laughtersassassin
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Messages
- 11,580
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Great little story this morning from Alfa Romeo
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That is awesome. Have goosebumps watching it.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Great little story this morning from Alfa Romeo
Sorry, I don't follow your logic. You're saying its not rediculous if he were excluded from the cap but then saying RB say he is top 3, but then say he's a contract, but is still not exempt.Actually it's not.
Your top 3 paid employees are exempt from the cost cap
Allegedly Red Bull are saying he counts as top 3 as he is an integral part of the team and is in the top 3 paid.
However the rumour is as Newey is officially a contractor that he doesn't count as an employee and is therefore not exempt. Although I read the rules and it says contractors can qualify so not sure if AMUS got this rumour wrong.
(Top engineers in the industry often set themselves up as a consultant as you make a lot more money not being tied down)
Then the question becomes what happened in the dry run last season? Was he allowed to be counted as a top 3 exemption?
So at Merc Toto plus two others wouldn't count for them for example.
This isn't true tbh. I'm in engineering (not mechanical) and when the IR35 rules changed it became much harder to dodge tax by being a contractor. Sure by being a contractor you can take on other clients, but that presumes that your main gig doesn't fill your time. You also don't get any benefits so quickly becomes much less attractive than it used to be. Sure, within a company you'll always find a bunch of contractors running around, but usually its actually not just the top performers, its often just people who like to move around a lot.Oh yeah for sure but it's standard practice in engineering. It's not at F1 thing. And I'm sure Newey has been employed by Red Bull like this way since long long before there was ever a cap. It's not something set up to try subvert it as in fact it has zero benefit from a cost cap point of view but it does have a a negative effect if this rumour is in fact true.
Essentially it would means Red Bull went over on the semantics that the FIA don't consider Newey an "employee". Although I actually doubt this rumour is true or atleast not in how it's being described.
Top engineers almost always set themselves up as contractors/consultants.
Otherwise you leave money and opportunities on the table.
I'm sure other teams will have similar with their engineers but if it's not a top 3 employee then it's irrelevant as only those are exempt.
So it sounds like you agree with Red Bull then?Sorry, I don't follow your logic. You're saying its not rediculous if he were excluded from the cap but then saying RB say he is top 3, but then say he's a contract, but is still not exempt.
Bottom line is contractors simply cannot be exempt if their work falls under the same criteria as employees. If that were not the case F1 teams would setup half their engineering groups as contractors.
I don't know because I don't know what RB have said, it all seems to be conjecture. My opinion is that it is irrelevant if Newey is an employee or a contractor, if he's in the top 3 he should be one of the 3. If this means RB are then under cap, so be it.So it sounds like you agree with Red Bull then?
Agreed with everything you've said here - wasn't trying to have a go just curious!I don't know because I don't know what RB have said, it all seems to be conjecture. My opinion is that it is irrelevant if Newey is an employee or a contractor, if he's in the top 3 he should be one of the 3. If this means RB are then under cap, so be it.
However, I havn't read all the rules, and there is a proviso to this: what part of the employee's pay is exempt? Is it just the salary, what about NI, pension contributions etc.? If those aren't exempt then they should be calculated as if the worker was an employee and added.
I'm just saying being a contractor is understandable here and in engineering in general. Seen some claiming it was Red Bull trying to get around the cap which is nonsense considering he has likely been a contractor since a long time before the cap was introduced.This isn't true tbh. I'm in engineering (not mechanical) and when the IR35 rules changed it became much harder to dodge tax by being a contractor. Sure by being a contractor you can take on other clients, but that presumes that your main gig doesn't fill your time. You also don't get any benefits so quickly becomes much less attractive than it used to be. Sure, within a company you'll always find a bunch of contractors running around, but usually its actually not just the top performers, its often just people who like to move around a lot.
Absolutely brilliant.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Great little story this morning from Alfa Romeo
If it was RedBull the finding goto operation would have cost £1mil on the books and around £250 in real life.great to see. lucky it was alfa romeo. had it been red bull they’d have had him working in their factories and refusing to pay him.
Jesus Christ, this is motor racing. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.If it was RedBull the finding goto operation would have cost £1mil on the books and around £250 in real life.
#cheats prosper.
From what I've read, it appears that everything related to staff benefits is exempt from the cap to avoid teams from cutting in those. (Which is a good thing!)However, I havn't read all the rules, and there is a proviso to this: what part of the employee's pay is exempt? Is it just the salary, what about NI, pension contributions etc.? If those aren't exempt then they should be calculated as if the worker was an employee and added.
Facts.Jesus Christ, this is motor racing. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.
Jesus Christ, this is motor racing. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.
Probably not. But the last 2 seasons back to back might be the most absurd successive seasons ever.Is this the most absurd F1 season ever??
Maybe but I imagine F1 is more popular now and talked about than in other years. F1 was getting known for being boring and dominated by one team at a time (past 20 years). Now every country wants to host and manufacturers want to join. Ferrari had the pace but fell off however teams will catch up to RB. We just need the FIA to sort itself.Is this the most absurd F1 season ever??
There's the possibility of a season ban. I think that was only for a major overspend though. I think the ban for a minor was a 1 race ban.https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/1469...ill-be-more-severe-than-points-deduction.html
Whats more severe than a points reduction?
Does bernie know something?
We know the penalty has to be harsh otherwise thw floodgates will open. If mercedes start to overspend on purpose as they have said they will (if fia are lenient on RB penalities) then ferrari will follow suit. Budget cap is dead.
Nothing stopping the FIA from doing a masi and rewriting the rulebook on the fly.There's the possibility of a season ban. I think that was only for a major overspend though. I think the ban for a minor was a 1 race ban.
Looks like redbull were really trying (according to McLaren at least)Jesus Christ, this is motor racing. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/63256734McLaren F1 boss Zak Brown has written a letter to governing body the FIA in which he says Red Bull breaking the budget cap "constitutes cheating".
Brown calls for penalties that will hit Red Bull financially and on the track.
"Any team who have overspent have gained an unfair advantage both in the current and following year's car development," he writes.
Brown adds the FIA should "communicate subsequent action and penalties at pace to maintain the integrity of F1".
Great, another team boss trying to influence both public opinion and the FIA through the media.Looks like redbull were really trying (according to McLaren at least)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/63256734
Another team boss unhappy one of the teams they are competing against are cheatsGreat, another team boss trying to influence both public opinion and the FIA through the media.
Additionally, he also says this (from @sun_tzu's link):Zak Brown's suggestions for punishments for budget cap overspends all seem like very good ideas.
He thinks an overspend of $1m means $2m should be taken off the next seasons cost cap, plus wind tunnel reduction as a more punitive element. And reduce the minor/material threshold from 5% to 2.5%.
All very good ideas, but the one thing lacking is some retroactive punishment for the benefits already gained. I'd be in favour of a points reduction for the constructor in the season(s) affected.To avoid teams accumulating and benefiting from the multiplier effect of several minor overspend breaches, we suggest that a second minor overspend breach automatically moves the team to a major breach.
There is a difference between trying to stretch the technical rules and exceeding the agree cost cap. All the teams try the former. But only RB have been found to have broken the cost cap.Jesus Christ, this is motor racing. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.
I would as well. RB always try to come across holier than thou, at the same time as gaining an unfair advantage.Additionally, he also says this (from @sun_tzu's link):
All very good ideas, but the one thing lacking is some retroactive punishment for the benefits already gained. I'd be in favour of a points reduction for the constructor in the season(s) affected.
I don't think they should reduce the minor/ material thresholds now RB have broken the rules. Otherwise RB could technically could get less of a punishment for going more-over the budget than another team next year.Zak Brown's suggestions for punishments for budget cap overspends all seem like very good ideas.
He thinks an overspend of $1m means $2m should be taken off the next seasons cost cap, plus wind tunnel reduction as a more punitive element. And reduce the minor/material threshold from 5% to 2.5%.
Auditing of the teams actual spend is retrospective. So the FIA can only react.Don't like the idea of reducing next years budget for an overspend and having teams weigh up the timing of when to do it. Mainly though I don't want imbalances between teams each year possibly making a season more dominant for one particular car. We'll sacrifice spending/tunnel time next year for this year thinking skewing championships. It could inadvertently work the other way and help a team if there's one stand out team on merit though.