F1 Mexico City Grand Prix: The 13 ways Red Bull overspent in F1 2021
On Friday, the FIA announced Red Bull’s punishme🍷nt for their minor breach of the F1 cost cap.
168澳洲🌜5最新开奖结果:The FIA reveওaled that Red Bull’s breach was $2.2m (£1.86m) or 1.6 percent, but had a tax credit been applied correctly, it ꦦwould have been only $0.5m (£432,653).
Ther🌄e were🧸 13 areas that were incorrectly interpreted by Red Bull in their submission, including catering, power units and unused parts.
The 13 items in full - listed by the FIA:
1. Overstated exclu♔ded costs pursuant to Article 3.1(a) of the Financial R💟egulations (concerning catering services)
2. Costs pursuant to Arꦅt♎icle 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions)
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activities), a🌠s 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 respectꦐ of bonus and associated employer’s social security 🎃contributions)
5. Understatement oꩲf Relevant Costs in respect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make the necessary upwards adjustment.
6. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulatiꦉons (concerning🔴 apprenticeship levies)
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3ও.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions)
8. Understatement of Relevant Costs in resp🉐ect of provisions 🅘set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Power Units)
9. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h) (i) of the 🌌Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions)
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financial Regulations ꦜ(concerning use⛎ of inventories)
11. Clerical error in respect of RBR’s ca🌜lculation of certain costs recharged to it by Red Bull Powert🌟rains Limited
12. Certain travel cosജts pursuant to Article 3.1(r) of the Financial Regulations
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial R꧙egulations
Red B🔴ull 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 Bull disagreed with the FIA’s judgement which led to their overspend 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 pಌarts are factored into the submission.
Horner explained that had Red Bull been allowed to facto🍸r in this clarification, that’d have accounted for £1🥀.2 million.
“Our ov🌟erspend 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 would have had a 😼benefit to us in the region of £1.2 million in unused parts and the way those unused parts are accounted for, 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 ex๊clude🌊d from the cost cap.
“Catering costs - a lot was made of us giving our staff t🍎oo 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 within 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 excl🐽udable cost. Aggressive, but we felt acceptable.
“The FIA took a different viewpoint on that and said that food was not excludable🔯. Fair enough but what was inclꦡuded 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 bullet point outlined by the FIA, tꦅhere 🥂was a disagreement over how Red Bull Powertrains is factored into the team’s submission.
“Red Bull powertrains have not♛hing to do with Red Bull 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, anot🔴her example of where they thought it would be excluded from the cost cap.
“We had a difference of opinion on sick pay,” he explained. “We have always taken a view ജthat we wanted to support our staff in sickness 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 felt that the sick pay because it had no function in the grand prix team for a peri🧜od 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 b💫ut therefore the cost was includable for that sick period.”
With a sharp eye for F1’s controversies and storylines, Conn♔or is the heartbeat of our unbiased reporting.
