FoxHound wrote:This suspicion has been poisoning the atmosphere within F1 all year, despite attempts to reduce it.
As well as the endless meetings aimed at bringing the two warring sides together, there was an investigation in the summer by external consultants into the way the teams were detailing their use of resources.
But while Red Bull believe this effectively cleared them of wrongdoing, their accusers disagree. "The analysis showed more than one concern about what Red Bull were doing," one insider told me.
The next step, as laid out by the RRA, was for a full audit of the accounts of the team about which there were suspicions - if a certain number of teams wanted this to happen, the accused team had to agree.
But this point was never reached, and after further meetings at the season-closing Brazilian Grand Prix, Ferrari and Red Bull ran out of patience.
So there where concerns regards Red Bull's activities. But FOTA was toothless as
the RRA was never rubber stamped by
the FIA.
The accused team had to agree for a full audit and this point was never reached.
You quite obviously have a misunderstanding.
The RRA is a contract between privat parties and can be challenged in court as any other contract. For this to happen a majority of teams have to ask for an audit. But
the majority never asked for it. Had they asked Red Bull could not have refused. They have had no options but to let
the audit happen (agree). That is what
the text says.
Now
the interesting question is why
the teams did not find it useful to insist on such an audit.
The most likely answer in my view is
the simplest possible.
The text of
the RRA is not specific enough what constitutes a team, how
the budget must be prepared and what type of legal entities are eligible for teams.
I think that Red Bull's loop hole is based on
the structure of
the Red Bull Technologies company. RBT is
the only company that had enough people and sales to fit
the activity level and
the expenditure level. Red Bull Racing did not have enough people.
Another possible construct could be a total outsourcing strategy. If there is an option under
the RRA to exchange people for services then Red Bull Racing could buy a lot more development services if they would transfer their head count allowance partially or totally to RBT. But we do not know if such an option is possible under
the RRA. It sounds highly unlikely to me because
the comments on
the nature of
the RRA were quite robust in 2009 and 2010.
So at this point
the secrecy kills
the RRA or
the inaccuracy of its wording. Perhaps we will never know. But we can say with some certainty that
the RRA did not work as advertised because
the basic definitions were too ambiguous, verification was not not stringent enough or policing of violations became politically unsuitable. Whatever
the reason was
the fault was already build within
the system in 2009. IMO you cannot install a cost control mechanism if you try to do it without a proper participation of
the governing body. I hope
the teams will learn from this and it looks to me like they did.
The next solution they will try to implement will involve
the authority of
the FiA or they can give up completely on cost control.
