantum]

You are aware this is just a rumor from AMUs and no basis yet. So proclaiming the guilt on a matter that is purportedly under subjudice is a good reason for a facepalm. FYI. For the past few pages, there was a debate of what exactly rules say regarding the "employment" part and there isn't anything clear on that part.

You are aware that the FIA found wrongdoing, right?

It's not my proclamation of guilt on RB, it's the FIA's.
I'm actually amazed you think this is still open for debate right now, given the FIA have officially found them to have been in breach and even released a statement saying as much.

What part of this is difficult to grasp? I mean are you really contesting that?

[mendis]

You are aware this is just a rumor from AMUs and no basis yet. So proclaiming the guilt on a matter that is purportedly under subjudice is a good reason for a facepalm. FYI. For the past few pages, there was a debate of what exactly rules say regarding the "employment" part and there isn't anything clear on that part.

You are aware that the FIA found wrongdoing, right?

It's not my proclamation of guilt on RB, it's the FIA's.
I'm actually amazed you think this is still open for debate right now, given the FIA have officially found them to have been in breach and even released a statement saying as much.

What part of this is difficult to grasp? I mean are you really contesting that?

Two things. FIA found a breach and nobody knows the details of it. You are proclaiming Red Bull cheating in case of Newey, which is a rumor.

They took Newey and pawned him into a budget cap token, wittingly too.
That is still cheating and attempting to cheat the system. 9 other teams got it right, if there was a grey area in this then we would see more teams falling foul of it.

Trying to redux the narrative to make this look ok is utterly farcical.

[Quantum]

Two things. FIA found a breach. You are proclaiming Red Bull cheating in case of Newey, which is a rumor

Why did you intentionally leave out the IF part, then start some tangent about proclamations.

If this is a "defence" then I can only facepalm the attempt.

You're trying to deflect by being obtuse on minutiae.

You're literally more worried about hypotheticals and speculation than actual cheating. Incredible!

[RonMexico]

If this is a "defence" then I can only facepalm the attempt.

They took Newey and pawned him into a budget cap token, wittingly too.
That is still cheating and attempting to cheat the system. 9 other teams got it right, if there was a grey area in this then we would see more teams falling foul of it.

Trying to redux the narrative to make this look ok is utterly farcical.

That's not correct. Legally he is an employee and is considered one for tax purposes. I deal with this issue every now and again in the real world.

He's not an employee if he's employed by his own Ltd Co and is paid as a consultant via the Ltd Co. He won't have an employment contract with RBR, his Ltd Co will have a contract. That Ltd Co will do work for other companies including others owned by Red Bull's parent company.

I work this way myself.

There is an active crackdown on this style of working FYI

[organic]

Stating rumour/opinion as fact is a persistent problem here

[hollus]

Thank you to the 90% that are discussing the concept and not fighting the person. Surprisingly civil so far and even informative. But it is slowly drifting into the usual punch show...
For the other 10%... come on, what is the point of fighting the person. You are not going to win, and you are not going to lose either, this is the internet. Neither will the other guy win or lose. But after it, we will all be more bitter, a bit older and none the wiser.
Discuss the concept, not the poster.