2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[Dee]

If aero engineers stuffing it up in design cause you to lose time on the track then accounts stuffing up you tax exemptions should lose you cost cap reductions. RBR, because of their staff, were incapable of applying for the tax rebate so they should have never spent the money in the first place.

The overspend was £1.8m.

You have to spend the money to claim a tax credit. That is tax 101 that every single working person in the world knows about.

[littlebigcat]

You have to spend the money to claim a tax credit. That is tax 101 that every single working person in the world knows about.

And they failed to get it. Thus its over spend.

[Dee]

You have to spend the money to claim a tax credit. That is tax 101 that every single working person in the world knows about.

And they failed to get it. Thus its over spend.

They didn't fail to get it, they didn't correctly apply for it. That is why the FIA included the figure in their conclusion.

The tax back is owed to them. The FIA included that in their report.

Every other team had tax owed to them and Aston Martin made the same mistake as RB. 7/10 teams in F1 are based in the UK. 2/7 made the same mistake regarding this specific tax. 28.6%

When nearly 30% make the same mistake, there is something wrong with the system.

[DChemTech]

You have to spend the money to claim a tax credit. That is tax 101 that every single working person in the world knows about.

And they failed to get it. Thus its over spend.

Overspend, yes. Advantageous, no.

[littlebigcat]

To not overspend where do you think the budget reduction would have been made to save £1.8m?

90% of the grid failed to build a championship winning car this year. Others failing isn't an excuse for your own failing. Being able to meet the cost cap regulations is now part of the sport, and RBR failed at it. If you can asterix their overspend, you can asterix other things too...

[Mosin123]

You have to spend the money to claim a tax credit. That is tax 101 that every single working person in the world knows about.

And they failed to get it. Thus its over spend.

Overspend, yes. Advantageous, no.

that is impossible to prove, Surely if it wasnt an advantage, they would have dedicated more out their obvious talents to stay under it? I mean every other team tried its best to maximise every cent they had, How can you expect any body to believe Redbull was the ONLY team not to do this? i dont buy it, neither does any body not a redbull / max fan.

They went over because they did more than maximise it, they maximised it + 1.8 million more... so yes it was an advantage, they spent 1.8 mill more, if they wasted it, tough, its irrelevent, they stills pent more, the rules say to be under it / on it, not aim for just above it.

[DChemTech]

And they failed to get it. Thus its over spend.

Overspend, yes. Advantageous, no.

that is impossible to prove, Surely if it wasnt an advantage, they would have dedicated more out their obvious talents to stay under it? I mean every other team tried its best to maximise every cent they had, How can you expect any body to believe Redbull was the ONLY team not to do this? i dont buy it, neither does any body not a redbull / max fan.

They went over because they did more than maximise it, they maximised it + 1.8 million more... so yes it was an advantage, they spent 1.8 mill more, if they wasted it, tough, its irrelevent, they stills pent more, the rules say to be under it / on it, not aim for just above it.

No, it's very easy.
Say, budget cap is 100M
Team A spent 102M and got a 2M tax break, abiding the cap.
Team B spent 102M and applied for a 2M tax break but did not get it, breaching the cap.

Overspend? Yes. Advantageous? No.

[Mosin123]

Overspend, yes. Advantageous, no.

that is impossible to prove, Surely if it wasnt an advantage, they would have dedicated more out their obvious talents to stay under it? I mean every other team tried its best to maximise every cent they had, How can you expect any body to believe Redbull was the ONLY team not to do this? i dont buy it, neither does any body not a redbull / max fan.

They went over because they did more than maximise it, they maximised it + 1.8 million more... so yes it was an advantage, they spent 1.8 mill more, if they wasted it, tough, its irrelevent, they stills pent more, the rules say to be under it / on it, not aim for just above it.

No, it's very easy.
Say, budget cap is 100M
Team A spent 102M and got a 2M tax break, abiding the cap.
Team B spent 102M and applied for a 2M tax break but did not get it, breaching the cap.

Overspend? Yes. Advantageous? No.

But that isnt what happened, Merc spent all they could accounted for its taxes and tax gifts and stayed under, so did every other team but one, the one claming they are amazingly fantastic super dooper interlectual sporting gods who nailed the regs so so good they couldnt do maths.......

[dans79]

No, it's very easy.
Say, budget cap is 100M
Team A spent 102M and got a 2M tax break, abiding the cap.
Team B spent 102M and applied for a 2M tax break but did not get it, breaching the cap.

Overspend? Yes. Advantageous? No.

It is and advantage, because they got to spend 2 million more than they shouldn't have. If they had strictly adhered to the cap they would have only spent 100m.

Seems no one in their fiance department learned what i was told as a child, "don't spend money you don't already have in hand"! In a cost cap era that's seems exceptionally prudent!

[DChemTech]

that is impossible to prove, Surely if it wasnt an advantage, they would have dedicated more out their obvious talents to stay under it? I mean every other team tried its best to maximise every cent they had, How can you expect any body to believe Redbull was the ONLY team not to do this? i dont buy it, neither does any body not a redbull / max fan.

They went over because they did more than maximise it, they maximised it + 1.8 million more... so yes it was an advantage, they spent 1.8 mill more, if they wasted it, tough, its irrelevent, they stills pent more, the rules say to be under it / on it, not aim for just above it.

No, it's very easy.
Say, budget cap is 100M
Team A spent 102M and got a 2M tax break, abiding the cap.
Team B spent 102M and applied for a 2M tax break but did not get it, breaching the cap.

Overspend? Yes. Advantageous? No.

But that isnt what happened, Merc spent all they could accounted for its taxes and tax gifts and stayed under, so did every other team but one, the one claming they are amazingly fantastic super dooper interlectual sporting gods who nailed the regs so so good they couldnt do maths.......

Team A spent all they could account and stayed under in the example.
Team B did not. Dumb? Yes. Advantageous? No.

[rogazilla]

...
Seems no one in their fiance department learned what i was told as a child, "don't spend money you don't already have in hand"! In a cost cap era that's seems exceptionally prudent!

"don't spend money you don't already have in hand"

Said NO CORPORATION finance in the world (probably) ever...

[Mosin123]

No, it's very easy.
Say, budget cap is 100M
Team A spent 102M and got a 2M tax break, abiding the cap.
Team B spent 102M and applied for a 2M tax break but did not get it, breaching the cap.

Overspend? Yes. Advantageous? No.

But that isnt what happened, Merc spent all they could accounted for its taxes and tax gifts and stayed under, so did every other team but one, the one claming they are amazingly fantastic super dooper interlectual sporting gods who nailed the regs so so good they couldnt do maths.......

Team A spent all they could account and stayed under in the example.
Team B did not. Dumb? Yes. Advantageous? No.

But team A spent 100 mill accounted for 100 mill and made the most of 100 mill.
Team b spent 102 mill made the most of 102 million but only accounted for 100 million + 440 k because they are so awesome with numbers when it comes to designing a world championship car right down to the last race and jump every body in a new reg era they got mumbled up with the numbers and the then tax returns form became complicated even though its the best team ever for finding gray areas in teh regs?

Doesnt add up sorry. it was advantageous, other wise they wouldnt have broken the regs, to believe other wise is to questions the interlect of thousands of workers at Redbull and one of the best accountant firms in the world. I am not that gullible / miss led

[dans79]

...
Seems no one in their fiance department learned what i was told as a child, "don't spend money you don't already have in hand"! In a cost cap era that's seems exceptionally prudent!

"don't spend money you don't already have in hand"

Said NO CORPORATION finance in the world (probably) ever...

Most corporations don't operate in an environment where overspending leads to immediate issues for the company. That usually only happens multiple years, if not a decade or more down the road!

[hollus]

I get the feeling that there is an effort going on to not understand the arguments from the other side. As a bashing thread, it is pointless. No new info expected for a few days, it can be reopened if and when there is new info.

[Big Tea]

The evidence was likely there. It hadn’t reached us plebs yet, but for some in the paddock it already existed from “internal sources”.
With the information we had, there was no evidence, but our intel sucked. With the intel they had, the evidence was already there.

I still fail to see how such information got out, even into the inner F1 circles.
So it was either leaked from inside the FIA or the teams speculated on the findings. More than likely the first.
But, since none of the teams knew the results until the Wednesday, and the comments were made the previous week… it’s defamatory. Doesn’t bode well for a confidential process really does it.

Probably a bit off topic this discussion given the thread title.

The info most likely got out because people move teams, people have friends in other teams because they've previously worked together, etc., and people talk to each other. Blaming the FIA is just a way of trying to suggest that Toto has an insider passing him information about other teams. Funny thing is, if that's the suggestion and made without any evidence of such dealings, that is actually slanderous. That's the thing - if you have evidence then it's not slander. If you don't, then it is.

As for defamation, it's for Red Bull to decide if they want to take it to court. They made noises about doing so but didn't progress it because, quite simply, they were guilty of a breach of the cost cap and they knew it. That they managed to get the FIA to not punish them too severely is testament to their negotiation skills.

There is a vid today where Toto says how there was a leak.
Not disgruntled employees or moving staff or even spies.

Far more mundane