2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[west52keep64]

It looks like Horner is already laying the groundwork for netx years spin.

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1015782/1 ... 5s-f1-2023

“I’ve heard people reporting that it is an insignificant amount, let me tell you know that is an enormous amount. That represents anywhere between 0.25secs and 0.5secs of lap time.

“By winning the constructors' championship, obviously we become victims of our own success by having a 5% incremental handicap compared to the second and third places.

“We will have 15% less wind tunnel time than the second-placed team in the constructors’ championship and 20% less than the third team - a draconian amount.

“That 10% will have impact on our ability to perform on track next year.”

I can see it now, if they don't perform well next year, it will because the FIA punished them to severely. If they win it will be because they are the best team ever with the best driver ever!

The slightly funny thing about this is he's got the numbers wrong. By finishing first in the WCC they would normally get 70% wind tunnel time, second place gets 75% and third place gets 80%. After the penalty is applied, Red Bull will get 63% i.e. they lose 10% of the 70%.

So actually to correct Horner, they will get 12% less wind tunnel time than second place, and 17% less than third place.

And for the avoidance of doubt, it's detailed in the ABA:


And a link to the document on the official FIA website: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6.32_1.pdf

[littlebigcat]

Its just part of the process if a breach has occurred - the same for any team on the grid.

No its not. The process is;


Submit report
Audit report, with questions put to the teams to explain why they did certain things
Then; issue compliance certificate, issue an ABA for non compliance or send to panel for a hearing

If a team does not agree to the ABA they take it to a panel for a hearing. There is zero scope in the regulations for discussing the actual punishment.

6.10
Once the Reporting Documentation has been reviewed, the Cost Cap Administration shall conclude either:

(a) that an F1 Team has complied with these Financial Regulations, in which case the Cost Cap Administration shall issue a compliance certificate to the applicable F1 Team; or

(b) that an F1 Team has not complied with these Financial Regulations, in which case the Cost Cap Administration shall either:

• (i) enter into an ABA pursuant to the terms of Article 6.28 below with the F1 Team concerned; or

• (ii) refer the case to the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel for a hearing.

6.28
If the Cost Cap Administration determines that an F1 Team has committed a Procedural Breach or a Minor Overspend Breach, the Cost Cap Administration may enter into an accepted breach agreement (an "ABA") with the relevant F1 Team. There shall be no right of appeal in respect of any decision by the Cost Cap Administration as to whether to enter into an ABA or not.

6.29
An ABA may:

(a) set out certain obligations or conditions to be fulfilled or satisfied by the relevant F1 Team, either within a specified timeframe or on an ongoing basis; and/or

(b) provide for enhanced monitoring procedures to be put in place in respect of the F1 Team; and/or

(c) impose any Financial Penalty or Minor Sporting Penalties that would be available to the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel pursuant to Article 9 in respect of the relevant type of breach, save that the Cost Cap Administration shall not be entitled to impose the Minor Sporting Penalties specified in Articles 9.1(b)(ii), 9.1(b)(iii) and 9.1(b)(vi); and/or

(d) set out details of the costs to be borne by the F1 Team, calculated by reference to the reasonable costs incurred by the Cost Cap Administration in connection with any investigations into that F1 Team’s compliance with these Financial Regulations and/or the preparation of an ABA.

There is no scope in the regulations for the teams to discuss or negotiate the ABA that they receive.

[bonjon1979]

I’ll definitely won’t contribute to this thread again as it brings out the worst of partisan crowds.

.
I agree. I won't do that anymore too. The only things I read here are that RBR are cheaters, Horner is a liar and the FIA are liars.

https://www.fia.com/news/accepted-breac ... ormula-one
.

These new Financial Regulations are a very complex set of rules that competitors were required to adapt to for the first time.

Red Bull Racing was found to be in breach, however, the Cost Cap Administration recognised that Red Bull Racing has acted cooperatively throughout the review process and has sought to provide additional information and evidence when requested in a timely manner, that this is the first year of the full application of the Financial Regulations and that

there is no accusation or evidence that RBR has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in fraudulent manner, nor has it wilfully concealed any information from the Cost Cap Administration.

In these circumstances, the Cost Cap Administration offered to RBR an ABA to resolve this matter. That offer was accepted by RBR.

.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6.32_1.pdf
.

The FIA acknowledges that had RBR applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting
Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348,
it would have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the
Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period

would have in fact exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652 (0.37%).

.

If they would have started out by doing what most teams did, set a internal soft cap of 2 million less than the actual cap, they would have come under. They purposely pushed the limits and thought to themselves we'll deal with the fall out.

Deal with it. It wasn't a 400k CAP infringement, in was $3.5m

Also think that the use of ‘notional’ is interesting and stinks to high heaven in my opinion. It just means that this theoretical tax credit did appear and was accounted for then they would be much closer to the cap. For all we or the fia know there was never any chance of it being applied, it would be important to know if other teams received the same tax credit as then we can judge whether or not it’s just more face saving BS from red bull.

[dans79]

Is there a way the general public can check if they ever get the tax credit?

[mwillems]

Its just part of the process if a breach has occurred - the same for any team on the grid.

No its not. The process is;


Submit report
Audit report, with questions put to the teams to explain why they did certain things
Then; issue compliance certificate, issue an ABA for non compliance or send to panel for a hearing

If a team does not agree to the ABA they take it to a panel for a hearing. There is zero scope in the regulations for discussing the actual punishment.

6.10
Once the Reporting Documentation has been reviewed, the Cost Cap Administration shall conclude either:

(a) that an F1 Team has complied with these Financial Regulations, in which case the Cost Cap Administration shall issue a compliance certificate to the applicable F1 Team; or

(b) that an F1 Team has not complied with these Financial Regulations, in which case the Cost Cap Administration shall either:

• (i) enter into an ABA pursuant to the terms of Article 6.28 below with the F1 Team concerned; or

• (ii) refer the case to the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel for a hearing.

6.28
If the Cost Cap Administration determines that an F1 Team has committed a Procedural Breach or a Minor Overspend Breach, the Cost Cap Administration may enter into an accepted breach agreement (an "ABA") with the relevant F1 Team. There shall be no right of appeal in respect of any decision by the Cost Cap Administration as to whether to enter into an ABA or not.

6.29
An ABA may:

(a) set out certain obligations or conditions to be fulfilled or satisfied by the relevant F1 Team, either within a specified timeframe or on an ongoing basis; and/or

(b) provide for enhanced monitoring procedures to be put in place in respect of the F1 Team; and/or

(c) impose any Financial Penalty or Minor Sporting Penalties that would be available to the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel pursuant to Article 9 in respect of the relevant type of breach, save that the Cost Cap Administration shall not be entitled to impose the Minor Sporting Penalties specified in Articles 9.1(b)(ii), 9.1(b)(iii) and 9.1(b)(vi); and/or

(d) set out details of the costs to be borne by the F1 Team, calculated by reference to the reasonable costs incurred by the Cost Cap Administration in connection with any investigations into that F1 Team’s compliance with these Financial Regulations and/or the preparation of an ABA.

There is no scope in the regulations for the teams to discuss or negotiate the ABA that they receive.

There is nothing in the regulations that prevents the team and FIA talking, it would be more accurate to say there is no scope in the regulations to prevent negotiations.

[mwillems]

It looks like Horner is already laying the groundwork for netx years spin.

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1015782/1 ... 5s-f1-2023

“I’ve heard people reporting that it is an insignificant amount, let me tell you know that is an enormous amount. That represents anywhere between 0.25secs and 0.5secs of lap time.

“By winning the constructors' championship, obviously we become victims of our own success by having a 5% incremental handicap compared to the second and third places.

“We will have 15% less wind tunnel time than the second-placed team in the constructors’ championship and 20% less than the third team - a draconian amount.

“That 10% will have impact on our ability to perform on track next year.”

I can see it now, if they don't perform well next year, it will because the FIA punished them to severely. If they win it will be because they are the best team ever with the best driver ever!

The slightly funny thing about this is he's got the numbers wrong. By finishing first in the WCC they would normally get 70% wind tunnel time, second place gets 75% and third place gets 80%. After the penalty is applied, Red Bull will get 63% i.e. they lose 10% of the 70%.

So actually to correct Horner, they will get 12% less wind tunnel time than second place, and 17% less than third place.

And for the avoidance of doubt, it's detailed in the ABA:
https://i.imgur.com/QTntBQ3.png

And a link to the document on the official FIA website: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6.32_1.pdf

75-63 = 12 Percentage points.

But 12 is not 12% of 75

63/75 = .84 i.e. 63 is 84% of 75, which is reduction of 16%, but due to the real numbers not being whole but rounded, this is likely to be around 15%.

[mwillems]

Is there a way the general public can check if they ever get the tax credit?

Not sure you can, I went to check Companies House but last years accounts are not posted and there is a large red warning saying "Accounts Overdue" and the 2020 accounts don't have much detail. But that is where you might find them.

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/03120645

[west52keep64]

It looks like Horner is already laying the groundwork for netx years spin.

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1015782/1 ... 5s-f1-2023


I can see it now, if they don't perform well next year, it will because the FIA punished them to severely. If they win it will be because they are the best team ever with the best driver ever!

The slightly funny thing about this is he's got the numbers wrong. By finishing first in the WCC they would normally get 70% wind tunnel time, second place gets 75% and third place gets 80%. After the penalty is applied, Red Bull will get 63% i.e. they lose 10% of the 70%.

So actually to correct Horner, they will get 12% less wind tunnel time than second place, and 17% less than third place.

And for the avoidance of doubt, it's detailed in the ABA:
https://i.imgur.com/QTntBQ3.png

And a link to the document on the official FIA website: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6.32_1.pdf

75-63 = 12 Percentage points.

But 12 is not 12% of 75

63/75 = .84 i.e. 63 is 84% of 75, which is reduction of 16%, but due to the real numbers not being whole but rounded, this is likely to be around 15%.

I see what you are saying, but I highly doubt that's how he was calculating it, he was in my view quite clearly doing 70 - 10.

If we take your approach then it's 16% less than 2nd place, and 21.25% less than third place, there are no rounding issue here, those are the exact differences.

I heard Sky saying in their coverage it amounts to 2 fewer runs in the wind tunnel next year, doesn't sound like a lot to me, but I am not familiar with quite how useful a single run in a window tunnel would be.

[GrizzleBoy]

They said 22, not 2. I think you may have misheard.

[west52keep64]

They said 22, not 2. I think you may have misheard.

Ah actually they said 2 fewer per week, 25 instead of 28. Although that doesn't sound right? 28 wind tunnel runs a week?

[dans79]

I heard Sky saying in their coverage it amounts to 2 fewer runs in the wind tunnel next year, doesn't sound like a lot to me, but I am not familiar with quite how useful a single run in a window tunnel would be.

Imo, that's sky talking out of their backside, as the rules related to tunnel and cfd time are a lot more complicated than that.

see section 6 "Limits, Reporting, Inspection and Audit"
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 0-19_0.pdf

[DGP123]

RB getting 202. Mercedes 256 runs. That’s quite some difference.

[dans79]

RB getting 202. Mercedes 256 runs. That’s quite some difference.

ond time and occupancy also plays a part.

on time:
merc 64
rbr 50.4

occupancy:
merc 320
rbr 252

[langedweil]

If they would have started out by doing what most teams did, set a internal soft cap of 2 million less than the actual cap, they would have come under. They purposely pushed the limits and thought to themselves we'll deal with the fall out.

Which in sense was a strategy any team could have taken up, but most likely for most teams the fear of an uncontrollable aftermath was deemed too much of a risk ..

I feel Toto in particular succeeded pretty well by bringing it into the daylight beforehand, and making things tougher for FIA and RB. And whilst he couldn't possibly be the one leaking, this kind of leaking in financial matters is considered an actual crime.

I'm betting it was a whistle blower, because if you look the financial regulations have a huge section about protections for whistle blowers.

Nah, this isn't real whistleblowing; that would be from within RB towards the governing body (FIA), to point out things are purposely done with malicit intent. In this case it was done for a specific gain from it, which is very much understandable .. cuz never waste a good crisis.

[maxxer]

so whats the issue RB gives free food and drinks while the others give daily allowences ?