2021 Cost Cap Breaches
Discussion
deadslow said:
MarkwG said:
deadslow said:
NRS said:
deadslow said:
there was no cheating. Glad Wolff's mole has been binned for the good of the sport.
So what do you call breaking the rules?I was once found to have broken a rule. I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking. The rozzers stopped and gave me a £60.00 reminder to be more careful. I do not consider myself to be a criminal, nor to have tried to gain any unfair/illegal advantage. I just broke a rule, inadvertently.
It's not like they were burning oil deliberately to gain performance, as some have done.
MarkwG said:
Actually, it's just like that: they were burning cash on R&D above what they were allowed to, under the rules they signed up to. They either knew the rules, & ignored them; or didn't know the rules they signed up to, & ignored all the opportunities to cross check their understanding. The choice is either deliberate incompetence, or just incompetence - except they're not a new team, wet behind the ears, they're in the top three & have been for years. To pretend they didn't now what they were doing stretches credibility beyond breaking point. They cheated, & they got away with it.
no, they simply didn't. They made every effort to comply, and were stated to be open and honest by the FIA. Who knows, maybe this whole thing was orchestrated by Wolff's infiltrator within the FIA (one for the conspiratory theorists!).
deadslow said:
MarkwG said:
deadslow said:
NRS said:
deadslow said:
there was no cheating. Glad Wolff's mole has been binned for the good of the sport.
So what do you call breaking the rules?I was once found to have broken a rule. I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking. The rozzers stopped and gave me a £60.00 reminder to be more careful. I do not consider myself to be a criminal, nor to have tried to gain any unfair/illegal advantage. I just broke a rule, inadvertently.
It's not like they were burning oil deliberately to gain performance, as some have done.
Did all those sportsman who took drugs, accidentally or otherwise, gain an advantage? Who knows.
Was it deliberate? Who knows.
Did they get banned? Yes, every single one as far as I'm aware.
Did Mercedes get banned last season for having a wing that was fractionally out of spec? Yes, thrown out of qualifying.
Did RB get banned for breaking rules all season which are there to prevent Teams getting an advantage? No.
And further, did RB do everything on their power to avoid breaking the rules? No they did not, unlike every other team. they did not do the practice run the year before. That in itself should have been enough to get them banned because none of their mitigation was valid as a direct result of their own failure to do a practice run. Were they even asked why they didn't do the practice run?
Truly appalling from the FIA after they literally gave them the championship the season before by snatching it from Hamilton as he was about to win it.
They make FIFA look like saints.
[quote=deadslow]
They did not know they had transgressed, nor did their independent accountants,/quote]
How do you know this?
And possibly more to the point, how did the nine other teams know how to stay within the cap, if it was so easy to breach? One answer might be the one I have seen from Otmar, which is they kept a few million under the cap to be sure of not breaching.
They did not know they had transgressed, nor did their independent accountants,/quote]
How do you know this?
And possibly more to the point, how did the nine other teams know how to stay within the cap, if it was so easy to breach? One answer might be the one I have seen from Otmar, which is they kept a few million under the cap to be sure of not breaching.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 24th November 16:17
deadslow said:
MarkwG said:
Actually, it's just like that: they were burning cash on R&D above what they were allowed to, under the rules they signed up to. They either knew the rules, & ignored them; or didn't know the rules they signed up to, & ignored all the opportunities to cross check their understanding. The choice is either deliberate incompetence, or just incompetence - except they're not a new team, wet behind the ears, they're in the top three & have been for years. To pretend they didn't now what they were doing stretches credibility beyond breaking point. They cheated, & they got away with it.
no, they simply didn't. They made every effort to comply, and were stated to be open and honest by the FIA. Who knows, maybe this whole thing was orchestrated by Wolff's infiltrator within the FIA (one for the conspiratory theorists!).
I'm sure Mercedes made every effort to comply with their rear wing last year, they still got banned, even though they were open and honest about it
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
They did not know they had transgressed, nor did their independent accountants,/quote]
How do you know this?
And possibly more to the point, how did the nine other teams know how to stay within the cap, if it was so easy to breach? One answer might be the one I have seen from Otmar, which is they kept a few million under the cap to be sure of not breaching.
RB also state they were a couple of million under budget, by their own reckoning, and signed off by Ernst & Young, I believe (these are very serious accountants)How do you know this?
And possibly more to the point, how did the nine other teams know how to stay within the cap, if it was so easy to breach? One answer might be the one I have seen from Otmar, which is they kept a few million under the cap to be sure of not breaching.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 24th November 16:17
deadslow said:
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
They did not know they had transgressed, nor did their independent accountants,/quote]
How do you know this?
And possibly more to the point, how did the nine other teams know how to stay within the cap, if it was so easy to breach? One answer might be the one I have seen from Otmar, which is they kept a few million under the cap to be sure of not breaching.
RB also state they were a couple of million under budget, by their own reckoning, and signed off by Ernst & Young, I believe (these are very serious accountants)How do you know this?
And possibly more to the point, how did the nine other teams know how to stay within the cap, if it was so easy to breach? One answer might be the one I have seen from Otmar, which is they kept a few million under the cap to be sure of not breaching.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 24th November 16:17
The same Ernst & Young who were fined $100m after their employees cheated their ethics exam? Hmmm
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/28/e...
paulguitar said:
deadslow said:
RB also state they were a couple of million under budget, by their own reckoning, and signed off by Ernst & Young, I believe (these are very serious accountants)
Not completely serious, apparently.
deadslow said:
RB also state they were a couple of million under budget, by their own reckoning, and signed off by Ernst & Young, I believe (these are very serious accountants)
More of this for you.
On 13 particular items they were 'accidentally' over by a total £1.864m. Those 13 items accounted for a total of £5.607m (approx. 4.8%) more than they declared. Are you trying to convince us that RB and E&Y are that incompetent?
13 overspends, but only one other 'under' amount that they had not accounted for, a £1.433m Notional Tax Credit.
If they were really that incompetent, do you not think that at least a few of the 13 areas of overspend would have been underspends instead?
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that.
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.
It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that.
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.
It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that.
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.
It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
There was no cheating.
deadslow said:
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that.
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.
It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
There was no cheating.
NRS said:
What is the FIA quote about Ferrari and the fuel flow "incident" they had? Whatever was agreed in the end clearly had a big negative effect on their performance, but Ferrari never cheated or broke the rules according to the FIA. I guess that was an accident too?
RB clearly did it accidently. It's well known teams will skip practice sessions and pit stop practices in F1 for example, as practices give you no advantage. It's perfectly understandable they'd skip the cost cap practice year too. Of course that was ABSOLUTELY NOT because it would allow them to plead innocence on grey areas, because no one had flagged those particular ones to the FIA in the practice year...!
This 100%....or 100.3% if you're RBR or E&Y... RB clearly did it accidently. It's well known teams will skip practice sessions and pit stop practices in F1 for example, as practices give you no advantage. It's perfectly understandable they'd skip the cost cap practice year too. Of course that was ABSOLUTELY NOT because it would allow them to plead innocence on grey areas, because no one had flagged those particular ones to the FIA in the practice year...!
MarkwG said:
deadslow said:
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that.
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.
It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
There was no cheating.
Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
The FIA/RB process has been open and honest. What part of it do you not understand? It seems like a very straightforward accounting disagreement, which is not at all uncommon.
Stirred up, of course, by Wolff and his FIA plant, into a frenzy. He should write for the Daily Mail.
PhilAsia said:
MadCaptainJack said:
NRS said:
So what do you call breaking the rules?
We call it a breach of the rules. We don't call it cheating unless it was done deliberately and dishonestly. The FIA has made it crystal clear that "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". Therefore, RBR didn't cheat.
We've already been through this multiple times. You, jasandjules, and PhilAsia are just trolling now.
Stop it.
deadslow said:
I was once found to have broken a rule. I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking. The rozzers stopped and gave me a £60.00 reminder to be more careful. I do not consider myself to be a criminal, nor to have tried to gain any unfair/illegal advantage. I just broke a rule, inadvertently.
You clearly do not know the rule. No bodywork should overhanging the parking restriction. With knowledge you can make informed decisions........like RB could have with cost cap practice. Capisci??Without the knowledge I have now given you, you were just inadvertently ignorant, just as RBR were when they were offered the opportunity to be clever and use the cost cap practice.
NRS said:
RB clearly did it accidently. It's well known teams will skip practice sessions and pit stop practices in F1 for example, as practices give you no advantage.( 
) It's perfectly understandable they'd skip the cost cap practice year too. Of course that was ABSOLUTELY NOT because it would allow them to plead innocence on grey areas, because no one had flagged those particular ones to the FIA in the practice year...!
Not getting through...wall too th ) It's perfectly understandable they'd skip the cost cap practice year too. Of course that was ABSOLUTELY NOT because it would allow them to plead innocence on grey areas, because no one had flagged those particular ones to the FIA in the practice year...!
ick!!Edited by PhilAsia on Thursday 24th November 18:09
deadslow said:
MarkwG said:
deadslow said:
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that.
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.
It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
There was no cheating.
Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
The FIA/RB process has been open and honest. What part of it do you not understand? It seems like a very straightforward accounting disagreement, which is not at all uncommon.
Stirred up, of course, by Wolff and his FIA plant, into a frenzy. He should write for the Daily Mail.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff