[Team] McLaren - can they compete?

[Greem]

Colton Herta is finally getting a test: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/62119600

I'm quite pleased about this.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Greem

Colton Herta is finally getting a test: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/62119600

I'm quite pleased about this.

I bet Mr Ricciardo isnt...

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

I bet Mr Ricciardo isnt...

If he doesn't find some pace soon,from somewhere,its hard to see a good reason to keep him in the seat.In fact it might actually benefit the team to pay him to sit on the sidelines and put Oscar Piastri in the car-if a deal can be done.The situation has echoes of the spell Mark Webber spent at Williams.

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

.In fact it might actually benefit the team to put Oscar Piastri in the car

Given how close Alpine and Mc are in constructors would either team be happy with Alpine contracted no3 in Mc garage and factory? Too much chance of IP leaking in either direction, even if by accident "its softer in the front than the other car" "we always did..."

Williams are not a threat - this year anyhow

[Born Racer]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/62147938

Well, that's the death knell!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/62147938

Well, that's the death knell!

Maybe, maybe not.
There is a story that the advantage is with Ricciardo, not McLaren.
That is, he can leave if the car isn't up to scratch performance wise.
I'm thinking of it this way.

DR is looking for a better drive than Renault which isn't up to his expectations.
Sainz announces he is going to Ferrari.
Zak needs a new driver and makes DR a great offer above what he's already getting at Renault, which was more than he got at Red Bull.
But this was before the racing in 2021 had hardly started.....

When DR arrives McLaren realize just how good Norris was because he scoops DR. But they're paying DR so much more....
DR wins Monza for them but Lando was not far behind and could have beaten DR anyway...
Now in 2022 DR has consistently been under Lando's shadow, more so than in 2021.... He's a damn good driver.
What is the real disconnect here?
What is really going on?

Meanwhile in Zak's expansionist zeal he has FE and Indycar under his belt.
So he signs Rosenquist for an extension to McLaren racing even though he has Alex Rossi and has approached Palou and and Dixon.
Rosenquist came from CGR.
In the meantime he has made a deal with Andretti to give Herta a F1 run and a possible deal to be the reserve driver in FP1 2022 end of year runs....
But Herta is a Andretti driver...

Then this week CGR announces their contract option is being taken up on Palou and 4 hours later Zak announces Palou.... (which may not have been formalized but was what Palou's intent was).
That would put Rosenquist back in FE and not back at CGR in Palou's seat....
And Zak and Chip are real adversaries....

In the meantime this makes things harder for the Palou relationship at CGR (and he is their most likely championship challenger), he is taking Chips most promising driver since Dixon, and the driver Zak is releasing from the SMP drive is engaged to drive for him in FE not back in Indycar or at CGR...

Of all the signings the one most suited or adept in F1 is Palou, who is Spanish, just as was the driver Danny R replaced...

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Maybe, maybe not.
There is a story that the advantage is with Ricciardo, not McLaren.
That is, he can leave if the car isn't up to scratch performance wise.
I'm thinking of it this way.

DR is looking for a better drive than Renault which isn't up to his expectations.
Sainz announces he is going to Ferrari.
Zak needs a new driver and makes DR a great offer above what he's already getting at Renault, which was more than he got at Red Bull.
But this was before the racing in 2021 had hardly started.....

When DR arrives McLaren realize just how good Norris was because he scoops DR. But they're paying DR so much more....
DR wins Monza for them but Lando was not far behind and could have beaten DR anyway...
Now in 2022 DR has consistently been under Lando's shadow, more so than in 2021.... He's a damn good driver.
What is the real disconnect here?
What is really going on?

Meanwhile in Zak's expansionist zeal he has FE and Indycar under his belt.
So he signs Rosenquist for an extension to McLaren racing even though he has Alex Rossi and has approached Palou and and Dixon.
Rosenquist came from CGR.
In the meantime he has made a deal with Andretti to give Herta a F1 run and a possible deal to be the reserve driver in FP1 2022 end of year runs....
But Herta is a Andretti driver...

Then this week CGR announces their contract option is being taken up on Palou and 4 hours later Zak announces Palou.... (which may not have been formalized but was what Palou's intent was).
That would put Rosenquist back in FE and not back at CGR in Palou's seat....
And Zak and Chip are real adversaries....

In the meantime this makes things harder for the Palou relationship at CGR (and he is their most likely championship challenger), he is taking Chips most promising driver since Dixon, and the driver Zak is releasing from the SMP drive is engaged to drive for him in FE not back in Indycar or at CGR...

Of all the signings the one most suited or adept in F1 is Palou, who is Spanish, just as was the driver Danny R replaced...

Some fun theories but not a lot of truth.

DR is paid a lot less at McLaren than he was at Renault.

[S griffin]

I do hope Ricciardo rediscovers his form, be a shame if he left on the sidelines

[E.B]

Originally Posted by peebee2

DR is paid a lot less at McLaren than he was at Renault.

Exactly.... and also less than Lando's current retainer, by US$5 million p.a. (According to credible(-ish) sources)

[Richard C]

McLaren has shown new livery photos for Singapore, but observers are calling out that in addition to the livery changes, there appears to be a significant number of upgrades on the car. What I am reading is that they are looking to replicate concepts from the Red Bull



Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

What I am reading is that they are looking to replicate concepts from the Red Bull

Smart!

[chillibowl]

Mclaren's signing of Rob Marshall should go a long way in replicating concepts from RB.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/m...ctor/10475725/

couple of thoughts...how much of the reshuffling of staff is down to the budget cap rules and the exemptions for top tiered staff?

and with Marshall, Prodromou, and Sanchez as heads of their own departments now, is this getting back to the latter day Dennis/Whitmarsh design by committee years? guess i could have put this in the more recent Zak Brown thread but with these new signings department heads, does Mclaren now have too many chefs in the kitchen?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

couple of thoughts...how much of the reshuffling of staff is down to the budget cap rules and the exemptions for top tiered staff?

Makes sense. I believe the number of staff that is exempt is pretty small. So if you have a staff full of highly qualified and experienced people, you are in a position of maybe needing to underpay some or all of them to remain under budget. So we are seeing teams who might be overly wealthy from a staff perspective see some of that staff move elsewhere for better pay?

Richard

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Makes sense. I believe the number of staff that is exempt is pretty small. So if you have a staff full of highly qualified and experienced people, you are in a position of maybe needing to underpay some or all of them to remain under budget. So we are seeing teams who might be overly wealthy from a staff perspective see some of that staff move elsewhere for better pay?

Richard

Knowing how devious (sorry) good at circumventing rules Formula One teams are, could this regulation cause a situation where certain top staff members are underpaid for one season (where their salary is included in the cost cap calculations) then significantly overpaid the following when (when their salary is outside of the cap)?

[Mike Harte]

Something in the back of my mind is saying that I think that I read somewhere that only three of the salaries can be excluded from the cap.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Something in the back of my mind is saying that I think that I read somewhere that only three of the salaries can be excluded from the cap.

Yes, it's your three top paid staff, outside of drivers and TP.

Red Bull went wrong by putting Newey down as one of those when he isn't actually on the staff.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Something in the back of my mind is saying that I think that I read somewhere that only three of the salaries can be excluded from the cap.

In the 'Salary Cap' thread here - https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...90#post4131290

There was a bit of excitement because 'the three top (excluding driver) salaries are excluded' and Red Bull were including a contractor as an employee.

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/101442...023-and-beyond

[S griffin]

I think it's a good idea not to include drivers in the salary cap. Red Bull of course tried to get around the salary cap with the contractor and we know how far they got with that

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Knowing how devious (sorry) good at circumventing rules Formula One teams are, could this regulation cause a situation where certain top staff members are underpaid for one season (where their salary is included in the cost cap calculations) then significantly overpaid the following when (when their salary is outside of the cap)?

In that scenario would this key person then not work for the F1 side at all in the following year? That sounds like a rough way to get around the cap, take either a new or existing high profile and key staff, train them up, pay them under market value, then push them out of the team for a year and give them some cash.

That is pretty disruptive. For example, if you do this with staff in general, then you have a constant churn of staff coming onboard and then exiting the next year. You would pay a penalty of getting them up to speed and then pushing them out of the organization. If you do this with key staff (likely those that are the highest paid), then this is even more impactful to the organization.

Not to mention probably expensive as whoever is on the receiving end will likely ask for significant "bonus" to agree to participation in such financial shenanigans due to risk to reputation (who wants to risk going through a public meat grinder ala Stepney and Coughlan)

At the end of the day, I think it would be hard to hide and once inevitably discovered, the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel would likely (rightly) say that those were undocumented delayed payments for services rendered during the cap accounting period.

Originally Posted by peebee2

Yes, it's your three top paid staff, outside of drivers and TP.

Red Bull went wrong by putting Newey down as one of those when he isn't actually on the staff.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In the 'Salary Cap' thread here - https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...90#post4131290

There was a bit of excitement because 'the three top (excluding driver) salaries are excluded' and Red Bull were including a contractor as an employee.

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/101442...023-and-beyond

I am pretty sure Newey as a contractor can explicitly count as one of the three that is excluded.

There was a bunch of rumors and speculation on the run-up to the FIA providing details as to how exactly RBR breached the cap because details was not public. Of which Newey was said to be one of them. And at the end he was not. What I find interesting is that the rules clearly call out that within the three, you can be a "pass through" (my wording, not the regulations). All three who are excluded don't have to be employees.

The actual wording in the regulations (as to who can be excluded as one of the three) say "Connected Party of any Excluded Person, in each case in exchange for that Excluded Person providing services to or for the benefit of the F1 Team". In that I assume Newey has his own engineering services firm and that legal entity was the "Connected Party" and Newey was the "Excluded Person".

I have zero evidence, but I suspect that when the regulations were being crafted and there was back and forth negotiations with the teams that the RBR/Newey arrangement (him being a contractor and not an employee) was probably already how it worked and that the specific exclusion may have been included to cover his situation. The alternative would have been that if the excluded three could ONLY be employees, then ALL of Newey's contracting fees would NOT be excluded from the cap. Hence that special call out in the list of exclusions may have been born.

Richard

[chillibowl]

an additional thought about the 3 excluded salaries...

for most teams (well for RB and Merc at least) i suspect traditionally one of those top 3 positions/salaries would be picked up by the team principle leaving the other two exemptions for design/technical heads.

if thats true, then perhaps teams like AM and Mclaren could find themselves in an advantageous situation where by some of those who one would expect to receive the most compensation dont actually need to draw any remuneration directly from the race team?

as an owner Stroll could be compensated differently or at least he doesnt need to collect a huge salary as team principle (cause he's already rich) and for Brown as CEO of Mcl Technology and Mcl Racing (which i assume covers all of Mclaren's race operations not just F1) also may not have to draw remuneration directly from the F1 budget.

Stella is of course their team principle but one could also assume he doesnt hold that position as we traditionally think of it and therefore wont be compensated at the same (high) level as Horner or Toto are?

a lot of assumptions there for sure, but with the top level signings (poaching even) of Marshall, Prodromou, and Sanchez perhaps Mclaren have found a way to attract top level people, are able to meet their wage demands, and still find themselves protected by the cap rules?

[chillibowl]

to add to this discussion, Horner talking about having to replace staff due to cap restrictions and concern about the risk of it becoming 'a race to the bottom'.

while he certainly has a valid point, the moving of top level talent to other teams (ostensibly smaller teams not operating at the edge of the cap) could also be seen as a positive for F1 as ideas may now spread more quickly down the grid hopefully resulting in an overall healthier grid?

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/r...-cap/10482536/

“Rob was as focused on other projects in recent years, and the offer that McLaren made is probably half their cap! So you can't blame him for wanting to go and do that.”

“You have to make sure it's not a race to the bottom,” he said. “The problem is you have long-standing personnel that have contributed a significant amount that you don't want to see forced out of their roles because of the cap, just because you can justify 10 youngsters versus an experienced hand.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am pretty sure Newey as a contractor can explicitly count as one of the three that is excluded.

He absolutely cannot as he isn’t an employee of the team, but one of very many contractors.

This is the reason, along with feeding the staff, that they broke the cap.

[Mike Harte]

Horner should stop whinging about virtually everything just because it's not what he and Red Bull want or want to do; they're in the same boat as every other team. They, and possibly Mercedes, have had the philosophy of wanting, or needing, to win at any cost, and I believe that this has led to an even greater upward spiral of remuneration that has driven up all the teams' budgets. Just because those teams could afford to do so, and that led to the detriment of the rest of the grid.

At least at Mercedes they did move their engineers and other technical staff around, sometimes in their car division, sometimes in the truck one and also in the racing team. I know that I have said it before, but that is one of the main reasons that they were streets ahead of the competition when the regs for the motors came into force in the last decade; they had engineers working on similar projects already in their road going divisions who they brought in to the racing team.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

He absolutely cannot as he isn’t an employee of the team, but one of very many contractors.

This is the reason, along with feeding the staff, that they broke the cap.

As widely reported Newey's compensation was not part of why they broke the cap.

As to the topic of the three who can be excluded having to be an "employee". Help me where my reading of the rules on who can be excluded requires them to be an employee.

Below is Article 3.1 (d) which covers the three individuals who can have their compensation excluded. My bold to call out the pertinent part...

All costs of Consideration provided to the three individuals (other than any individual in respect of whom all costs of Consideration are excluded pursuant to any other subArticle of this Article 3.1) in respect of whom the highest aggregate amount of Consideration has been recognised in Total Costs of the Reporting Group during the Reporting Period (the "Excluded Persons"), or to a Connected Party of any Excluded Person, in each case in exchange for that Excluded Person providing services to or for the benefit of the F1 Team, together with associated employer’s social security contributions and all travel and accommodation costs in respect of each Excluded Person;

I call out a shorter quote from this in the post earlier. The key is the call out for a "Connected Party". If you look elsewhere in the regulations they specify all the scenarios that define a "Connected Party" including corporate entities in which the person in question (in this case the Excluded Person) owns or controls 20% of that entity.

In short, you don't have to be an actual "employee" to be one of the three. You can be a significant owner of another business who is providing services to the team. I speculate that Newey is not directly acting as a "contractor", but rather has some legal entity (likely some type of "Newey Consulting Incorporated" entity) in which Newey provides services to RBR via the entity.

I believe it is written in such a way that the cost of compensation is tied to Newey alone. So for example Newey couldn't have an army of engineers (including himself) in which he bills all of their work to RBR and ALL of that is excluded. But rather, Newey probably has to break out his RBR related compensation and that is excluded from RBRs cost.

If I am wrong here, please someone point out where I am reading the regulations incorrectly and as to why all articles AFTER the FIA provided details as to why/how RBR busted the cap that Newey's compensation was not part of it. Now it is possible that all of the above that I call out (such as pulling out Newey's compensation from whatever the larger bill was) may not have been accounted for accurately and under review they said... "Nope, this is a mess, you didn't track this correctly, he can't be one of the three", and they had to pick someone else to be one of the three. But I fully believe the regulations are structured to allow non-employees to count as one of the three who are excluded from the cap under specific conditions.

Richard

[peebee2]

No consideration is provided to an individual is your answer.

And, Chilli, the Team Principal is excluded separately anyway…