2021 Cost Cap Breaches

[garyhun]

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.

Glad you had inside knowledge that it was not deliberate. Take a look at Masi/AD/FIA decision for more of the same.

The mad captain is either a troll extraordinaire or a deluded fan. He’s obviously wrong whatever the case.

[PhilAsia]

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 thick!!

Edited by PhilAsia on Thursday 24th November 18:09

[MarkwG]

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.

but no-one pleaded ignorance. They claim to have acted in good faith, and within the rules. The FIA state the same, ie RB were honest and truthful.

There was no cheating.

Yeah, just like Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman... methinks you protest too much...

no, not like that at all.

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.

Far more than you it seems: Red Bull fought from the get go, why do you think the March deadline was pushed to October? Why else the drip feed of misinformation all summer. Open & honest, don't make me laugh - opaque & disingenuous, more like. Honest would be admitting they won by breaking the rules, but we all know that won't happen. You seek to blame Mercedes & their former employee without a shred of evidence, whereas the evidence against Red Bull is finally in the public domain. Those who have a moral compass know exactly where the problem lies.

[defblade]

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.

Sorted this one some time ago: the FIA absolutely did not say that which you state as unequivocal facts.

defblade said:

MadCaptainJack said:

FIA said:

"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."

RBR made a financial submission in good faith based on their understanding of the financial regulations. They weren't dishonest, and they didn't seek to conceal any information. While they may have been subsequently adjudged to have interpreted the rules incorrectly and/or made mistakes that resulted in them exceeding the cap, none of that means that they acted unfairly.

The FIA's statement has been worded very carefully.
Accusations can be made... or not, by choice.
Evidence can be looked for, considered, recognised... or not, by choice.

I'm afraid that the FIA's statement there makes a nice political sound, but upon careful consideration leaves no-one any the wiser and doesn't properly support or deny either view of the matter. Which is, I'm sure, exactly what they intended.

[PhilAsia]

MarkwG said:

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.

but no-one pleaded ignorance. They claim to have acted in good faith, and within the rules. The FIA state the same, ie RB were honest and truthful.
There was no cheating.

Yeah, just like Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman... methinks you protest too much...

no, not like that at all.
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.

Far more than you it seems: Red Bull fought from the get go, why do you think the March deadline was pushed to October? Why else the drip feed of misinformation all summer. Open & honest, don't make me laugh - opaque & disingenuous, more like. Honest would be admitting they won by breaking the rules, but we all know that won't happen. You seek to blame Mercedes & their former employee without a shred of evidence, whereas the evidence against Red Bull is finally in the public domain. Those who have a moral compass know exactly where the problem lies.

I am quite certain that this inability to understand what is happening in F1 follows on from the inability to comprehend why he got a simple parking ticket...

[MadCaptainJack]

PhilAsia said:

I am quite certain that this inability to understand what is happening in F1 follows on from the inability to comprehend why he got a simple parking ticket...

You seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues.

It's clear from deadslow's post that he knows exactly why he got a parking ticket.

PhilAsia said:

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.......

I am quite certain that this inability to understand why RBR didn't cheat follows on from the inability to comprehend written English.

[PhilAsia]

MadCaptainJack said:

PhilAsia said:

I am quite certain that this inability to understand what is happening in F1 follows on from the inability to comprehend why he got a simple parking ticket...

You seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues.

It's clear from deadslow's post that he knows exactly why he got a parking ticket.

PhilAsia said:

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.......

I am quite certain that this inability to understand why RBR didn't cheat follows on from the inability to comprehend written English.

You clearly are not clearly clear on whether dead s l o w is clear or not. He stated "wheel (literally) one inch on the zig zag". I made it clear, although not clearly clear enough for you to be clear, that the bodywork should not overhang the zig zag. Clear?? Probably not...

What were you saying about English comprehension?

Edited by PhilAsia on Friday 25th November 11:42

[deadslow]

PhilAsia said:

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.

Edited by PhilAsia on Thursday 24th November 18:09

I know the rule fine, chap

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.

[NotFussed]

PhilAsia said:

You clearly are not clearly clear on whether dead s l o w is clear or not. He stated "wheel (literally) one inch on the zig zag". I made it clear, although not clearly clear enough for you to be clear, that the bodywork should not overhang the zig zag. Clear?? Probably not...

What were you saying about English comprehension?

Edited by PhilAsia on Friday 25th November 11:42

Yeah so basically the car was quite a bit over and not literally just the wheel on the zig zag.

I do wonder if those that keep staying it is clear RB did not game the system would be quite as vocal to support Merc as an example if it were them. As they clearly seem to be vocal about its all Merc infiltrating the FIA and causing the issues and not RB themselves.

[NotFussed]

deadslow said:

I know the rule fine, chap

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.

But you did as you would have seen it and then moved the car to ensure it was legal.

[deadslow]

NotFussed said:

deadslow said:

I know the rule fine, chap

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.

But you did as you would have seen it and then moved the car to ensure it was legal.

no, I was sitting in the car in an almightly downpour in Glasgow. I didn't really check, as I thought I was ok, but no problem with the ticket.

Penalty, but no crime/no intent.

[BigBen]

deadslow said:

I know the rule fine, chap

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.

Now imagine you had an assistant with you whose job was solely to make sure you didn't break the rules. Now the analogy works.

[PhilAsia]

deadslow said:

PhilAsia said:

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.

Edited by PhilAsia on Thursday 24th November 18:09

I know the rule fine, chap

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.

Clearly you did not know that with one inch of wheel on the zig zag you had "LITERALLY" one inch of wheel plus a further one foot(ish) MORE OF BODYWORK hanging illegally over the zig zag.

"...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...."

Comprehension is not your best subject, is it?

[deadslow]

PhilAsia said:

deadslow said:

PhilAsia said:

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.

Edited by PhilAsia on Thursday 24th November 18:09

I know the rule fine, chap

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.

Clearly you did not know that with one inch of wheel on the zig zag you had "LITERALLY" one inch of wheel plus a further one foot(ish) MORE OF BODYWORK hanging illegally over the zig zag.

"...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...."

Comprehension is not your best subject, is it?

no need to go out of your way to be unpleasant, chap. No-one is having a pop at you.

[deadslow]

BigBen said:

deadslow said:

I know the rule fine, chap

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.

Now imagine you had an assistant with you whose job was solely to make sure you didn't break the rules. Now the analogy works.

yes, and the assistant checked everything and assured me I was ok, but unfortunately the rules were constantly changing, so I got caught out.

[alisdairm]

Jeezus,

This thread has gone a bit of the rails.

Nothing to do with cost cap breaches, but totally about parking on/near a zig/zag, and English language comprehension.

I'm up for a bit of heated debate, but this is nuts.

[Graveworm]

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.

but no-one pleaded ignorance. They claim to have acted in good faith, and within the rules. The FIA state the same, ie RB were honest and truthful.

There was no cheating.

They didn't act within the rules. The rules don't say be within the cost cap or act in good faith. Exceeding the cost cap is an absolute breach of the rules. Acting outside the rules and gaining an advantage (i.e. Spending more than allowed) is cheating, as defined, nothing about needing to have acted in bad faith.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 25th November 14:48

[llewop]

deadslow said:

BigBen said:

deadslow said:

I know the rule fine, chap

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.

Now imagine you had an assistant with you whose job was solely to make sure you didn't break the rules. Now the analogy works.

yes, and the assistant checked everything and assured me I was ok, but unfortunately the rules were constantly changing, so I got caught out.

If we are spinning off into fantasy analogies.... our survey said '9 out 10 participants understood the rules well enough, engaged their assistants in the process, even practiced for a year and possibly asked for clarifications along the way to submitting compliant accounts'.

the facts are that the team that made a decision not to practice and test the process in advance, subsequently 'won' 2 DWC and one CWC are the only team to 'get caught out' and actually got 'caught out' in at least 13 different ways as listed in the FIA summary. That suggests either they and their assistants were woefully incompetent (unlikely, they seem to have got the hang of building fast cars) or were pushing the boundaries with 'optimistic' interpretations of excludable costs and anticipating that they had plausible deniability as it was the first true year of the cost cap.

The 2022 figures are going to be interesting when they filter through (hopefully somewhat quicker) - HM has already been trolling that 6 teams (but not RB) are going to breach the cap, CH admitted that their 'rumour/information' on that came from financial director/manager get togethers - maybe that is actually the source of the 2021 'leak' one or more of the RB bean counters letting it slip that they were struggling with their numbers?

[deadslow]

Graveworm said:

They didn't act within the rules. The rules don't say be within the cost cap or act in good faith. Exceeding the cost cap is an absolute breach of the rules (even if it Acting outside the rules and gaining an advantage (i.e. Spending more than allowed) is cheating, as defined, nothing about needing to have acted in bad faith.

they did act within the rules. They followed the FIA procedure. The FIA found them to be marginally outside the line. The rules called for a fine. They paid a fine.

The FIA were clear that no cheating took place, and you have to take the FIA's word for that.

[ch37]

deadslow said:

they did act within the rules. They followed the FIA procedure.

Followed the procedure and acted within the rules?

"Inaccurately excluded costs totalling £5.6m" (the FIAs words, not mine)

13 separate errors identified...catering, social security x3, non-F1 activities, bonuses, disposal of fixed assets, apprenticeship levies, power units, inventories, travel, maintenance and general clerical errors.