2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[mendis]

If at all relevant, it’ll be in next years submission.

If Allison stepped back in July 2021, would the salary for the rest of the season not have counted toward the cap? Take Newey for instance, he wasn't the Chief Aerodynamicist for the RB16b right? I thought Dan Fallows was? Fallows was announced in June of 2021 as moving to Aston Martin and was subsequently put on gardening leave. Is a staff salary that has been placed on gardening-leave still part of the remaining season's cost cap? What I want to know is how Red Bull's submission of being below the 2021 cost cap as they had interpreted it was in breach according to FIA's interpretation? Are staff like Allison and Fallows who are "moved out of the capacity of contributing to the F1 team directly" outside of the cost cap calculation?

It should. That’s how it’s handled in American sports. It’s called “dead cap space”. If the teams don’t want to get a hit with dead cap space, then buy them out or don’t give them crazy gardening leaves.

If you don’t want the guy to go to a new team, or at least restrict his competitiveness there by extending his time home, then that’s on you to take the hit.

If you move them outside and they don’t work on the car, or they do on a consulting basis, that’s fine too, it’s per hour. That said, I bet Newey’s hours are wayyy more than Allison’s. Merc has many pots in the fire now.

Also, guys, as we have said again and again, this stuff plays out in engineering, law, accounting, IT, consulting firms everyday and a lot of us are seeing the same stuff we see being played in F1 played there. The fact that RB thought they could get away with some of these games is silly. These aren’t new tricks.

Dan Fallows was already moved out of F1 program to other race car projects.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/dan-fallo ... xit-court/

Motorsport Week say they have seen court documents stating Fallows had been removed from F1 operations to work on the Aston Martin Valkyrie project and he was unhappy with this, raising a grievance which was rejected and then leaving Red Bull with immediate effect.

Essentially, every team can put an employee on gardening leave, out of F1 program and onto other project not governed by F1 cost cap. That's not a problem.

[PlatinumZealot]

I wonder what Mr Neweys salary is then......

Newey was reportdely on 11 million per annum when he was technical director in Vettel days. So his salary now is very much higher as CTO.

[mendis]

I wonder what Mr Neweys salary is then......

Newey was reportdely on 11 million per annum when he was technical director in Vettel days. So his salary now is very much higher as CTO.

Assuming he is being paid 13 million currently, Red Bull must have reported quite under the budget cap.
FIA, including Newey's salary, is saying they have a minor breach.
< 5% is around 7 million dollars. Minor breach upper limit is 152 million.
So Red Bull reported around 6 million under the cost cap which is around 139 million spent.
FIA added 13 million Newey's salary and it goes to 152. That is a fraction under the upper limit of minor breach. Let's assume these are the numbers.
They have significantly underspent if this is the case. 6 million unused would be big!
The more the salary is above 13 million for Newey, the lesser they have spent on overall development. The lesser his salary is from 13 million, the more closer they would come to cost cap of 145 million mark.

[LM10]

I wonder what Mr Neweys salary is then......

Newey was reportdely on 11 million per annum when he was technical director in Vettel days. So his salary now is very much higher as CTO.

Wow! Would have not expected him to earn that much. Yes, it’s Newey, but still.

[mendis]

I wonder what Mr Neweys salary is then......

Newey was reportdely on 11 million per annum when he was technical director in Vettel days. So his salary now is very much higher as CTO.

Wow! Would have not expected him to earn that much. Yes, it’s Newey, but still.

I googled, it currently shows 10 million, but not sure how old is that update.

[KeiKo403]

Could be that they may have come in under by $6m on purpose as a precaution so that if the FIA added Neweys salary they’d only commit a minor breach?

A safe way of testing their strategy in year 1, if it works in year 1 then going that way too for more staff from year 2 onwards and you’re onto a winner.

[dans79]

They have significantly underspent if this is the case. 6 million unused would be big!

I find that highly unlikely and laughable, as that would mean huge amours of performance were left on the table!

If it was me a lot of heads would role if that much performance was left untapped!

[mendis]

Could be that they may have come in under by $6m on purpose as a precaution so that if the FIA added Neweys salary they’d only commit a minor breach?

A safe way of testing their strategy in year 1, if it works in year 1 then going that way too for more staff from year 2 onwards and you’re onto a winner.

I would term that as utterly stupid. If FIA has made allowance for 3 top paid to be excluded, it makes absolute sense to put him in that group. Unless they have screwed his employment contract where FIA deems it a consultant position, they have done a pretty bad job of using their funds.

[mendis]

They have significantly underspent if this is the case. 6 million unused would be big!

I find that highly unlikely and laughable, as that would mean huge amours of performance were left on the table!

If it was me a lot of heads would role if that much performance was left untapped!

I just gave the math. If the situation is not related to Newey then this is futile exercise. But if it indeed is, then one has to hope his salary is less than 5 million to consider Red Bull are not insane.
The only fact we know is, it's a minor breach. You can do the math.

[codetower]

Would the FIA have made such a big statement about them going over the cap, if it were something as simple for RB to remedy as a single salaried/unsalaried personnel? I presume that RB can easily provide proof to this, or at the very least know of a loophole to keep them clean... provided the Newey information is accurate.

[chrisc90]

Newey has his own company too which he is a director of.

RACING SERVICES LIMITED
Company number 05656947

[cheeRS]

Assuming there was a 5% breach of the cost cap, a fair punishment should be a 2.5% points deduction of last year's and 2.5% for this year's constructors and drivers championship points. Since a clear breach of crucial sporting rules could even cause for complete disqualification, that punishment would allow RBR to get off lightly, even if it meant Max would lose his WDC from last year.

Money buys championships in F1, there is no doubt about that unless you are new to the sport. Merc outspent everyone and won several years in a row. RBR outspent via breach/cheating and won last year. And this year. With how close the championship was last year, a 'minor' breach becomes a gigantic advantage.

[mendis]

Would the FIA have made such a big statement about them going over the cap, if it were something as simple for RB to remedy as a single salaried/unsalaried personnel? I presume that RB can easily provide proof to this, or at the very least know of a loophole to keep them clean... provided the Newey information is accurate.

We only have to hope Newey is not the contention and problem is elsewhere. AMUs is reporting it's Newey's salary.

[Tvetovnato]

The lollipop comic strip is absolute golden.


Well, it appears the latest speculation is in regard to how wages are distributed and who is/isnt part of the cost. Its going to be a very lengthy discussion between the FIA and Red Bull.

All im going to suggest is that Red Bull are usually pretty damn good at reading the rule book's wording and interpretations. I mean just look at last year. 'Any does not mean all', Id dare suggest that there are some VERY VERY knowledgeable people reading and interpreting that rule book and any 'loop holes' that may be present. (not using that as a defence against them, but we have seen they are VERY good at doing so)

The ”Any does not mean all” thing was the not a clever interpretation, it was the dumbest attempt in history to try to justify a breach of the regulations. The same director said himself a year earlier that any means all. What RB did was a clutching at straws attempt to save the situation, and the FIA jumped on it to save their asses.

A breach is a breach, and RB needs to deal with it.

[chrisc90]

....

[...]
A breach is a breach, and RB needs to deal with it.

It entirely depends what it falls down on being really. it could be one persons salary that shouldnt be included, but has been for whatever reason.
Just read the last 2 pages of discussion on Adrian and who he works for and how for it to become a very considerable mi-understanding on either party.