WhiteBlue wrote:So what? You cannot just add the two figures to arrive at the consolidated figure. We know that the Red Bll budget is somewhere at 250m. So is Ferrari's and McLaren's. What is the point of comparing it with Williams? And why do we think that Horner's salary is essential? Focus on the issue! Red Bull are not financially different to their main rival despite all the hype. IMO the main point is to prevent budgets to spiral into 2006 dimensions and not a witch hunt for a particular team.
Umm, I think you've missed the forest for the trees. Red Bull spent $630,000,000 on F1 last year. Repeat: Red Bull spent $630,000,000 on F1 last year. Here it is again in black and white:
Neue Zürcher Zeitun wrote:Reliable data on the finances of the racing stables supplies only the British "Companies House", a chamber of commerce in which the UK-based teams must submit their budgets. 2011 where the turnover of the company Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Technology has risen to 585 million francs [US $630 million] together. The boundaries of the company are fluid, the pure racing budget is given as 250 million francs [US $268.9 million]...
Christian Horner wrote:“Well if you look at the way the English accounts are presented, you’re looking at the gross turnover of each entity, whether it be Red Bull Technology or Red Bull Racing. Within the RRA we’ve complied fully with the RRA within Red Bull Racing, which is the entrant to the Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Technology is a supplier to Red Bull Racing…”
I don't care what Christian Horner makes. I don't even care how Red Bull's expenditures compare to Williams. My area of concern is the fact that Red Bull spent nearly $1,000,000 per point when it amassed a ginormous pile of them last year and dominated the sport.
Now, I know you're going to argue with me over this. I'll tell you right now that unless you're able to submit something more specific and credible than what I've just shared with the class, I'm going to ignore your argument. Francly - get it? - I'm tired of proving you wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong.
Here's a little something to jog your memory before you dive into the deep, deep blue.
WhiteBlue wrote:[...]
There will be no question about second side entities like Red Bull technologies in a future FiA system.
[...]
If that's not an issue, why is it an issue? Once more, with feeling:
$630,000,000.
(Oh, and before you get all huffy, please know that I'm only following
your playbook, champ. I tried gentle, and gentle didn't work.)
For everyone else, this thing is really quite simple: Formula One can either cut costs, or Formula One can play with expanded technology. It can't do both.
The only parameter that will ever be under firm FIA control is the car. They can control how it's constructed and the materials therein, because they can literally put hands on the car and inspect it inch by inch. Those of us who reside on planet Earth know that such is the very essence of "control."
A good rule of thumb: If one can touch it, one
might be able to control it. If one can't touch it, however, control then relies completely upon obedience, and that's not always reliable, especially in competitions where the lone objective is to exploit the rules better than everyone else exploits the rules.
With hands-on control, the FIA can use market data and precedent to specify various materials and constructions that it suspects will cost $X. That's effective cost control, and it's the only solution that's ever worked. It also inherently restricts technology.
So, the question for F1 now is the same one it's always been: What are you? Are you the "pinnacle of motorsport," comprised of evolving state-of-the-art equipment? Or are you a semi-spec series with global appeal?
The answer, of course, probably lands somewhere in the middle. The only "wrong" answers are the ones left unspoken.
