2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[Just_a_fan]

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

RACING SERVICES LIMITED
Company number 05656947

That could be for his racing cars - it has over £2m against plant and machinery, not something one would expect to see for a company set up to allow contracting of professional services.

That depends, he might be making his own models for example, thereby removing that element from the teams budget? We just don't know.

He does have a collection of cars, including some stuff he has/does race/hill climb. It would be entirely sensible to put that sort of stuff through a private limited company.

[e30ernest]

If it were a few hundred thousand, I would've thought Red Bull would come out and say to end speculation. The silence is rather deafening.

Last week, I mentioned the sudden delay of the cost cap certificate distribution to be suspect especially how last minute it was. It was as if the rumors of a team going over was true and that there were behind-the-scenes negotiations going on.

Now I am thinking this too. If the breach was small, the FIA would have spoken up already. It has to be substantial enough for them to require all this time to make any sort of move.

[CMSMJ1]

Do we have any guesses as to how long the FIA will take to come up with some penalty for these infractions? Days, weeks? Months? Are 2021 results and seasons to be changed into 2023?

RB have dropped a bollock here and it irks me that the penalty will be judged predominantly (in my view) against them as RB, rather than as "a team" who ahs breached the regs. It should be as big a deal if HAAS has overspent, or if Alpine were implicated - but it is not as the FIA has allowed a tiered system of the haves and have nots.

RB has a lot of baggage and the Mercedes (mainly - judged from the comments in the thread) fanbase will want them to be defenestrated, tarred and feathered for this. Maybe even put in the stocks over a cold winter evening... It should not matter, should it, but it does?

The losers - us. The people who are invested in the sport, who have a strong affinity wiht this sport and we do not like to see it dragged through the mud.

Can we get back to having strong, fair and aggresive competition please? Driver vs Driver. Lighter cars* and rewards for engineering brilliance rather than accounting loopholery!



*had to get that in

[Just_a_fan]

RB have dropped a bollock here and it irks me that the penalty will be judged predominantly (in my view) against them as RB, rather than as "a team" who ahs breached the regs. It should be as big a deal if HAAS has overspent, or if Alpine were implicated - but it is not as the FIA has allowed a tiered system of the haves and have nots.

RB has a lot of baggage and the Mercedes (mainly - judged from the comments in the thread) fanbase will want them to be defenestrated, tarred and feathered for this. Maybe even put in the stocks over a cold winter evening... It should not matter, should it, but it does?

It doesn't matter who it is - it needs to be smacked down on hard now or the whole budget cap will carry a stink going forward. The fan base, and the teams / other investors, need to have confidence that they are investing their time/money in a sport that is fairly applying the rules. A team that can get sneaky with the money side of things gets an advantage that those that are playing it straight simply can't compete against. Overspending in a budget cap environment is akin to drug taking in athletics - it's performance you can't get any other way.

In an ideal world, this is the last we hear about the budget cap other than the FIA saying each year that they're happy that the teams are all complying with it. The alternative is that every season will be tainted with "yes, but when will we find out if they cheated?" from fans of rival teams. We can't have that.

As for the accusation about Mercedes fans wanting Red Bull tarred and feathered, I think we can safely say that if the situation was reversed, the desire for retribution would be no less. Anyway, there are Ferrari fans also commenting on this thread so it's not all one way traffic.

[Shakeman]

Now I am thinking this too. If the breach was small, the FIA would have spoken up already. It has to be substantial enough for them to require all this time to make any sort of move.

It might not necessarily be a big breach in financial terms but the implications of a loophole that may have been exposed could be huge issue going forward as other teams will game the same loophole. If a team found a loophole during the 2021 season they're surely using the same loophole in the 2022 season which also muddies the water. If a team is penalised for 2021 accounting and they're doing the same thing in 2022 how does that look? It would be the first thing any competent journalist would ask the team and the FIA.

The FIA's next move/communication on the subject could have serious repercussions, they get this fractionally wrong and F1 championships will be awarded in courts of appeal years after the racing has concluded.

[chrisc90]

How and where do you draw the line in the sand though to what gains an advantage.

You could look at AM’s armchair rear wing, perfectly allowed within the rules, and just add some performance to the car otherwise they wouldn’t have continued.

I mean there are other examples where teams push the aero rules to gain a advantage

You can argue the Mercedes aero concept is a loophole in the regs, if that design was 1 second quicker than anyone else, what would be the basis of people judgement.

[DChemTech]

Now I am thinking this too. If the breach was small, the FIA would have spoken up already. It has to be substantial enough for them to require all this time to make any sort of move.

It might not necessarily be a big breach in financial terms but the implications of a loophole that may have been exposed could be huge issue going forward as other teams will game the same loophole. If a team found a loophole during the 2021 season they're surely using the same loophole in the 2022 season which also muddies the water. If a team is penalised for 2021 accounting and they're doing the same thing in 2022 how does that look? It would be the first thing any competent journalist would ask the team.

The FIA's next move/communication on the subject could have serious repercussions, they get this fractionally wrong and F1 championships will be awarded in courts of appeal years after the racing has concluded.

There's no such thing exploitation of loopholes. There's inadequately written rules and clever people that make use of the space those rules provide, and there's rule breaches. Use of provided space may be unintended, but it is not illegal. If the issue here is really clever, but defensable, use of room (unintentionally) provided by the regulations, the issue is with the FIA and the solution is to rewrite the rules as to remove the room provide, not with the team that used the room provided. But, since no information has been provided on the nature of the breach, we cannot judge this aspect, nor can we condemn either side for wrongdoing without such information.

[Big Tea]

It’s completely nothing to do with the conversation going on here but if Marko has to be listed as a top paid exec somewhere I wonder if there’s a way for his services to be put under the AT top 3 staff giving Red Bull a slot to exclude a different highly paid member of staff?

Is it possible that Marko is not even on the list? He is running the young driver development program, which is probably not under the cap.

[Wouter]

It’s completely nothing to do with the conversation going on here but if Marko has to be listed as a top paid exec somewhere I wonder if there’s a way for his services to be put under the AT top 3 staff giving Red Bull a slot to exclude a different highly paid member of staff?

.
Is it possible that Marko is not even on the list? He is running the young driver development program, which is probably not under the cap.

.
Helmut Marko isn't on the top 3 list. He is working for RB (paid by RB), not for RBR.

[KeiKo403]

How and where do you draw the line in the sand though to what gains an advantage.

You could look at AM’s armchair rear wing, perfectly allowed within the rules, and just add some performance to the car otherwise they wouldn’t have continued.

I mean there are other examples where teams push the aero rules to gain a advantage

You can argue the Mercedes aero concept is a loophole in the regs, if that design was 1 second quicker than anyone else, what would be the basis of people judgement.

I get that, but I believe that both of these examples were ran via the FIA during their development stages asking if their interpretation was all above board.

[Shakeman]

Now I am thinking this too. If the breach was small, the FIA would have spoken up already. It has to be substantial enough for them to require all this time to make any sort of move.

It might not necessarily be a big breach in financial terms but the implications of a loophole that may have been exposed could be huge issue going forward as other teams will game the same loophole. If a team found a loophole during the 2021 season they're surely using the same loophole in the 2022 season which also muddies the water. If a team is penalised for 2021 accounting and they're doing the same thing in 2022 how does that look? It would be the first thing any competent journalist would ask the team.

The FIA's next move/communication on the subject could have serious repercussions, they get this fractionally wrong and F1 championships will be awarded in courts of appeal years after the racing has concluded.

There's no such thing exploitation of loopholes. There's inadequately written rules and clever people that make use of the space those rules provide, and there's rule breaches. Use of provided space may be unintended, but it is not illegal. If the issue here is really clever, but defensable, use of room (unintentionally) provided by the regulations, the issue is with the FIA and the solution is to rewrite the rules as to remove the room provide, not with the team that used the room provided. But, since no information has been provided on the nature of the breach, we cannot judge this aspect, nor can we condemn either side for wrongdoing without such information.

There are many company accountants who end up jailed for tax evasion because they think they're being clever until they find out they're not.

OK, so now deal with the situation that the FIA will close a (speculated) loophole at the end of the 2021 season but a team has used it during 2022 because of their current 'interpretation' of the rules. What penalties are given?

We are speculating because we don't know what's gone on but there's a reason for radio silence from the FIA. The silence is deafening.

[DChemTech]

It might not necessarily be a big breach in financial terms but the implications of a loophole that may have been exposed could be huge issue going forward as other teams will game the same loophole. If a team found a loophole during the 2021 season they're surely using the same loophole in the 2022 season which also muddies the water. If a team is penalised for 2021 accounting and they're doing the same thing in 2022 how does that look? It would be the first thing any competent journalist would ask the team.

The FIA's next move/communication on the subject could have serious repercussions, they get this fractionally wrong and F1 championships will be awarded in courts of appeal years after the racing has concluded.

There's no such thing exploitation of loopholes. There's inadequately written rules and clever people that make use of the space those rules provide, and there's rule breaches. Use of provided space may be unintended, but it is not illegal. If the issue here is really clever, but defensable, use of room (unintentionally) provided by the regulations, the issue is with the FIA and the solution is to rewrite the rules as to remove the room provide, not with the team that used the room provided. But, since no information has been provided on the nature of the breach, we cannot judge this aspect, nor can we condemn either side for wrongdoing without such information.

There are many company accountants who end up jailed for tax evasion because they think they're being clever until they find out they're not.

OK, so now deal with the situation that the FIA will close a (speculated) loophole at the end of the 2021 season but a team has used it during 2022 because of their current 'interpretation' of the rules. What penalties are given?

We are speculating because we don't know what's gone on but there's a reason for radio silence from the FIA. The silence is deafening.

In which case the thing the company accountant did was a rule breach. Sure, there is room for interpretation and hence there may be disagreement as to whether something is a breach, or clever use. Up to an independent judge to figure that out. If it is ruled proper use of the space provided by the wording of the regulations given, my opinion is that one cannot retroactively close it, and alteration of the regulations within a season is also not desirable. So in that case, props to the team that was clever enough to use the space (it was not that the other teams could not have used the same - the rules are still the same for everyone), and rewrite for the next season.

[DChemTech]

If it were a few hundred thousand, I would've thought Red Bull would come out and say to end speculation. The silence is rather deafening.

Last week, I mentioned the sudden delay of the cost cap certificate distribution to be suspect especially how last minute it was. It was as if the rumors of a team going over was true and that there were behind-the-scenes negotiations going on.

Now I am thinking this too. If the breach was small, the FIA would have spoken up already. It has to be substantial enough for them to require all this time to make any sort of move.

It could just as well be the other way around. Perhaps there is a minor breach, and the FIA/team were still discussing on whether it was actually a breach at all. Then the whole affair got leaked, which forced a rushed statement blowing things out of proportions. As long as there is no clarification provided on what happened, we do not know.

[chrisc90]

What penalty can you give if the thing your punishing isn’t within the rules?

A bit like the Ferrari agreement in 2019. We never got to hear of any penalty being applied

[RZS10]

edited in this quote for context:

How and where do you draw the line in the sand though to what gains an advantage.

I think some of it could be seen in the context of how close last year was?

Vasseur said 200k could decide championships and/or would be very important as that is one bigger upgrade, Horner had that number at ~280k, Hamilton/Merc were at 300k.

For 2021, which went down to the last race, anything with 6 digits could have made a difference as that would have been a small part, multiples of that could have been massive (let's say a new floor).

If you take 2022 (not in relation to the 2021 cap), with how far ahead RB is in the WCC and with both drivers leading the WDC, it would be hard to argue that a single item would have brought the competition so close that it would have made much of a difference.

If you look at the beginning of 2022 when the racing was close (this IS in relation to the 2021 cap) however a small improvement for Ferrari (assuming they would have capitalized) could have given them a lead that might have been hard(er) to overcome, they also might have allocated more of the 2022 budget for this year's car trying to secure the championship.

So (multiples) of 6 digits could be enough to make a difference in 2021 and/or 2022, anything with 7 digits would be huge regardless - question is whether that will/should play a role in any deliberations by the FIA's panel or the FIA when it decides about offering the ABA in the first place.

______

Another thought i haven't seen mentioned here at all which is slightly related:
if it was about an insubstantial amount of money, something no other team could reasonably argue would result in a potential advantage, would Red Bull be fighting this for the sole reason of being in the right?

Absolutely possible, of course, but more likely that they would have signed an ABA long ago and made some public statement that there was a disagreement over the inclusion of [non performance item] to the cap and that they signed the ABA to bring the matter to an end quickly for the sake of the sport ...

As someone else already wrote, some two, three or maybe even four digit amount very likely wouldn't even have been a reason not to give them the certificate in the first place, something like this would probably be swept under the rug by the FIA to avoid the fallout (especially considering some of the rumours, which of course might very well be false, that they have already conceded on some points)

So what is more likely?

RB being over marginally and refusing to accept it even though it would be the 'cleaner' solution for everyone involved.

RB being over by a substantial amount, one which arguably gave them an advantage for one or multiple seasons and would (even if not punished harshly) add an asterisk to their championships and could also hamper them down the line.
Add to this the possibility of them having used the same accounting methods for 2022, which could put them over the limit in 2022 as well if they do not fight this successfully, making them repeat offenders facing even harsher penalties as that is one of the aggravating factors.