In reality only four teams could, so yeah
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
In reality only four teams could, so yeah
Has he actually said that? Because that would automatically prove malice and make any overspent in 2022 or any coming year a major infringement by default.
I was being flippant. Of course it's still cheating if everyone does it.
Daft, isn't it? A fine isn't a punishment if it doesn't affect the next year's performance.littlebigcat wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022, 00:48You know what's really funny, if Red Bull get fined for breaching the cost cap, that fine is exempt from the cost cap.
If the result of the breach is just a fine, that is a free license to breach the cap
Since his company more than likely would be limited liability.. the business would not be with the man Adrian Newey.. It would be with the company. A ltd company is a separate entity from its owners. So even if Newey was the sole person in that company.. the FIA will not see the company as Adrain Newey, it would be seen as the contractor racing services.Wil992 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2022, 20:46Yea, this is a thing I was thinking about too. I’m not sure where the line is on this. If he has a personal service company that bills RB for his time, that’s clearly allowed as one of the top 3 earners and can be excluded from the cap.tpe wrote: ↑13 Oct 2022, 20:02Finally a logical explanation!Sieper wrote: ↑13 Oct 2022, 16:38the 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).
But what if that company hires another employee? Does that mean it immediately becomes just another supplier and therefore not able to be excluded? If not, where is the line? Could his ltd co hire the entire aero dept and call that one of the top 3 earners?
My feeling is that because the allowable exclusions refers specifically to individuals, the minute there’s more than 1 person, they can’t be on the list. I’m sure that’s the intention of the rules, at least.
It's not my fault you aren't understanding the point that is being made! It's officially known that James Allison is CTO of a non-F1-racing Mercedes company. But he has been present at races, talks about Mercedes upgrades that worked and didn't, and was wearing the official Mercedes team wear when present at the races. He is very much still "involved". But from the articles that have been written about him, he isn't involved. He's been quoted as saying Toto found a way for him to be involved. Seems to me all the Mercedes fans here are turning a blind eye to this arrangement as if there is nothing peculiar. I wonder how such an arrangement is possible? Surely other teams should inquire Mercedes.
If you are so sure, prove it and submit your findings to the FIA. Until then its nothing but your opinion!ispano6 wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022, 02:36It's not my fault you aren't understanding the point that is being made! It's officially known that James Allison is CTO of a non-F1-racing Mercedes company. But he has been present at races, talks about Mercedes upgrades that worked and didn't, and was wearing the official Mercedes team wear when present at the races. He is very much still "involved". But from the articles that have been written about him, he isn't involved. He's been quoted as saying Toto found a way for him to be involved. Seems to me all the Mercedes fans here are turning a blind eye to this arrangement as if there is nothing peculiar. I wonder how such an arrangement is possible? Surely other teams should inquire Mercedes.
It's not my opinion, what I've mentioned are all published articles and quotes publicly available. Wolff's special advisor Sheila-Ann Rao probably had a hand in structuring the Mercedes operation and is now conveniently Interim FIA Secretary General for Motor Sport, now that is my gut opinion.
Again if you are so sure that Merc is somehow violating the rules, then find supporting evidence and submit it to the FIA.ispano6 wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022, 02:49It's not my opinion, what I've mentioned are all published articles and quotes publicly available. Wolff's special advisor Sheila-Ann Rao probably had a hand in structuring the Mercedes operation and is now conveniently Interim FIA Secretary General for Motor Sport, now that is my gut opinion.
It’s really not difficult to understand how Allison could be involved. JA will have a defined daily rate and the F1 project can be billed for his time engaged on the project. As long as there’s a paper trail and accurate time recording I don’t see what the issue would be?ispano6 wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022, 02:36It's not my fault you aren't understanding the point that is being made! It's officially known that James Allison is CTO of a non-F1-racing Mercedes company. But he has been present at races, talks about Mercedes upgrades that worked and didn't, and was wearing the official Mercedes team wear when present at the races. He is very much still "involved". But from the articles that have been written about him, he isn't involved. He's been quoted as saying Toto found a way for him to be involved. Seems to me all the Mercedes fans here are turning a blind eye to this arrangement as if there is nothing peculiar. I wonder how such an arrangement is possible? Surely other teams should inquire Mercedes.
This is incorrect. By default nobody hires Forensic Accountants. You only hire them to conduct an investigation of what has been submitted when the auditors smell if the books are cooked. They are like crime detectives, just that their expertise is finance. FIA in their statement has said, they did not conduct any investigation and has only audited the submissions, specifically addressing the rumours about Forensic Accountants.