F1 Mexico City Grand Prix: The 13 ways Red Bull overspent in F1 2021
On Friday, the FIA announced Red Bull’s punishment ꧙for their minor breach of the F1 cost cap.
168澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果历史:The FIA revea💯led that Red Bull’s breach was $2.2m (£1.86m) or 1.6 percent, but had a tax credit been appli✤ed correctly, it would have been only $0.5m (£432,653).
There were 13 areas that were incorrectly interpreted by Red Bull in their submission, 𒆙including catering, power units and ജunused parts.
The 13 items in full - listed by the FIA:
1. Overstated excluded costs pursuant to Article 3.1🐟(a) of the Financial Regulations (concerning catering services)
2. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social securi🐻ty contributions)
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activꦡities), as those costs had already been offset within Total Costs of the Reporting Group
4. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(k) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of bonus and aꦑssociated employer’s social security contributions)
5. Understatement of Relevan🌊t Costs in res𒊎pect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make the necessary upwards adjustment.
6. C🌊osts pur꧒suant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulations (concerning apprenticeship levies)
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and ass🅠ociated employer’s social security contributions)
8. Understatement ꧙of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Powerꦑ Units)
9. Costs pursuant to🐈 Article 3.1(h) (i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social sꦜecurity contributions)
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect ꦗof provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financ𝓡ial Regulations (concerning use of inventories)
11. Clerical error i🅘n respect of RBR’s calculation of certain costs recharged to it by Red Bull Powertrains Limited
12. Certain travel costs pursuant to Article 3.1(r) of the Financial Re🔴gulations
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the༺ Financial Reg♊ulations
Re♏d Bull team boss Christian Horner addressed the media ahead of Friday practice for the F1 Mexico City Grand Prix, responding to the 🎶FIA’s cost cap verdict and the 13 aforementioned items.
Overspending on unused parts
Horner cited a number of examples of where Red B♌ull disagreed with the FIA’s judgement which led to their overs﷽pend in 2021.
One of them was the topic of unused parts.
It is understood that the FIA issued a clarification to the teams in June - several months after Red Bull’s submission - on how parts are factored into ﷽the submission.
Hor🌜ner explained that had Red Bull been allowed to factor in th🔜is clarification, that’d have accounted for £1.2 million.
“Our overspend relates to several areas,” he said.” “One, of course, was the tax. Two was the change to the regulations in June after the submission that had we been allowed to re-submit wou𒐪ld have had a benefit to us in the region of £1.2 million in unused parts and the way those unused parts are accounted f🐬or, and we believe have been adopted by other teams within their submissions.”
Catering costs
Another area Red Bull overspent on was catering.
Horner explained that Red Bull thought supplying team members and visitors with food was excluded fro🦂m the cost cap.
“Catering costs - a lot was made of us giving our staff too much food this year. Catering costs, we believed, were excluded, and again, just🧸 to put it into context. When we submitted our submission, we were £3.7 million under the threshold.
“Catering withiღn Red Bull has always been a benefit that has been provided by the group. It’s a benefit of working within the Red Bull group - free food and beverage has been provided. Therefore as something as a Red Bull policy we viewed it as an excludable cost. Aggressive, but w🐻e felt acceptable.
“The FIA took a different viewpoint on that and said that food was not excludable. Fair enough but what was included was the entire catering bill of the entire company. So £1.4 million was the food, drink, coffees, any of you 🌊that attended Milton Keynes during the last 12 months have contributed to our overspend.”
Red Bull Powertrains
In relation to the eighth bu൩llet point outlined by the FIA, there was a disagreement over how Red Bull Powertrains is factored into the team’s submission.
“Red Bull powertrains have nothing to do with Red Bℱull Racing,” Horner added. “Their costs are included. A difference of opinion on how that was applied.”
Sick pay
Horner defended Red Bull’s overspending on sick pay, another example of where the🥃y thought it woulꦯd be excluded from the cost cap.
“We had a difference of opinion on sick pay,” he explained. “We have always taken a view that we wanted to support our staff in sicknes✃s and in health. When members of staff have been on long term sickness we have supported them and we will continue to do so in the future.
“We feꩲlt that the sick pay because it had no function in the grand prix team for 𝓰a period of eight months was an excludable cost. Unfortunately, the regulations can be interpreted in two ways.
“Had the person died, which thankfully they didn’t💖, the cost would have been excludable. Thankfully they didn’t die but therefore the cost was includable for that sick period.”
With a sharp eye for F1’s controversies and storylines, Connor is thཧe heartbeat of our unbiased reporting.
