2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[Just_a_fan]

Stating rumour/opinion is a persistent problem here

But incredibly enjoyable at times.

[cheeRS]

Stating rumour/opinion is a persistent problem here

Stating that it is a persistent problem here.... is your opinion.


I kid, I kid. Carry on.

[tpe]

The European GAAP describes what is meant by employee.
Someone who works with his one-person company for a large company and does that more than two days a week
for an extended period and earns at least 2/3 of the minimum wage is an employee of that large company.

From an RBR perspective they are right and he is an RBR employee, but the FIA ​​maintains that he is not an RBR employee as he is not on their payroll but they pay his monthly bills.

But under UK law he isn't an employee. And both Red Bull Racing and Newey's personal company are UK-registered and governed by UK law.

Tricky, isn't it?

Not at all. We don't examine the law, we examine the rules of the competition. Obviously there must be a connection, but only a lawyer can say what. But interpretating the rules by local laws, means big mess. Because there are other countries involved too.
So, the most possible explanation is that the cost cap rules have their own definitions and they don't rely to local laws.

[tpe]

the problematic part is if Newey has other costs (not incurred due to him alone) within that agreement between him as a contractor and RB, maybe other people working for him in his company, computational analysis he buys from 3rd parties etc. those kind of things) those are not directly Newey himself and those must be included in the cost cap (excluded from the exclusion).

Finally a logical explanation!

[Wil992]

the problematic part is if Newey has other costs (not incurred due to him alone) within that agreement between him as a contractor and RB, maybe other people working for him in his company, computational analysis he buys from 3rd parties etc. those kind of things) those are not directly Newey himself and those must be included in the cost cap (excluded from the exclusion).

Finally a logical explanation!

Yea, this is a thing I was thinking about too. I’m not sure where the line is on this. If he has a personal service company that bills RB for his time, that’s clearly allowed as one of the top 3 earners and can be excluded from the cap.
But what if that company hires another employee? Does that mean it immediately becomes just another supplier and therefore not able to be excluded? If not, where is the line? Could his ltd co hire the entire aero dept and call that one of the top 3 earners?
My feeling is that because the allowable exclusions refers specifically to individuals, the minute there’s more than 1 person, they can’t be on the list. I’m sure that’s the intention of the rules, at least.

[bonjon1979]

the problematic part is if Newey has other costs (not incurred due to him alone) within that agreement between him as a contractor and RB, maybe other people working for him in his company, computational analysis he buys from 3rd parties etc. those kind of things) those are not directly Newey himself and those must be included in the cost cap (excluded from the exclusion).

Finally a logical explanation!

Yea, this is a thing I was thinking about too. I’m not sure where the line is on this. If he has a personal service company that bills RB for his time, that’s clearly allowed as one of the top 3 earners and can be excluded from the cap.
But what if that company hires another employee? Does that mean it immediately becomes just another supplier and therefore not able to be excluded? If not, where is the line? Could his ltd co hire the entire aero dept and call that one of the top 3 earners?
My feeling is that because the allowable exclusions refers specifically to individuals, the minute there’s more than 1 person, they can’t be on the list. I’m sure that’s the intention of the rules, at least.

This was precisely my point, even a pa or drawing assistant means it can no longer be counted as an individual. Nor should it be, he could have a whole team for all the fia know.

[smellybeard]

I just don't see how this Newey doge is meant to benefit RB and raise the total amount they have to spend.
Some of the suggestions - that Newey could be secretly contracting work out to others is so fantastic and so obviously 'outright cheating' that it would never be risked by RB and never be ignored by the FIA. It's disqualification from the championship kind of stuff.

Time to change the direction f the speculation, I think.

[chrisc90]

Is there any truth in the rumours that Toto/Mercedes are prepared to spend more than the budget cap if RB only get a fine?

[dans79]

A sign of Intent or Helmut just letting his ego get the better of him (as usual), and thus not keeping his mouth shut, you decide!

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1014479/1 ... hed-mildly

“We are still not aware of any guilt, which is why discussions with the FIA are still ongoing," Marko told F1-Insider.com.

"But rumours that Max could lose his world title in 2021, for example, are complete nonsense.

“The past has shown that even extreme violations of the regulations were punished very mildly by the FIA."

[GrizzleBoy]

We didn't break the cost cap.

But if we did it was only a little bit.

And even of its only a little bit, it was just by accident.

And even if its found it wasn't by accident, EVERYBODY knows the FIA never gives out harsh penalties for this kind of thing.

But if the FIA do punish us harshly, it's because Toto Wolff something something something.




Never ending stream of inability to take responsibility and gaslighting at its finest.

[Shakeman]

Is there any truth in the rumours that Toto/Mercedes are prepared to spend more than the budget cap if RB only get a fine?

If the FIA shows itself to be toothless on this matter every team on the grid will be doing a cost benefit analysis for breaking the cost cap in the future.

[Wil992]

Is there any truth in the rumours that Toto/Mercedes are prepared to spend more than the budget cap if RB only get a fine?

They’d be mad not to, especially if they think other teams will also do it. They’d be in a position where could end up being the only team under the cap.

[littlebigcat]

Its probably coincidence rather some low key trolling, but Mercedes Grand Prix submitted their 2021 accounts

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Red Bull Racing, with all of their 59 employees, still are overdue on their accounts.

[Just_a_fan]

Is there any truth in the rumours that Toto/Mercedes are prepared to spend more than the budget cap if RB only get a fine?

If you can spend a few million over and get away with it, why wouldn't every other team do so? They'd be mad to turn down $5m of car development money in exchange for a relatively small fine a year later.

Horner wanted to increase the cap. Looks like he might have found a way to do it after all.

Here's a thought: is it still cheating if everyone does it?

[chrisc90]

Good question! If you apply The same punishment then everyone is in the same boat.

I did originally say it’s a risk Vw reward scenario with how the penalty’s are structured, but a lot of people were quick to shoot me down