2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[dans79]

i should add their is an entire section on whistleblowers.

6.17

The Cost Cap Administration may grant partial or total immunity to any natural person who
discloses facts that are likely to constitute an infringement referred to in Article 8 of these
Financial Regulations, and/or who provides evidence allowing such facts to be prosecuted and
penalised. The degree of immunity granted to this person by the Cost Cap Administration
depends on the following factors:

[Quantum]

You mean in the same way you gave me all the upgrades from each GP weekend?
Well ....You didn't! I had to find them myself and I couldn't find them, because they don't exist!
Have a good day!

I added the motorsport links for you.

Here I'll add again with more sources in case you have a thing against motorsport.com

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/reve ... 49/?nrt=54

https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull- ... di-arabia/

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-f ... 1/6693186/

https://www.motorsportweek.com/2021/11/ ... in-mexico/



Just need that FIA list if you could please mate

[dans79]

If it is related to Newey, it could also be because of this.

Reporting Group

2.5

For the purposes of reporting Total Costs of the Reporting Group, an F1 Team’s Reporting
Group shall comprise the F1 Team together with, where the F1 Team has incurred less than
95% of the costs of the F1 Activities undertaken by or on behalf of the F1 Team in the
Reporting Period, such additional entities w

2.6

The additional entities to be included within the Reporting Group where an F1 Team has
incurred less than 95% of the costs of the F1 Activities undertaken by or on behalf of that F1
Team in the Reporting Period shall be the entity (other than the F1 Team) within the F1 Team’s
Legal Group Structure that incurred the greatest amount of costs of the F1 Activities
undertaken by or on behalf of the F1 Team in the Reporting Period, followed (to the extent
required) by the entity within the F1 Team’s Legal Group Structure that incurred the next
greatest amount of such costs, and so on, until the entities included within the Reporting
Group have incurred, in aggregate, 95% or more of the costs of the F1 Activities undertaken
by or on behalf of the F1 Team in the Reporting Period.

[ecapox]

We keep talking about punishment. That is premature until RB decides to agree with the Adjudication Panels findings (very lenient penalties if they do) or disagrees and contests the findings (heavy penalties if they are still found guilty).

[DChemTech]

As I literally say in the post, there is no problem with that, and it has nothing to do with deflection or anything.
What I'm saying is that acting like the breach was certainly intentional/malicious/cheating is just as dishonest as acting like RBR did not breach the cap. You're very quick to point fingers and shift the blame at others or to strawman their positions - as is once again examplified by isolating and completely misrepresenting my statement above - but sometimes a bit of reflection may not hurt.

When you read the last few pages and find RB acolytes not accepting the FIA verdict, you seem to be quiet.
But if you point fingers at cheating, you have issue. Did I just surmise correctly?

There were plenty of others pointing that part out. Also, there is a clear asymmetry in the positions that were taken by some.

The people that argue RBR is not guilty, for as far as I can see, do recognize that the FIA judged RBR breached the cap (I think that is also hard to deny). The main argument is that, since there is a disagreement between RBR and the FIA on whether certain costs should count towards the gap and RBR may hence appeal the decision, the guilty verdict may change in the future, or there is a certain degree of uncertainty with respect to the guilt. That is, of course, completely true. Now strictly speaking RBR is guilty until proven otherwise, which may be different from the wording that the people making the argument use. Still, what in my view matters, is that they acknowledge the uncertainty regarding the verdict - noone is making definitive claims that RBR is innocent.

On the other hand, there have most certainly been hard-worded accusations of cheating, malice and all that; basically these take the slippery slope that "Since RBR was found to breach the cost cap and found guilty by the FIA (true, but open to appeal), it must be intentional and malicious and they were cheating (not necessarily true) and it definitely impacted the season outcome (not necessarily true) and hence the penalty is much too low (we don't even know what the penalty will be). Now it's all fine to speculate, but an acknowledgement of the uncertainty is in place - as is an acknowledgement that guilt does not immediately equal malice or cheating.

[Wil992]

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.

No, this is wrong.
Remember we're not talking about the law here, we're talking about the cost cap regulations as written by the FIA. So, despite the fact that a ltd co would be a separate legal entity (as you rightly point out), it is still allowed to be included in the top 3 earners.

From the regs:
"All costs of Consideration provided to the three individuals...in respect of whom the highest aggregate amount of
Consideration has been recognised...or to a Connected Party of any Excluded
Person."

So it can be a person, or a party connected to that person.

In the definitions from the same document:
"Connected Party" means, in relation to a Relevant Person...any company, trust, partnership, or other body, organisation or mechanism
established or operating directly or indirectly in whole or in part for the benefit of or
in respect of the Relevant Person or any or all of the other categories of person
referred to in this definition.

So, from the FIA's definition of a connected party, a company can still be included as a top 3 earner.

I assume it has been written this way specifically to enable people (and there'll be lots across all teams) who use ltd companies for payment to still count as top earners.

Ok thanks. But you posted something else... it must be in benefit to the connected party. A development company is in benefit to the car not to Newey. It's not like the company is feesing newey or massaging his bald spot during the race. The services are rendered to the team not him.

No, that's not quite right. It (the limited company) must be for the benefit of the relevant person. So, in this example, the limited company must be paying the named individual. So you couldn't say that "abc motorsport" is a top 3 earner, unless abc motorsport is owned by, and pays income to, one of the individuals on the list.

[Just_a_fan]

"FIA's findings".
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeuCoalX0AY ... name=large

Team PR is your "evidence"?

Er, OK.

It's an official statement! If a vague Toto is quoted as saying, a certain amount could provide certain performance advantage, what's the harm in believing a statement from the official team source?

It's the PR equivalent of a villain shouting "it weren't me, guv!" as the police feel his collar.

[dans79]

We keep talking about punishment. That is premature until RB decides to agree with the Adjudication Panels findings (very lenient penalties if they do) or disagrees and contests the findings (heavy penalties if they are still found guilty).

I can't see Horner going for ABA.

Plus look at the requirements.

6.31 In order for the Cost Cap Administration to enter into an ABA, the relevant F1 Team must:

(a) acknowledge that it has breached these Financial Regulations;

(b) accept, observe and satisfy the sanction(s) and/or enhanced monitoring procedures
levied;

(c) agree to bear the costs detailed in the ABA, as referred to in Article 6.29(d); and

(d) waive its right to challenge the ABA.


6.32 The Cost Cap Administration will publish a summary of the terms of the ABA, detailing the
breach, any sanctions, and any enhanced monitoring procedures, omitting any Confidential
Information.

I can't see Horner swallowing the bolded parts! He probably cut off his arm first imo!

[Just_a_fan]

Agreed, dans79, he'd rather pay the fines, etc., and then spent the next year moaning to Sky every weekend about how it's all Mercedes and Ferrari's fault. And Sky would let him do it, too.

[Quantum]

There were plenty of others pointing that part out. Also, there is a clear asymmetry in the positions that were taken by some.

My position or any other persons position is totally independent of the FIA findings.
It's important to understand that. No detractor or protractor has any bearing on that outcome.
So it's totally irrelevant to this discussion, whatever fanciful conclusion you personally want to draw from that.


It is also pertinent to outline that whatever the motive, the FIA findings still say breach of budget cap.
That may be wilful or negligent. We can speculate on the motive as many are presently.
But you cannot say with any degree of factuality what that is, however much that rankles.

[maxxer]

think the FIA should just say hey cost cap is a nice idea but cant be done for F1 unless we start running totally spec cars

[Wouter]

You mean in the same way you gave me all the upgrades from each GP weekend?
Well ....You didn't! I had to find them myself and I couldn't find them, because they don't exist!
Have a good day!

.
I added the motorsport links for you.

Here I'll add again with more sources in case you have a thing against motorsport.com

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/reve ... 49/?nrt=54

https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull- ... di-arabia/

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-f ... 1/6693186/

https://www.motorsportweek.com/2021/11/ ... in-mexico/

Just need that FIA list if you could please mate

.
I asked you to give me all the upgrades from each GP weekend. You DIDN'T and still don't!!
It is a lie that RBR brought every weekend an update and you know it!!!

viewtopic.php?p=1094518#p1094518

[mendis]

Team PR is your "evidence"?

Er, OK.

It's an official statement! If a vague Toto is quoted as saying, a certain amount could provide certain performance advantage, what's the harm in believing a statement from the official team source?

It's the PR equivalent of a villain shouting "it weren't me, guv!" as the police feel his collar.

It's individual perspective. I am fine with it. Like I said, there is law to establish if someone is a "Villain". Police holding the collar doesn't make one a "Villain".

[dans79]

Agreed, dans79, he'd rather pay the fines, etc., and then spent the next year moaning to Sky every weekend about how it's all Mercedes and Ferrari's fault. And Sky would let him do it, too.

Redbull might not even be given the option of an ABA.

7.2 The Cost Cap Administration will refer a case to the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel in the
following circumstances:

(a) the Cost Cap Administration determines the F1 Team has committed a Procedural
Breach and/or a Minor Overspend Breach and an ABA has not been entered into or is
not deemed appropriate; or

[Just_a_fan]

It's an official statement! If a vague Toto is quoted as saying, a certain amount could provide certain performance advantage, what's the harm in believing a statement from the official team source?

It's the PR equivalent of a villain shouting "it weren't me, guv!" as the police feel his collar.

It's individual perspective. I am fine with it. Like I said, there is law to establish if someone is a "Villain". Police holding the collar doesn't make one a "Villain".

Having a bag of swag in his hand makes the villain's case somewhat less watertight than he might like.