Motorsport Off Topic Thread

Stumble Bum said:
How is £400k a big overspend when they spend hundreds of millions every year to race?
Click to expand...

My issue is that they’ve tried to hide much more and got caught. Discounted from £5m down to £400k with rebates etc doesn’t feel legit at all.

Horner’s comment that he’s amazed other teams managed it just shows his arrogance tbh.

Red Bull incorrectly excluded 13 separate items from the costs it submitted for the 2021 season, with a total value of £5.607m, the FIA noted
Click to expand...
 
Black Noir said:
My issue is that they’ve tried to hide much more and got caught. Discounted from £5m down to £400k with rebates etc doesn’t feel legit at all.

Horner’s comment that he’s amazed other teams managed it just shows his arrogance tbh.
Click to expand...

The FIA stated themselves that Red Bull have not tried to hide anything. FIA "there is no accusation or evidence that RBR has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in a fraudulent manner, nor has it wilfully concealed any information from the Cost Cap Administration."

Aston Martin had the same issues. 12 points the FIA raised that the FIa weren't happy with, similar issues around catering and outsourcing personnel. Are Aston Martin trying to hide things as well then? Or could there possibly be badly written rules and different ways of interpreting things in the first year these rules have come into force.
 
Stumble Bum said:
The FIA stated themselves that Red Bull have not tried to hide anything. FIA "there is no accusation or evidence that RBR has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in a fraudulent manner, nor has it wilfully concealed any information from the Cost Cap Administration."

Aston Martin had the same issues. 12 points the FIA raised that the FIa weren't happy with, similar issues around catering and outsourcing personnel. Are Aston Martin trying to hide things as well then? Or could there possibly be badly written rules and different ways of interpreting things in the first year these rules have come into force.
Click to expand...

No, it's Red Bull being **** like they always are.

The other teams managed it.
 
Stumble Bum said:
How is £400k a big overspend when they spend hundreds of millions every year to race?
Click to expand...

No, it was £1.4 million. Just because it could have been 400k doesn’t make it so. By that logic Red Bull could have not overspent at all so there’s £0 overspend.

The penalty was, rightly, given out on what overspend was not what it could have been.

Though it does give me an idea of writing to HMRC to tell them I’ll be paying less income tax from now on as I could earn less than I do.
 
Stumble Bum said:
The FIA stated themselves that Red Bull have not tried to hide anything. FIA "there is no accusation or evidence that RBR has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in a fraudulent manner, nor has it wilfully concealed any information from the Cost Cap Administration."

Aston Martin had the same issues. 12 points the FIA raised that the FIa weren't happy with, similar issues around catering and outsourcing personnel. Are Aston Martin trying to hide things as well then? Or could there possibly be badly written rules and different ways of interpreting things in the first year these rules have come into force.
Click to expand...

You do realise why they’ve worded it like that? Anything else would result in slander and legal action.

I haven’t said anything about RB or AM trying to conceal anything only pointing out that the initial findings were nearer £6,000,000 which has been brought down through various rebates etc.

The rules are clear… and RB broke them. The only thing I’d disagree with is the use of the term minor. Whilst “minor” may be the wording in the rules it doesn’t really match the reality I.e you could spend up to £7m more than the cap and fall under that terminology. Perhaps a better word would be a tier 1 breach and tier 2 breach… who knows.
 
Greboth said:
No, it was £1.4 million. Just because it could have been 400k doesn’t make it so. By that logic Red Bull could have not overspent at all so there’s £0 overspend.

The penalty was, rightly, given out on what overspend was not what it could have been.

Though it does give me an idea of writing to HMRC to tell them I’ll be paying less income tax from now on as I could earn less than I do.
Click to expand...

The FIA have said the Tax Credit was fine just an procedural/accounting issue so the total overspend is £432k. NOT £1.8million. That a BIG difference that people are trying to spin the narrative on.
 
Black Noir said:
You do realise why they’ve worded it like that? Anything else would result in slander and legal action.

I haven’t said anything about RB or AM trying to conceal anything only pointing out that the initial findings were nearer £6,000,000 which has been brought down through various rebates etc.

The rules are clear… and RB broke them. The only thing I’d disagree with is the use of the term minor. Whilst “minor” may be the wording in the rules it doesn’t really match the reality I.e you could spend up to £7m more than the cap and fall under that terminology. Perhaps a better word would be a tier 1 breach and tier 2 breach… who knows.
Click to expand...

The rules aren't clear that's the whole issue. If the rules were clear this would be an open and shut case. Two teams have had numerous items accounted for in a different manner. To be expected in the first year of these rules being enforced.
 
Black Noir said:
My issue is that they’ve tried to hide much more and got caught. Discounted from £5m down to £400k with rebates etc doesn’t feel legit at all. .
Click to expand...

It wasn't discounted from £5m. They submitted accounts showing a roughly 3.8m underspend, but they'd wrongly accounted for 5.6m making it a £1.8m overspend but they'd also failed to correctly enter a tax thingy which could have made it a £400k overspend.

They were penalised based on the £1.8m but leniency was shown on the basis of the possible £400k.
 
Stumble Bum said:
The FIA have said the Tax Credit was fine just an procedural/accounting issue so the total overspend is £432k. NOT £1.8million. That a BIG difference that people are trying to spin the narrative on.
Click to expand...
Mr Jack said:
It wasn't discounted from £5m. They submitted accounts showing a roughly 3.8m underspend, but they'd wrongly accounted for 5.6m making it a £1.8m overspend but they'd also failed to correctly enter a tax thingy which could have made it a £400k overspend.

They were penalised based on the £1.8m but leniency was shown on the basis of the possible £400k.
Click to expand...
It's an endless loop. 20 posts from Merc fans who just scan the article for the biggest number, followed by people who've actually read the article.

£500k wouldn't have made Bottas a better driver, and it wouldn't have changed Merc's 2022 design because they thought it was the best choice (until it hit an actual track).
 
Stumble Bum said:
The FIA have said the Tax Credit was fine just an procedural/accounting issue so the total overspend is £432k. NOT £1.8million. That a BIG difference that people are trying to spin the narrative on.
Click to expand...

No, that’s a narrative you’re trying to spin.

Yes it was noted the overspend could have been 400k and maybe that factored in to the penalty decision. But the penalty was given to Red Bull for a 1.8 million overspend.
 
20 posts from RB fans downplaying obvious overspend. If the rules are complex then ask the appropriate questions of the FIA. 9 other teams managed to stay within the budget cap.
 
Mesai said:
It's an endless loop. 20 posts from Merc fans who just scan the article for the biggest number, followed by people who've actually read the article.
Click to expand...

If I can be said to be a fan of any team, it would be Mercedes, and I back Hamilton as much as any other driver.

£500k wouldn't have made Bottas a better driver, and it wouldn't have changed Merc's 2022 design because they thought it was the best choice (until it hit an actual track).
Click to expand...

Quite. I don't believe the overspend changed the result of last season. The fact is that Lewis and Max were so far ahead of anyone else at almost every race that while the overspend may have marginally improved the Red Bull, it don't believe the difference would have changed the overall result. It would still have come down to Masi blowing it at the last race.
 
All this furry and 'frothing at the mouth' is hilarious. Surely some of you must have an idea of how accounting works. It is seldom black and white. Despite SSAP and GAAP, so many things are open to interpretation and can be dealt with in accounts in numerous different ways. This is why notes and statements are usually included along with accounts. It's also why accounting issues with authorities tend to be more of a negotiation.

Many people dislike Red Bull which is fair enough, after all their drinks are terrible ;) but I wonder if the uproar is more due to the fans' distrust of the FIA than rather than the overspend.
 
Last edited:
You can also look at it this way. Overspend by several million but solely because of that you get a double world championship as you have an unfair advantage over the opposition.

Take the hit and maybe not win it the year after but in the history books you are a double world champion.

F1 is pretty much dead to me after the past two seasons. McLaren spy gate whilst dodgy had a massive impact to prevent it from happening again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom